Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media United States

Deepfake Revenge Porn Distribution Now a Crime In Virginia (arstechnica.com) 170

Posted by BeauHD from the falsely-created-images dept.
Virginia has amended an existing law in the Commonwealth to impose criminal penalties on the distribution of non-consensual "deepfake" images and videos. The amendment was made earlier this year and goes into effect today, making Virginia one of the first states to make a law covering deepfakes. Ars Technica reports: The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent -- often called revenge porn -- as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. New laws in Virginia take effect on July 1. The state's General Assembly passed the bill in early March, and it was signed into law by Gov. Ralph Northam later that month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deepfake Revenge Porn Distribution Now a Crime In Virginia More

Deepfake Revenge Porn Distribution Now a Crime In Virginia

Comments Filter:

  • Literally the same as outlawing drawings (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Monday July 01, 2019 @06:29PM (#58858062)
    All this deepfake is is a really sophisticated way of drawing stuff. We supposedly have freedom of expression in this country. So absent of actual fraud or libel being perpetrated by it why should certain splotches of pixels be illegal and others not just because of some spoiled hollywood starlet whining?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      And since this is clearly fraud, as it attempts to falsely show that person in question is engaging in acts that would cause severe negative consequences for them if claims were true, it falls under your criteria.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
        No, just because it looks real doesn't mean its fraud, otherwise all those videos of trump rapping or sucking off putin should be land their creators in jail.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      All this deepfake is is a really sophisticated way of drawing stuff. We supposedly have freedom of expression in this country.

      Freedom of expression is not freedom to be obscene [constitutioncenter.org].

      There's no "supposedly." The courts have never suggested that you could engage in obscenity. Deal with it.

      • Bzzt you are wrong

        I can even trademark that obscenity now:
        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-vulgar-trademarks-foia.html

      • Freedom of expression is not freedom to be obscene

        Of fucking course it is, you dipshit.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Of fucking course it is, you dipshit.

          Wrong, [cornell.edu] fuckface.

          • You can chatter on about the law all you want. Legal or not, nobody should be allowed the advantage with these kinds of tools. So it's going to be regular cat and mouse. The only concern is getting caught, just like prohibition days.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            Here we have a man with no moral compass, butting into discussions of right and wrong with irrelevancies about some country's laws in some decade.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              Here we have a man with no moral compass

              What a special insight you must have on my internal monologue.

              butting into discussions of right and wrong

              This was invitation only? Who invited you, then?

              with irrelevancies about some country's laws in some decade.

              US constitutional law concerning a US state law that is the subject of the article, and that still applies today.

              So ad hominem, factual error, logical error, and non-sequitur, in that order. Good job.

              • US constitutional law concerning a US state law that is the subject of the article, and that still applies today.

                You were literally responding to a comment saying "We supposedly have freedom of expression in this country". You were the one to make the equivocation when the meaning of that remark was apparently clear to everyone else.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  You were literally responding to a comment saying "We supposedly have freedom of expression in this country."

                  What equivocation?

                  Which "this country" was the comment referring to? What country is Virginia in? If the answer to both questions is not the U.S., you have some explaining to do.

    • Re:Literally the same as outlawing drawings (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01, 2019 @07:23PM (#58858292)

      Your freedom of expression stops when you start using my image (freedom of personality or whatever is called in english) in a way that grossly attacks my dignity and stature in society. Essential you harm my "image" in society. I am sure, someone more fluent in English will be able to more accurately translate to the correct terminology.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
        Okay then whats the difference of criticizing trump or any other pol? You're harming his mental image in the minds of others so shouldn't that be illegal?

        • Being public person you get less protections, as you are a person of interest to the public. Such people are expected to deal with it. Random Joe Blow wouldn't.

        • Nope. Criticising the actual facts is something very real from creating a new truth. The only person actively harming Trumps image is he himself.

      • It's called "right to likeness" or "personality rights." [wikipedia.org] It also varies by state, but that doesn't work the way people think it works. Of note, the First Amendment significantly limits the ability to assert these rights; for example, a painting of Tiger Woods was found to not constitute a breach of his personality rights because the First Amendment protects artistic expression. Deepfakes, it can be argued, are a protected form of artistic expression, especially given the imperfect form they currently take.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      All this deepfake is is a really sophisticated way of drawing stuff. We supposedly have freedom of expression in this country. So absent of actual fraud or libel being perpetrated by it

      Which is why I don't get it, isn't it libel/slander (oral/written) already?

      Saying someone has done hardcore porn => slander
      Photoshopping an image of someone doing hardcore porn => slander
      Deepfaking a video of someone doing hardcore porn => slander

      Revenge porn needed a separate category because the law didn't properly reflect the breach of trust spreading private nudes/porn, even though it was made with consent. But deepfakes? It's pure fiction that can be made out of any movie footage. Maybe you're

      • Which is why I don't get it, isn't it libel/slander (oral/written) already?

        It probably is, but aren't those civil ones where you need to sue? This would presumably make it dealt with in criminal courts.

      • Slanderous statements (of any form) must bear semblance of stating truth. As long as the creator makes it completely clear the statement/product is a fabrication it can at worst constitute a parody, pastiche or satire.

        The badly shopped cut-offs of faces of celebs pasted on top of heads of porn actors were so obviously fake nobody would take them for actual footage of these celebs. Deepfakes can look believable, but a tag "Deepfake" in the corner of the video should dispel any doubt.

    • "GPS trackers are just a sophisticated way of tailing a car."
      - Actual argument made by lazy cops

    • The alternative is putting the burden of proof on the victim to prove that images are real and not fake, for one thing.

    • Mainly because it makes a difference how good the 'art' is.

      If the 'art' is being passed off as a real video or picture that could defame people, then it is a problem.

      Maybe you have no sympathy for celebrities, but imagine this in high school being used to defame someone's child or an ex.

      Could it be handled under existing laws? Maybe.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      You seem to assume lawmakers are rational and look at facts before making laws. Not so. Laws are primarily there to keep the population under control and to protect the rich and powerful. Then there is a secondary pool of laws that serve the illusion that the law is somehow "for the people". And if that second part produces a nice number of prisoners, that can then be used to scare the rest, all the better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Another misbegotten insightful mod, eh? Not surprised to see the long troll-feeding frenzy afterwards.

      I refute you thusly:

      Imagine your wife wins a hefty divorce settlement based on a deepfake video of you having sex with her sister.

      Kind of depends on whose ox got gored, eh?

      Just the first trivial example that came to mind. Your mileage may vary depending on your marriage.

  • Technically (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01, 2019 @06:30PM (#58858066)

    Isn't this already illegal/sueable across the USA under slander and defamation of character laws?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Yes, but this is likely there to address the technological advancement making such acts much easier by making prosecution process for such acts more streamlined.

      One of the primary reasons any nation has legislative body is to adapt their laws to new needs as they arise.

    • It is taking it from a civil matter to a criminal matter.

  • Class 1 misdemeanor? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Is that beyond a reasonable doubt, or a stronger wording for proving that the ex-signficant other did it?

    Because deepfakes don't involve using full body nudes to make a sex tape, they just require facial photographs sufficient to 'dub over' the existing faces in a pornographic video. Any wanker with access to a girl or guy's facebook page can do this no problem. Imagine how much fun you can have when someone you hate breaks up with or is dumped by their partner. Now you just release the deepfaked images, th

    • Re:Class 1 misdemeanor? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Monday July 01, 2019 @06:45PM (#58858146)

      Good point, but this is where presumption of innocence comes in. Prosecutor still needs to make his case and like all crimes, it should survive scrutiny by the jury of your peers.

      Problem here is more in the US legal system, where punishments tend to be so severe that innocents prefer to settle with prosecution for a much shorter sentence than risk actually defending their case in court.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      Is that beyond a reasonable doubt, or a stronger wording for proving that the ex-signficant other did it?

      This. Thank you Mr AC.

      It's enough to be accused of a crime, whether or not you actually commit one, to destroy careers. Therefore it is a very effective form of by-proxy abuse that narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths can use to destabilize people that aren't mentally ill and create traumas in their life.

      Please mod parent up.

  • Deepfake Revenge Porn Distribution Now a Crime In Virginia

    I won't even tell you how I misread that headline.

  • Don't believe what you see or hear online. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by surfcow ( 169572 ) on Monday July 01, 2019 @06:52PM (#58858186) Homepage

    DeepNude is based on DeepFake. It does more than images of naked women, it does audio and video, and put words into people's mouths. I saw a very convincing demo where they made Obama appear to say whatever they wanted him to. Probably would not stand up to forensic analysis, but it would convince the average person.

    So, DeepNude bugs me, but DeepFake scares me. Because Putin and North Korea and China are playing with this. People who will use it in ways that will make DeepNude look sweet and naive.

  • clickbait (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swell ( 195815 ) <jabberwock@poetic.com> on Monday July 01, 2019 @07:30PM (#58858328)

    TFS cleverly avoids mentioning that this is a misdemeanor.

    This is a crime equivalent to shoplifting a Hustler magazine from a news stand. You aren't going to get a jury trial, you aren't going to jail, you won't be on the no-fly list and it's doubtful that any person or government is going to press charges against you unless they have lots of spare time and money to waste.

    Yeah, it's possible someone could prove great harm came to them because of your childish behavior. Things could get worse. But not too likely. (And just don't do that stuff!)

    Can we please state such basic facts in the summary? Better yet- don't bother us with clickbait.

    • On the other hand, it is still legal to kill babies born after failed abortions. Good to see the government of Virginia has its priorities straight.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )

      TFS cleverly avoids mentioning that this is a misdemeanor.

      This is a crime equivalent to shoplifting a Hustler magazine from a news stand. You aren't going to get a jury trial, you aren't going to jail, you won't be on the no-fly list and it's doubtful that any person or government is going to press charges against you unless they have lots of spare time and money to waste.

      Yeah, it's possible someone could prove great harm came to them because of your childish behavior. Things could get worse. But not too likely. (And just don't do that stuff!)

      Can we please state such basic facts in the summary? Better yet- don't bother us with clickbait.

      Everything you said above is incorrect!

      The Virginia Code reference is https://law.lis.virginia.gov/v... [virginia.gov]
      and this is a Class 1 Misdemeanor, for which you can be imprisoned for up to a year.
      They have already been prosecuting people under this law since 2014: what's new is
      that they added deep fakes to the law.

      I'm not sure, but I think you might also be deemed a sex offender.

      In any event, prosecution (let alone conviction) will destroy your life.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      How does it affect civil cases? Seems like if the victim has the cops on their side to investigate, and a misdemeanour conviction to cite, they should be able to sue to get compensation fairly easily and at minimal risk.

    • Maybe they added this after the article was posted, but it does not show up as an edit at the end:

      The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent -- often called revenge porn -- as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

      I have bolded the relevant part for you.

  • Since we'll no longer be able to tell whether a video is real or not, celebs can plausibly deny it was them in that embarrassing tape,

  • "falsely created videographic or still image"

    Wow, bad news for Industrial Light and Magic et al.
    If an actor dies, that's it, no more CGI scenes to finish the movie.

    And Photoshop is forbidden too? Nice!

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close