Creating Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images To Be Made Offense in UK (theguardian.com) 125
Creating a sexually explicit "deepfake" image is to be made an offence under a new law in the UK, the Ministry of Justice has announced. The Guardian: Under the legislation, anyone who creates such an image without consent will face a criminal record and an unlimited fine. They could also face jail if the image is shared more widely. The creation of a deepfake image will be an offence regardless of whether the creator intended to share it, the department said. The Online Safety Act, introduced last year, has already criminalised the sharing of deepfake intimate images, whose creation is being facilitated by advances in artificial intelligence.
The offence will be introduced through an amendment to the criminal justice bill, which is making its way through parliament. Laura Farris, the minister for victims and safeguarding, said the creation of deepfake sexual images was "unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is shared."
The offence will be introduced through an amendment to the criminal justice bill, which is making its way through parliament. Laura Farris, the minister for victims and safeguarding, said the creation of deepfake sexual images was "unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is shared."
tHE pm'S pEN15 (Score:2, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Libel isn't protected in the US so writing fiction about real people can and has got people sued. I don't see why pictures get stronger 1A protection than words.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it isn't libel if you create it for your own personal collection/use...you can make pictures or write anything you want here to keep private.
And to a large extent, you can publish it too...as long as it isn't libelous.
Writing fiction, wouldn't necessarily be libelous....and for celebrities/public figures, they have less protections than nor
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the bit about making it privately send a little thought policey
Just what I would expect from the kind of muh freedumbs government who keep removing actual freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
There are well established limits to the 1st Amendment, which is why some states have laws against "involuntary pornography" that have stood up to 1A challenges. The key is not just classifying anything pornographic that was manufactured without consent as illegal, but also considering the intent behind it. To protect 1A rights, things like public interest in disclosure have to be considered. Only where intent to hurt the victim can be established (i.e. revenge porn) can it be made illegal.
There is such a l
Re: (Score:1)
But, this law i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the law in the UK goes a lot further it seems. It's usually the case that the worst possible outcomes don't happen as the courts establish limits, so generating them yourself at home probably wouldn't result in a conviction, but it's still something to keep an eye on.
no 2th as well so the king of england can boss you (Score:3, Insightful)
no 2th as well so the king of england can boss you around in your home!
Re: (Score:3)
No 3rd either, so the king can even do that in time of peace!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about Prima Nocta.
That creepy King Charles face on your wedding night...
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the Pratchett book, Wyrd Sisters, where the two older witches were annoyed with the practice of "droit du seigneur". The younger witch who was naive thought it referred to the king's dog, and she said something like "no one likes that hairy old thing."
Re: (Score:2)
We wouldn't take up arms against our government even if we had them.
The UK does still have human rights, although the government wants to get rid of them. We were protected, but threw that away with brexit.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just a question of whether it's justifiable. It's just simply nonsense to think that they can enforce this. Anyone can run Stable Diffusion on their computer. There's a virtually limitless number of models finetuned to make all kinds of porn. It's IMHO extremely annoying all the porn flooding the model sites; I think like 3/4ths of the people using these tools are guys making wank material. Even models that aren't tuned specifically for porn, rarely does anyone (except the foundation model developers, like StabilityAI) specifically try to *prevent* it.
The TL/DR is: if you think stopping pirated music was hard, well, *good luck* stopping people from generating porn on their computers. You might as well pass a law declaring it illegal to draw porn.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well pass a law declaring it illegal to draw porn.
That's kind of what they're doing, as idiotic as it sounds. Drawing with a pencil or stylus or drawing with AI, is there a substantive difference in the nature of the art? It all falls under the same umbrella in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
Owning, viewing or drawing a pencilled (or suchlike) picture of a naked female who appears to be under the age of 18 is currently an offence in the UK, as that is considered CP at exactly the same "level of seriousness" as a photograph or video of the same thing. Because... think of the children.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this specified children, though, it applies to any 'sexualized' image, doesn't it?
So what about if you make a 'sexualized' image of your wife? Surprise, you may have broken the law.
It's insane and unenforceable, which is what they want- this gives them the excuse they need to further curtail your privacy rights in search of Naughty Images.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really supposed to stop the creation of such things. If you want to make some wank material in the comfort of your own home, then you go for it. Just as you're actually free to make your own guns, or nuclear bombs or whatever else - if you really wanted to.
However, if you decide to share your awesome work with someone else... well, now you're in trouble. Creation of the work, ownership of the work, and sharing of the work are all illegal. It remains to be seen how voracious the police are at buil
Re: Well... (Score:1)
The UK is so old that it's legal framework is often built on tradition (common law) rather than legislation or constitution (UK predates the idea of constitutional government in the Western world). In this case, their freedom of speech historically stems from common law as a negative right to free speech, while ours is a constitutional positive right to free speech. The difference is usually subtle, but in some cases - like this one - it becomes very important. It would be untenable to create a ban on creat
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you should read the first amendment and grasp it.
Better than holding the AI companies responsible (Score:2)
lol (Score:2, Insightful)
Making such images, even if the image is not shared, is to be made illegal?
Why even bother with such a law? It seems completely unenforceable now that the cat's out of the bag with stable diffusion (or photoshop for that matter.) Might as well make it illegal to imagine someone naked without their consent.
"I'm helping!" -Ralph Wiggum
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well make it illegal to imagine someone naked without their consent.
With a death sentence by stoning, or of being tortured for eternity? "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. "
Thankfully, these people can't scan your brain yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well make it illegal to imagine someone naked without their consent.
Some of us can't do this.
https://lianamscott.com/2021/0... [lianamscott.com]
What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual reality of realistic deep fakes is that people will generally stop caring about them and the people who might otherwise be embarrassed by them will probably stop caring in time as well. Any major star is going to have deep fake porn made of them. If there's one video of Tom Cruise getting fisted by a Mariachi band, I and others might be tempted to watch. When there's one hundred such videos and more being made every week, no one will care.
If I were famous If probably dump so much deep fakes crap out there that even if something real ever did get leaked onto the internet, no one would be able to tell or would even take notice of it.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's one video of Tom Cruise getting fisted by a Mariachi band, I and others might be tempted to watch.
Tom Cruise does his own stunts. He ain't letting anybody deepfake that.
These ninnies in governments pulling this shit will LOVE deepfakes when they can blame them for all their actual mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on.
More people will do real porn too, because they can always claim it was a fake.
Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how long something like Only Fans can even survive with the way things are headed. I recall a story from the past year about some LLM that was acting as a virtual girlfriend/boyfriend for a large number of users. The next step is a realistic simulated avatar and in time that will be customized and personalized.
The next two decades are going to be a very interesting period in human history.
Oh how the internet has changed. (Score:3)
If they'd tried something like this 15 years ago, you'd expect deepfake pics of every legislator involved in this posted up by the close of business. Engaged in all the most disgusting acts you could possibly imagine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
hint hint, wink wink, wank wank
"Ministry" of Justice (Score:1)
"Ministry" of Justice is living up to its name.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ministry" of Justice is living up to its name.
They're going all "1984" at a breakneck pace.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf is that meant to mean? Why is ministry in scare quotes?
Re: (Score:2)
Groan.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Wtf are you taking about.
Re: (Score:2)
You've never read Orwell? Or any book about dystopian societies?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be American is all I can say.
Government departments are often called ministries in the UK. It's particularly common to use the term "ministry" in British fiction because it makes it more obvious it's part of the government than the currently popular "department" and now unpopular "office". Ministry as a term was probably at it's height of popularity when Orwell wrote 1984, but was in use in the preceding and succeeding century.
The only people who associate "ministry" with Orwell in particular have
Re: (Score:2)
I know that, dummy. That's why it works.
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely nonsensical.
The only kind of person who read 1984 once and didn't otherwise know anything about the UK. We hear about ministries all the time because it's the government, same way as you hear "department" all the time, yet somehow don't associate the word with a specific piece of literature.
For literally any British person, Orwell is going to be far down the list of associations with "ministry", far behind the ministers in the news now for some scandal or another, and possibly behind the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm recalling the phrase "Never argue with an idiot [...]" which I'm gonna take now.
Re: (Score:2)
I love when people are wrong about something, then double down, triple down and then cry about it.
The string association between Orwell and the word ministry is only there for people who have only renovated the word ministry in Orwell, which means the ill read and ignorant. For everyone in England it's a daily word with different associations. But again only an American would insist their knowledge of a Britishism is superior to a Brit
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you're the guy who thinks the magical energy from nothing drive is real!
I do love your energy though: don't like a really simple use of Newton's laws? Fling inventive because physics cares about your feelings is your shout loud enough!!
Re: (Score:1)
Americans do not have real Ministers. They are all "Secretary of X". Which in Germany is one rank below Minister. No idea about UK ... ... hm, should google that.
The power of an US "Secretary of X" is in general much lower than a similar Minister in Germany.
I do not know if they call the group of Secretaries a Cabinet
It is well known, that US Americans do not know much about the rest of the world. ... unfortunate
The confusion above leads to all so many misconceptions about the democratic structure of the EU
Google backup (Score:2)
Since Google makes a copy of all images on your phone, sharing occurs automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey what's up with that new shiny tinfoil hat?
Re: (Score:1)
You do know that google storage costs money?
And so people usually keep the photos on the phone and do not gCloud them?
At least that is what I do.
Dangerously close to thought crime. (Score:2)
"Misogynistic" (Score:4, Interesting)
>“This new offence sends a crystal clear message that making this material is immoral, often misogynistic, and a crime.”
Have we given up on the word "misogynistic" having any meaning whatsoever anymore? If you took the subset of deepfake porn that targets men we wouldn't say it's often misandrist. That word has become used as "something potentially negatively affecting a woman," which isn't what it actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't say always misogynistic, it said often. Can you not read? Or do you genuinely believe that unlike real porn and just about anything half way relevant, deep fakes break the pattern and are uniformly represented by gender .
Re: (Score:2)
My post also said "often." Can you not read?
Re: (Score:2)
Your "often" was predicated on you cherry picking a small subset in order to make a point.
Re: (Score:2)
So I actually completely addressed your point before you made it, and you didn't read my comment. Got it
Re: (Score:2)
>“This new offence sends a crystal clear message that making this material is immoral, often misogynistic, and a crime.”
Have we given up on the word "misogynistic" having any meaning whatsoever anymore? If you took the subset of deepfake porn that targets men we wouldn't say it's often misandrist. That word has become used as "something potentially negatively affecting a woman," which isn't what it actually means.
Not to mention that nobody can even define a woman anymore. That might complicate things ...
Why are they limiting it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are they limiting it to porn? You're telling me it's ok to deepfake Rishi Sunak talking about an imminent Russian invasion of NATO, but you can't deepfake him giving a blowjob to Theresa May?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, I think I could make a convincing argument that she was the best (ie least bad) of the Tory prime ministers since Labour got the boot. That's pretty terrifying really.
And that is with me accepting without arguement that she is indeed an odious little Englander.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess (Score:3)
They will have vans with "deepfake porn detectors" roaming every street to be sure you're not making those, right?
Re: (Score:1)
If you stream it to a TV, the screen perhaps makes enough EM noise that you actually indeed could detect it.
The porn, I mean. The deepfake likely not.
One step closer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just fear-mongering nonsense, that's for sure. But then again the UK and it's colonies never had "free speech." In fact, thought crimes have always been a real thing in the UK.
Re: (Score:1)
You are mixing up free speech with libel, slander and defamation.
Re: (Score:3)
On step closer? This *IS* Thoughtcrime. Hand drawn images and manually written stories are banned. That *IS* Thoughtcrime.
We are here now. It is now some foggy and uncertain future. We are here now. Thoughtcrime is a prosecutable offense. We have passed the threshold already.
Want proof? Watch me get arrested for writing a story about a little boy playing with his own penis. God forbid I should add illustrations. (is even describing it illegal? we shall see.)
I have questions. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can they still prosecute a "deepfake" if it was made without the use of AI? (TFA states that the creation of deepfakes is "facilitated" by AI, which implies that AI is not strictly necessary). Is there any legal definition of what a "deepfake" is, for the purposes of this law? What if I paint a photo-realistic, sexually explicit image of Britney Spears? What if I hire a really good Britney Spears impersonator to create "sexually explicit" images? What if I hire a not-so-good impersonator? Are all of those examples still "deepfakes"?
Back in 1993, Spy magazine published a briefly-infamous Photoshopped cover of Hillary Clinton in dominatrix gear. Under the new law, would you go to jail for having a copy of that magazine?
If a deepfake is legally defined as "something meant to deceive the viewer", and the purpose of the law is to avoid defaming real people by presenting deepfake footage as real footage, what happens if I put on a disclaimer stating "All the imagery here is 100% fake?"
What if I create an AI-generated actor who happens to look sort of like a specific person (enough to be potentially confused with the real person)? Is that illegal? Does it matter whether I intended for it to look like them? If my intent *didn't* matter, then am I legally required to use some sort of filter or safeguard to ensure that my AI-generated actor looks sufficiently different than every real human being who ever lived?
Re: (Score:2)
What if I create an AI-generated actor who happens to look sort of like a specific person (enough to be potentially confused with the real person)? Is that illegal? Does it matter whether I intended for it to look like them?
Good points.
Frankly, I think the chances are high that an AI-generated image of a person is actually going to resemble somebody somewhere; after all, the images were trained on images of real people, so...
But even if the image is, in fact, genuinely 100% synthetic, there's still an excellent chance that it will closely resemble someone, somewhere.
Or...what if you could make a tricky image that kinda sorta looked like someone famous, but also kinda sorta didn't. Some people would say it did, some would say i
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter whether I intended for it to look like them?
In UK law, intent is a huge part of the framework. It can be the difference between being arrested and not being arrested; it can be the difference between the CPS taking the case to court and simply being released without charge; it can be the difference between being found guilty and not guilty, and it can be the difference between a few months probation and a lifetimes behind bars with no chance of ever getting out.
So... I have every reason to suspect that intent will be an important part of this particu
lol (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
after the xvideos ticker scrolls by the top
Isn’t that twitters new video feature?
Bad title (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Creating Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images To Be Made Offense in UK
No Consent or ppl in that.
Secondly, adding "without consent" does not mean that it is a particular person's image, but could still require consent by someone else to create a totally fake one (which would be horrible, yet, governments do such BS).
We need a law? (Score:1)
1. We need a law to pressure miscreants to not make deep fake pornography?? If I found out somebody I knew made such a deep fake I’d cut them completely out of my life and inform everybody else that I know in a publicly humiliating fashion. Not pressure enough I guess.
2. We need a law to keep miscreants from getting off on deep fake pornography?? Sheesh, draw a cartoon and use your imagination. Is that too much effort?
3. I’ve just assumed that any and all videos I’ve seen for the l
The Thought Police Are Coming (Score:2)
I stand corrected, the Thought Police are already here, apparently.
I fail to see any harm from creating deepfake images for your own use, or even (GASP!) sharing them. Yes, there are people that will misuse this, but this is like outlawing gas because robbers would use it in their getaway cars.
Re: (Score:1)
So, you would have no trouble to get a CD with a deepfake of your significant other, sitting on me and doing all kinds of sexual pleasures with me.
Preferable made at a time where you assumed she is visiting her aunt?
Assuming she is on Facebook, I perhaps stalked her there, and know when she visits her aunt?
Or more concrete. She wants to separate from you, and she makes a deepfake with you and her daughter, to show this as evidence to a judge for divorce?
The problem they try to address is revenge porn with d
Re: (Score:2)
Most of what you described is already illegal and of little relevance in this discussion. Ho hum.
And no, I wouldn't care if there were deepfakes of her doing all sorts of things. If it was a quality deepfake I might ask for a copy.
Re: (Score:2)
But she might care ...
She'd laugh and ask for a copy herself.
UK going authoritarian nanny state full-throttle (Score:2)
Due to economical impact? (Score:2)
Back to RealFakes (Score:2)
Good for the human "artists".
A little vague (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The pig.
Re: (Score:2)
They were being done with photoshop decades ago, the term itself, is quite old, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good thing America separated from the UK (Score:4, Informative)
The last Labour government however, were not about to let their lunatic fringe dictate a divorce from their biggest trading partner like a bunch of petulant 12 year olds.
Trying to paint the last Labour government as anything close to being as stupid and awful as the last 14 years of Conservative misrule is pointless, because everybody can remember the time that the Conservatives thought letting Liz Fucking Truss have a go in charge wouldn't end in tears.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible take. The only reason Conservatives in the U.K. and U.S. suck so much is because the two party system allows their shitty platforms to exist. When a problem is systemic, blame the system. There might be shitty people taking advantage of the system, and they may appear to be your adversary, but they're not. Get rid of them and they'll just be replaced by more shitty people. Because that's what the system produces. The system is the true antagonist.
In the U.S., the Democrats know the causes
Re: (Score:2)
Counter point: conservatives in Israel are sucking really hard right now and that's a PR system.
Unfortunately, building working systems of government is really hard, and most of them have a really hard job fending off sustained attacks by bad faith actors. Almost any crappy system works ok if people are working in good faith.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK never had free speech or freedom of the press. Look at the guardian situation with the Snowden leaks. In the UK they went to the office with guns and forced destruction of documents. In America, although they thought about doing this, they realized the enshrinement of freedom of the press/speech would have led to an uprising. In the US without the Bill of Rights our citizens would be under the tyranny of power hungry politicians.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the conservative here are banning books. So I know who to turn to for freedom of speech and it is NOT the conservative party.
To be clear, what they're actually doing is banning marginalized youths from free (as in beer) access to certain books. As I said the last time the topic came up, if you're one of those wealthy LGBTQ+ adolescents driving around in the Tesla that your folks bought you, you just drive yourself to the local bookstore and there's no bans stopping you from getting that copy of Gender Queer.
At its core, it's really just the same old song and dance of conservatives making things suck worse for poor people. That
Re: Good thing America separated from the UK (Score:2)
That is still a ban. That's the term used when a book is forced out of school.
Where the hell did the party of personal responsibility go? Republicans can't seem to raise their own kids anymore.
Re: Good thing America separated from the UK (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea what books are being banned.
Re: Good thing America separated from the UK (Score:2)
It is my strong opinion that anyone who wants to ban Judy Bloom from schools should be put on 100 ft. restraining order from any adolescent girls.
Re: Good thing America separated from the UK (Score:2)
Oooh. Political down votes. Must have touched a nerve, eh?
Re:How about investigate real crimes. (Score:4, Informative)
If your house is robbed in the UK, and you defend yourself, you'll go to jail.
As long as you are defending yourself and use reasonable force you won't. And that does include shooting someone. Tony Martin was jailed because he shot the burglar in the back as he was leaving.
Re:How about investigate real crimes. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries you can only be arrested for 24 hours.
And there is usually an emergency judge at duty, who decides if the arrest is justified or not. Aka further investigation is needed or not.
And with some good luck you are out one hour later, probably with legal requirements, as e.g. not leaving the town the next 48h.
I got into such a case around 1986. Broke one guys arm and the other guys ribs in a tram. First the police wanted to arrest me. But one passenger jumped in and said no no, he was defending
Re: (Score:3)
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
As a UK resident trained in self defence, being arrested as a matter of procedure is a good thing and were I ever in a situation where I had to defend myself I'd happily go along with it. Being "arrested" is a bit of a misnomer because it conjures up images of being dragged off in chains by a sneering bobby where as in reality it's more of a "Sir, we need you to come to the station with us to make an official statement". Being arrested does not mean you're automatically charged with anything, when you stop
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
The most straightforward approach to safeguarding homeowners and discouraging criminals involves asserting that while a burglar remains on your property, you bear no responsibility for any harm that befalls them. Eliminate the self-defense prerequisite if the intruder is injured or killed after unlawfully entering your premises. In such harrowing circumstances, where adrenaline surges and panic sets in, homeowners find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their homes and families. The law as stated seems to be designed to protect the criminal.
LoL, no. the most straightforward approach to safeguarding homes and persons is to have a society where people aren't forced into crime due to systemic poverty. Amazing isn't it, prevention always works better than cure.
Castle doctrine only results in it being abused as murders aren't investigated so you can literally get away with murder by making sure it occurs on your own property. This is the kind of law that favours the criminal by giving them carte blanche