Downblousing and deepfakes to to become criminal offences
Discussion
I'm slightly surprised they aren't already so I'm not sure if this is specifically making them offences or tightening up existing legislation to make it easier to use to prosecute.
Downblousing and deepfake image making could mean three years in jail
Downblousing and deepfake image making could mean three years in jail
vikingaero said:
Paywall!
So making downblouse images will be a criminal offence. On an average Saturday night in most towns and cities, you don't even need to downblouse as it's all on show.
That's where I think that there will be massive problems. In some circumstances, a "normal" photo might be misconstrued and an innocent person could end up in trouble.So making downblouse images will be a criminal offence. On an average Saturday night in most towns and cities, you don't even need to downblouse as it's all on show.
Deepfakes are illegal 
No more of this stuff then: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
No more of this stuff then: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scrump said:
Deepfakes are illegal
No more of this stuff then: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I wonder how "deep" is defined No more of this stuff then: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
What a joke.
How can you attribute the origin, or nature of the work?
It could not be a deepfake. How do you price it’s a deepfake?
It could be hand painted as a likeness.
It could be a deepfake distributed without attribution, via decentralised social media, think forwarded ad infinitum on WhatsApp.
How do you trace the originator?
I get where they’re going with this.
But it’s like trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Example I assume is a young lass getting revenge porn’d so she can now say ‘deepfake’ despite her actually having got her bits out and shared it.
So what’s the crime? Who can prove it’s a deepfake?
Or not a great photoshop and ‘likeness’ artwork?
My interpretation is that anything done by ‘AI’ is an artwork and likeness.
It’s a slippery slope having likenesses being criminal.
You could just search for a generated likeness of someone, use that, and still fall foul?
Shirley plenty of laws already protect people?
Is this the thin end of a wedge, protecting AI from pleb use.
Keeping it in the hands of big business/corporates/govs to profit from, control and use for their own nefarious ends?
How long until Emmanuel Goldstein, DF’d to look like Putin, is pumped into all our homes via the news and so forth… the eternal ‘baddy’ we can blame everything on.
How can you attribute the origin, or nature of the work?
It could not be a deepfake. How do you price it’s a deepfake?
It could be hand painted as a likeness.
It could be a deepfake distributed without attribution, via decentralised social media, think forwarded ad infinitum on WhatsApp.
How do you trace the originator?
I get where they’re going with this.
But it’s like trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Example I assume is a young lass getting revenge porn’d so she can now say ‘deepfake’ despite her actually having got her bits out and shared it.
So what’s the crime? Who can prove it’s a deepfake?
Or not a great photoshop and ‘likeness’ artwork?
My interpretation is that anything done by ‘AI’ is an artwork and likeness.
It’s a slippery slope having likenesses being criminal.
You could just search for a generated likeness of someone, use that, and still fall foul?
Shirley plenty of laws already protect people?
Is this the thin end of a wedge, protecting AI from pleb use.
Keeping it in the hands of big business/corporates/govs to profit from, control and use for their own nefarious ends?
How long until Emmanuel Goldstein, DF’d to look like Putin, is pumped into all our homes via the news and so forth… the eternal ‘baddy’ we can blame everything on.
Mr Whippy said:
What a joke.
How can you attribute the origin, or nature of the work?
It could not be a deepfake. How do you price it’s a deepfake?
It could be hand painted as a likeness.
It could be a deepfake distributed without attribution, via decentralised social media, think forwarded ad infinitum on WhatsApp.
How do you trace the originator?
I get where they’re going with this.
But it’s like trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Example I assume is a young lass getting revenge porn’d so she can now say ‘deepfake’ despite her actually having got her bits out and shared it.
So what’s the crime? Who can prove it’s a deepfake?
Or not a great photoshop and ‘likeness’ artwork?
My interpretation is that anything done by ‘AI’ is an artwork and likeness.
It’s a slippery slope having likenesses being criminal.
You could just search for a generated likeness of someone, use that, and still fall foul?
Shirley plenty of laws already protect people?
Is this the thin end of a wedge, protecting AI from pleb use.
Keeping it in the hands of big business/corporates/govs to profit from, control and use for their own nefarious ends?
How long until Emmanuel Goldstein, DF’d to look like Putin, is pumped into all our homes via the news and so forth… the eternal ‘baddy’ we can blame everything on.
Putin is already being used as some sort of bogeyman to blame everything on!How can you attribute the origin, or nature of the work?
It could not be a deepfake. How do you price it’s a deepfake?
It could be hand painted as a likeness.
It could be a deepfake distributed without attribution, via decentralised social media, think forwarded ad infinitum on WhatsApp.
How do you trace the originator?
I get where they’re going with this.
But it’s like trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Example I assume is a young lass getting revenge porn’d so she can now say ‘deepfake’ despite her actually having got her bits out and shared it.
So what’s the crime? Who can prove it’s a deepfake?
Or not a great photoshop and ‘likeness’ artwork?
My interpretation is that anything done by ‘AI’ is an artwork and likeness.
It’s a slippery slope having likenesses being criminal.
You could just search for a generated likeness of someone, use that, and still fall foul?
Shirley plenty of laws already protect people?
Is this the thin end of a wedge, protecting AI from pleb use.
Keeping it in the hands of big business/corporates/govs to profit from, control and use for their own nefarious ends?
How long until Emmanuel Goldstein, DF’d to look like Putin, is pumped into all our homes via the news and so forth… the eternal ‘baddy’ we can blame everything on.
(Yes, much of it is the case, but it also serves as a convenient excuse for our own government's screw ups!)
Mr Whippy said:
What a joke.
How can you attribute the origin, or nature of the work?
It could not be a deepfake. How do you price it’s a deepfake?
It could be hand painted as a likeness.
It could be a deepfake distributed without attribution, via decentralised social media, think forwarded ad infinitum on WhatsApp.
How do you trace the originator?
I get where they’re going with this.
But it’s like trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Example I assume is a young lass getting revenge porn’d so she can now say ‘deepfake’ despite her actually having got her bits out and shared it.
So what’s the crime? Who can prove it’s a deepfake?
Or not a great photoshop and ‘likeness’ artwork?
My interpretation is that anything done by ‘AI’ is an artwork and likeness.
It’s a slippery slope having likenesses being criminal.
You could just search for a generated likeness of someone, use that, and still fall foul?
Shirley plenty of laws already protect people?
Is this the thin end of a wedge, protecting AI from pleb use.
Keeping it in the hands of big business/corporates/govs to profit from, control and use for their own nefarious ends?
How long until Emmanuel Goldstein, DF’d to look like Putin, is pumped into all our homes via the news and so forth… the eternal ‘baddy’ we can blame everything on.
I don't think you have really thought about this...How can you attribute the origin, or nature of the work?
It could not be a deepfake. How do you price it’s a deepfake?
It could be hand painted as a likeness.
It could be a deepfake distributed without attribution, via decentralised social media, think forwarded ad infinitum on WhatsApp.
How do you trace the originator?
I get where they’re going with this.
But it’s like trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Example I assume is a young lass getting revenge porn’d so she can now say ‘deepfake’ despite her actually having got her bits out and shared it.
So what’s the crime? Who can prove it’s a deepfake?
Or not a great photoshop and ‘likeness’ artwork?
My interpretation is that anything done by ‘AI’ is an artwork and likeness.
It’s a slippery slope having likenesses being criminal.
You could just search for a generated likeness of someone, use that, and still fall foul?
Shirley plenty of laws already protect people?
Is this the thin end of a wedge, protecting AI from pleb use.
Keeping it in the hands of big business/corporates/govs to profit from, control and use for their own nefarious ends?
How long until Emmanuel Goldstein, DF’d to look like Putin, is pumped into all our homes via the news and so forth… the eternal ‘baddy’ we can blame everything on.
a "young lass getting revenge porn’d" has not "got her bits out and shared it". That is straight-up victim blaming.
Revenge porn is sharing of intimate imagery without the permission of the person in the photo.
boyse7en said:
I don't think you have really thought about this...
a "young lass getting revenge porn’d" has not "got her bits out and shared it". That is straight-up victim blaming.
Revenge porn is sharing of intimate imagery without the permission of the person in the photo.
Quite.a "young lass getting revenge porn’d" has not "got her bits out and shared it". That is straight-up victim blaming.
Revenge porn is sharing of intimate imagery without the permission of the person in the photo.
Plus the deepfake side is even if they didn't get involved in anything in the first place (so literally nothing to share) it's increasingly easy to mock up something to make it look like they did.
It's utterly grubby.
ks if this becomes law. What I find odd about this is the revelation that the quite recent 'upskirting' legislation apparently was so narrowly framed that the taking of unwanted intimate photos behind clothing was still legal if no skirt was involved.
Once downblousing is also illegal, does that still leave 'upsleeving' and 'upblousing' legal?
Once downblousing is also illegal, does that still leave 'upsleeving' and 'upblousing' legal?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff