Deepfake Porn Is Evolving To Give People Total Control Over Women's Bodies (vice.com) 301
samleecole shares a report from Motherboard: A lineup of female celebrities stand in front of you. Their faces move, smile, and blink as you move around them. They're fully nude, hairless, waiting for you to decide what you'll do to them as you peruse a menu of sex positions. This isn't just another deepfake porn video, or the kind of interactive, 3D-generated porn Motherboard reported on last month, but a hybrid of both which gives people even more control of women's virtual bodies. This new type of nonconsensual porn uses custom 3D models that can be articulated and animated, which are then made to look exactly like specific celebrities with deepfaked faces. Until recently, deepfake porn consisted of taking the face of a person -- usually a celebrity, almost always a woman -- and swapping it on to the face of an adult performer in an existing porn video. With this method, a user can make a 3D avatar with a generic face, capture footage of it performing any kind of sexual act, then run that video through an algorithm that swaps the generic face with a real person's.
Sexists! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Over women's bodies"? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF, nobody has any control "over the women's bodies" whatsoever. The control is over some pixels.
Re:"Over women's bodies"? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a world where feminists are running amok against language because they slept through grammar class I'm not surprised that the difference between pixels and meat is a tricky thing to comprehend.
Most anti-feminists aren't any better, btw. - it's a cringeworthy fight, where you want to smack both sides because they're just so unbelievably stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
No. It could have been the result of binary logic, but it wasn't. It was due to the media loudly amplifying the most extreme viewpoints. It systematically suppresses all reasonable viewpoints, because they don't pull in viewers. (Well, that's my guess as to what their reason is. They *could* just be interested in destabilizing society, but I consider that a fringe group among the media.)
Re:"Over women's bodies"? (Score:5, Informative)
The actual face yes, but this is just an image of a face.
Also this system isn't only usable for women, it's perfectly possible to use a virtual male body and put a male face on it. You can already find faked pornographic images of men like donald trump.
Widespread knowledge of such systems however is going to discredit any video evidence. Next time a genuine sex tape is leaked, whoever's featured in it is going to claim it's a fake.
Re:"Over women's bodies"? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in your mind a bunch of bytes in your computer's memory are the same thing as a woman's face?
I think you've strayed a bit too far into Fapland.
There are two issues here. The first is the so-called "usage of likeness" which is basically restricted if you profit from it or into the profits that "likeness" brings to its "owner". The other is copyright and fair use. Each of these comes with several specific criteria whether something qualifies as a problem, and none of the criteria point to a problem in the case of the "deep fakes".
The only thing that is a "problem" is the fake morality of the society in which the pedophile buddies of an Epstein are okay until caught, but some people playing games on their computers are the Devil.
Re:"Over women's bodies"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there wasn't some strong correlation them people wouldn't masturbate over those bytes.
Yeah, so what? As long as masturbation happens privately it does not inconvenience anyone. Or maybe you're arguing that what people fantasize about in private should be a matter of strict regulation? Should people not masturbate to the image of someone pretty they saw in the club last night because you find it objectionable? Why would you even want to know what they're masturbating to?
and tends not to stand up in the real world
It does not stand up to the real world where hysteria and fake concern are asking the state to watch every step I make and slap me if someone is "offended". I helped overturn a system that wanted to read my brain and punish me for thinking "bad things", and I'm finding the irony of another system trying to do the same for commercial reasons even more unconscionable and ridiculous.
There are all sorts of rules about taking photos of people, about having them incidentally in the background etc.
Yes, and none apply to using an algorithm to create your own masturbation fetish on your computer in private. Distributing such product is a different matter, but here we're discussing the tools, and not distribution of the output.
The rights of individuals over their image are well established too.
Yes, I already reviewed them for you in the post you reply to. These are the legal principles that guide usage of "likeness" and "copyrighted" material. None apply to this situation, but you seem to ignore what you disagree with.
courts tend not to care if the computer can interpret that data as illegal material. Revenge porn has been litigated for years too
What is "illegal" in the situation where someone uses an algorithm to generate a porn video from thin air to masturbate to and how, precisely is that "revenge porn"? Where did this "revenge porn" thing come from? Oh, I see, you read the vice article and bit on the lie it concocted. Let's see how in some detail.
The article begins by stating that there's nothing inherently wrong with 3D-rendered porn. People have been using computer graphics to create adult content for decades...., then goes on to describe that it is getting easier for non-professionals to create realistic 3D videos and then, SUDDENLY it jumps to the conclusion that experts and victims alike say that even if it's not "real," the experience of seeing one's likeness in nonconsensual porn spread across the internet is legitimate trauma, similar to sexual assault, and not very different from actual revenge porn or spreading sex tapes and nudes without consent.
This sentence links to an article from an "expert", which allegedly validates this argument with actual research. Let us see what are the "experts" and what topic are they actually discussing. So, first, the reference's DOI is 10.1177/1557085116654565, which is a 21-page article from an outfit named Feminist Criminology. The article discussed the harm that men bring upon women publishing real photos or videos online, or threatening women such publishing. It is not concerned with the other possible revenge porn. The author is someone with an h-index of 1, that is, not a recognized or widely cited expert by a long shot, which, however, is irrelevant to the quality of the argument.
Now, to the interesting part -- the arguments that the article presents do not involve deep fakes at all. The article talks about real revenge porn, real photos and videos and the damage they do. There is not a single word in it that suggests the experience of seeing one's likeness in nonconsensual porn spread across the internet is legitimate trauma, similar to sexual assault, and not very different from actual revenge porn or spreading sex tapes and nudes without consent.
In other words, Vice journo is lying, and you're repeating their unsubstantiated claims, adding your own in the process. Congratulation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the argument about whether the images are real or fake is irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. The question is "were they published"? If they were it should be a crime, on the same level as extortion, slander, or libel. If not, then not.
The problem is it makes it easier to libel someone even if they didn't consent to compromising actions or photos. Lots easier.
The question of how it should be dealt with, however, is difficult. People tend to believe pictures, even when they're obvious fakes. And eve
Individuals (Score:4, Insightful)
You can always spot the agenda-driven propagandist 'journalist' because individual people don't exist to them. Deepfakes let anybody put any face on any footage, but the majority of times it's WAHMEN so this is a WAHMEN'S RIGHTS ISSUE now. Won't somebody think of the WAHMEN? These poor WAHMENS are being virtually raped, which is much much worse than real rape because of blockchains and dark webs and shit. We need the UN to declare virtual porn to be a war crime. It's digital slavery. It's cyber murder. It's Photosluttery. We're going to keep making more and more scary terms for it until you bow down and give us more power to control you with.
Re:Individuals (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same type of people who complain about sexbots, and how they're vile and harmful to women. But in the same breath start screeching how vibrators are empowering. Then screech about 'female objectification' but ignore male objectification in the exact same way. I'm sure there's also overlap between those, and the ones that claim disagreement is harassment, rape, sexual assault, misogyny(or internalized misogyny if you're female), the patriarchy and other nebulous bullshit.
Of course it's also pretty easy to tell who's got the actual power in this situation. If anyone questions or speaks up about their motives or aren't pure enough out come the mobs to come after your job, family, and friends. And before someone goes but...noooo that's not true! Ask yourself why they're the first ones to go after other women when they try setting up male domestic violence shelters, question the 1:6 rape lie, or the wage gap BS.
Re: Individuals (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexbots are for losers, plains and simple.
Perhaps. But most rapists and child molesters are also losers.
The preponderance of the evidence is that pornography provides these "losers" with an alternative outlet for their sexual urges, and diminishes harm to real victims.
Japan has seen a decline in sexual abuse of children since child sex-dolls were legalized there, and the decline has been steepest in men who own the dolls.
Policy should be based on science and evidence, not prudishness.
Re: Individuals (Score:5, Insightful)
Then masturbation is for losers too? Because that's all a sexbot is. Masturbating to more realistic porn. I suppose Victoria's Secret catalogs, when used in that way, are for losers too. I'd probably say sexbots are for adolescents, like in Rick and Morty. Wait until little Johnny brings home a sexbot!
Beyond that, I don't know where the article writers got the idea that a computer simulation gives someone "control over women's bodies." It gives them easy avoidance of image reproduction rights, but that's always been the case with the advent of digital photography. Copies are easy. You could Photoshop a celebrity's head on a nude photo 20 years ago. This is not something new, it's just something different, and apparently different scares the crap out of the authors of this article.
So now, you can take the copies and put them on a computer simulation. It's the same thing. Maybe it should be illegal but for right now, so long as you aren't using it for monetary gain or publishing it, it's just run-of-the-mill rights infringement and someone has to demonstrate damages in a tort.
For now. I shudder to think what sort of "law" will be written to seek justice in this matter.
It's clickbait crap to call it control of anything other than amateur digital photography. Thanks Slashdot, you used to post news that matters. Clearly, any physical body is a long way off from any harm or control.
It Quite Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
For now. I shudder to think what sort of "law" will be written to seek justice in this matter.
How about it's illegal to use some one's likeness without permission. It's already on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's not the opposite of freedom of speech then I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hahaha. Welcome to the real world where an individuals freedom doesn't trump another's.
Re:It Quite Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, so if someone sticks my face on a porn stars, watches it and gets off on it, how does that impinge on MY freedom?
Because for all I know that could have happened already, but I don't suddenly feel less free.
Seriously - explain how it makes me less free.
Re: (Score:3)
Are property rights freedom? I ask because ones identity is the ultimate property right. If I'm shitting in your yard am I exercising my freedom or am I violating yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Where on earth did that come from? It's more like "If I read your newspaper that got delivered to your doorstep before you did, and you didn't notice, am I exercising my freedom or violating yours". To the end person, there is no observable change in their world. For ever reasonably sane person, it's not a worry or a concern in everyday life (well, except maybe to some of the celebreties, but they've been dealing with this for a loooong time. It's been around in various forms for hundreds, if not thousa
Re: (Score:2)
Sets a precedent for more egregious kinds of abuse. How about making you the "person of interest" at a crime you were never at?
Re: (Score:2)
But not ever being able to use an image of another person.
That is a massive curtailment of everybody's freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Then masturbation is for losers too?
Any male with actual testosterone is a loser in their book. [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Copies are easy. You could Photoshop a celebrity's head on a nude photo 20 years ago. This is not something new, it's just something different, and apparently different scares the crap out of the authors of this article.
And most of those looked very crude and could easily be dismissed as fakes, it worked for horny guys trying to fuel a fantasy but realistically 99%+ of them would not pass any real scrutiny and certainly not proper forensics. This is more like having an identical twin that'll pretend to be you on camera, except nobody believes you. No, that's not me snorting coke. No, that's not me partying with strippers. No, that's not me at a swinger's party. No, that's not me at a neo-Nazi rally. No, that's not me being
Re: (Score:2)
I just noticed your user number. Way to get payed to be a shithead foreign troll.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit I only read a little of the article and quickly skimmed the rest, but I didn't come away with the same impression you did.
The vast majority of porn is of women so I am not surprised that usually it's women that are "deep-faked". It doesn't surprise me that they are usually celebrities too.
I'm a complete unknown to the public at large and being a male, especially of my age, probably means it's likely anyone would create a deepfake of me. I would think it's kind of creepy though. And it really sh
Re:Individuals (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline says (ZOMG!) "Total Control Over Women's Bodies." Like we've bred puppetmasters or something.
It's clickbait. I'm not reading the article because I don't read BS associated with clickbait, but I believe you when you say there's nothing so shocking in the actual article.
Nobody's body is being controlled. This is just a more advanced method of Photoshopping a celebrity's face onto a porn star's body. We used to strive for "photorealism." We've got that. We're now working on "visiorealism." Then we'll work on partial and full "sensory realism."
Then maybe abusive fuckers with disgusting control fantasies will leave real women the fuck alone. It will be a good thing, not a shocking development in the denigration of women.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, we can't stop it, so it would seem to me the obvious solution is to spread the word of deepfakes, make lots of public deepfake videos (porn and otherwise) of celebrities, make sure everyone knows about it.
Make sure deepfakes are ubiquitously known enough that the default assumption about any compromising video is that it's been faked by someone with an axe to grind, or a fantasy to indulge.
For better and worse, we're entering an era when unverified video evidence should be given no more credibility than a rumor.
Re: (Score:2)
...And then you have a world where nothing can be trusted. A politician says something controversial and it's on film? "Oh, that's a deep fake".
I think most people don't want to live in a post truth world.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably already happened with João Doria, the governor of the state of São Paulo in brazil.
There is this video of him that might or might not be a deepfake of him cheating his wife with three women.
But given its brazil and "huehuehue" etc.. the video most likely helped him win if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that that is the downside - but I don't think there's any putting the genie back in the bottle.
The only question is: Will everybody have access to this technology, or only the wealthy and criminal?
I lean toward thinking the latter is likely to do a whole lot more social damage. If video can be faked by anyone with the interest, video faked by anyone with the resources is less likely to be believed enough to do serious damage.
It was an interesting run, having the ability for video to be a near unimp
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the opinion that deep fakes are exactly like verbal slander. Anyone can do it but it's still illegal. Deep fakes, at least for now, are detectable. Exactly like verbal slander, those that spread visual slander can be punished. There is no "genie out of the bottle" as of right now.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm inclined to agree that it should be legally treated like slander.
If it's socially treated like slander though... If slander were routinely punished, the rumor mill would hardly exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Enitrely agree that publishing them to other people should be at least slander (and probably with harrassment and some other things a fine legal mind could pull out of the hat).
I strongly suspect that nothing will stop people doing this for their own edification. And publishing and making money from a fake is going to really cost when you throw in unlicensed use of someone's image. Strangely the law is probably heavier in that case than for the slander and harrassment.
Essentially, if it's kept to one's sel
Re: WTF? (Score:3)
We can just return to the same world we existed in before smartphone cameras 10 years ago. You don't rely on video for proof you rely on chains of a trust... just like security certificates. You have to find news organizations which vet and double source their work.
Here is a news flash for people, I can write anything.
"Tom Jones said today at a press conference that he once had sex with a flock of goats."
Those words are perfect deep fakes. The lettering is exact. You couldn't have a more realistic sente
Re: (Score:2)
It's not at all about WOMEN, it's about slander.
We probably should have a conversation about the legal issues, societal changes, etc. related to this issue.
Unfortunately the article that was linked to was from Vice, so of course "it's becoming easy to make realistic fake video of real people" became "tech makes women into victims of what we'll imply is rape". They're the ones who brought people's sex into it, not the poster mocking their coverage.
"male rights" over sensitive shit ... feeble movement of male victim-hood
Wow. That's a hefty dose of projection and self-loathing.
Yes, you're rather sensitive, but it's OK for me
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is pathetic because you quote me as if I'm responding to your own post rather than to the post I was responding to. The real problem does in fact have nothing to do with gender or sex and the parent posters ridiculous "wahmen" shit is literally men's rights nonsense.
Wow. That's a hefty dose of projection and self-loathing.
Yes, you're rather sensitive, but it's OK for men to have feelings, and being a victim doesn't make you less of a man.
I call a blatant flamebait post out and you stoop to this. Go wage your culture way else-ware, thank you very much. No one other than culture warriors whine about "wahmen".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as it leaves a lot of artifacts of fakery, it'll show up as faked to some half decent testing algorithms. That's pretty much not going to lose you your job, or your relationship, or anything (apart from extreme anger that someone's screwed you over, and if they hadn't used that medium, in the cases you put forward, it's pretty likely they'd have used another).
Nobody is really going to believe vids more than word of mouth; that's been destroying people's lives for thousands of years already, and still
Why should I care? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's seems quite apparent that anyone using this is clearly aware that the actual individual isn't really performing any of these acts so it's hard to argue that any brand damage occurs either. I'd far less worried about the people using celebrities for this than I would be about the guy who's decided to use his secretary or some other person that they actually interact with on a regular basis in the real world.
Re:Why should I care? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it should be illegal. However if you knowingly distribute the deepfake video without clearly describing the modifications, then you should be subject to civil (not criminal) lawsuit for defamation/slander and stuff like that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't even play the "oh but that's the 'appeal to emotion' logical fallacy", because this is all about emotion, the human sense of what's right and what's wrong, and protecting people who matter to you -- and people protecting themselves.
While we're at it: How would you feel if someone pasted your face onto one of these avatars and had degrading gay sex with it? "Oh, but you're not being harmed", you say. Or are you?
Arguments
Re:Why should I care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't even play the "oh but that's the 'appeal to emotion' logical fallacy", because this is all about emotion
I wonder, what kind of fallacy is it to say that something is not a fallacy because in this one case the thing that otherwise would make it fallacy doesn't, just becase.
"Oh, but you're not being harmed", you say. Or are you?
Are you harmed when someone writes some erotica story about you? Especially when the story is not distributed at all?
In any case, this moral panic will most likely extinguish itself when people realize the infinite variety of synthetic faces that is possible that completely dwarfs the finite set of faces of actual people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Are you harmed when someone writes some erotica story about you? Especially when the story is not distributed at all?"
You're confabulating two very different things here. Share it widely and you're likely guilty of defamation and possibly some mental anguish. Keep it private and it is exactly that, private.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am fabricating memories?
I have no idea what you're talking about but it's not what I'm talking about.
Dispersal of a video of an individual doing something they didn't do and that the individual finds defaming is in fact slander. The laws are already on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I accidentally quoted my own words. Your quote is as such "I am fabricating memories?". The rest is my own words. Formatting error, sorry about that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are you harmed when someone writes some erotica story about you? Especially when the story is not distributed at all?" You're confabulating two very different things here. Share it widely and you're likely guilty of defamation and possibly some mental anguish. Keep it private and it is exactly that, private.
Defamation is when you say untrue things about a person that will damage their reputation. If the erotica is clearly fictional (e.g. is not presented as an account of actual events) then it's not defamation. If anyone's reputation would be harmed by it, it would probably be the authors's.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you even talking about? If there's a visual representation of you cheating on your significant other that didn't happen how does that not fall under slander law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What utter nonsense. "We can't trust the scientific consensus on global warming because last year we had an overly cold winter where i live". Living life by individual experience is a truly stupid and ignorant way to live ones life but it's a great way to come to conclusions like "vaccines are dangerous", and "global warming isn't real" or that "the earth is flat".
Re: (Score:2)
So how would you feel if it was your wifes' face? Or your daughters' face?
How would I ever know unless someone told me (and who says they're telling the truth as opposed to just trying to ruffle my feathers like you're doing now) and why should I care? What's the difference between them using this service to upload a picture and having a wank to pure fantasy as opposed to imagining all of it in their head and having a wank to pure fantasy? Does visualizing something in a computer program make it more real? If that's the case I've got far more to worry about than someone using my
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why should I care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel if someone pasted your face onto one of these avatars and had degrading gay sex with it?
I think at this point in your post you are making wild assumptions about the OP's potential homophobia. You are probably arguing with a fantasy figure of your own design. You have total control over that fantasy figure's body and mind. You are guilty of the crime you are arguing against.
Or... try a Xanax. You can get them by the fistful in my country.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's done with someone else's face AND they gave permission (assuming that they can give permission) and you still have a problem with that, then you are the one having a problematic mental attitude. You might care for them, but they are still their own and not your property.
Also where do you draw your lines he
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel if someone pasted your face onto one of these avatars and had degrading gay sex with it? "Oh, but you're not being harmed", you say. Or are you?
I wouldn't mind. I'd be flattered that someone thought I was attractive enough that they'd want to have virtual sex with my avatar.
Re: (Score:2)
>So how would you feel if it was your wifes' face? Or your daughters' face?
Pretty good actually. I'd much rather some creeper was indulging their fantasy *without* involving my wife or daughter. And if the evidence around child porn is any indicator - access to such material actually reduces the risks of an assault. (Though we'll have to wait and see if that remains the case with personalized porn)
> How would you feel if someone pasted your face onto one of these avatars and had degrading gay sex wi
Re: (Score:2)
They are just pissed that the whole marketing delusion about psuedo celebrities being able to sell crap products is collapsing. Why are those people opinions are inflated beyond all reason, when they are nothing but empty talking heads by profession because corporate main stream media, screamed at you over and over again, every hour of every day, over and over, that you have to listen to them when they lie to you.
They dying pseudo celebrity lashing out at reality which makes of them nothing more than just
Re: (Score:2)
The created brand, the fake person, who is only as appealing as corporate main stream media scream they are appealing, ...
That reminded me of this song: Any Kind of Pain [youtube.com]
You are the girl
Somebody invented
In a grim little office
On Madison Ave.
They were specific
They made you terrific:
Red lips;
Blue eyes;
Blonde hair;
Un-wise -
You're All-American,
And, darling, they said so
That was the part I was reminded of. I forgot this line:
And all the yuppie boys, they dream they will rape her
So, I guess fantasizing about celebrities isn't exactly new especially considering that song is over 30 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
The part these stupid articles get wrong is mostly that it's the likenesses that should be getting people in trouble. Sell them the gun, not the murder.
Terrible headline (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't giving anyone control over anybody's body. It's giving people greater options for creating fake videos, nothing more.
If anything, as this becomes increasingly common (and let's be honest...) it could well be liberating. If you see a compromising video of someone, what are you going to assume? That they let some asshole record them and post online, or that it's a fake created by someone with an axe to grind?
I could care less about the porn uses, it's ultimately harmless. What I worry about is the effect on politics, as compromising non-sexual videos will become utterly unreliable. How are we supposed to hold politicians remotely accountable when even video evidence of appalling behavior is no longer trustworthy?
Re: Terrible headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What a complete craptastic headline.
The woman portrayed in the "fake porn" are computer-generated, the "victim" is not involved in the video.
Wait, is this Jib-Jab [jibjab.com] 2.0?
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a bit suspicious that there have been a number of Virt-a-Mate moral-outrage stories published in the last couple of months that specifically mention Virt-a-Mate and nothing much else. Just Virt-a-Mate, available on Patreon. This could be one of the best viral marketing campaigns ever for Virt-a-Mate, which in case we haven't mentioned it you can buy on Patreon. What's the bet we'll see more stories like this in the future, telling us about Virt-a-Mate, starting at just $2/month on Patreon.
That'
Re: (Score:3)
How are we supposed to hold politicians remotely accountable when even video evidence of appalling behavior is no longer trustworthy?
Uh, by holding them accountable for their politics, not their sex lives ?
Next I'll take "obvious answers for 200".
Porn (Score:5, Funny)
Porn is a complete waste of your time. Go find a real woman.
Says the guy posting to Slashdot. On Friday night.
Re:Porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Porn doesn't have a headache, and better still doesn't stick around the day after looking for a "relationship".
How exactly does this control a woman's body? (Score:3)
By their own admission, the alleged "victim" is never involved:
This new type of nonconsensual porn uses custom 3D models that can be articulated and animated, which are then made to look exactly like specific celebrities with deepfaked faces.
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
I'm not much interested in making porn videos of celebrities. Hollywood actress, porn actress, it's all the same to me.
What I want to know is, can I use this technology to make a video of Justin Trudeau being sodomized by Donald Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
CNN isn't good enough for you?
Here's the litmus test: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about if it's your sister, wife, or daughter (or brother, husband, or son, for that matter)?
If most people think that's wrong, then it's wrong.
'Causing harm' to someone isn't limited to just physical harm. It can be emotional, reputational, or financial, or all the above.
Theoretically: if someone made a 'deep fake' porn video of you, and it got around the internet, and you lost your job or were denied a job because of it, have you been harmed? Yes, you have, your reputation certainly has, and you might have been harmed financially as well.
What if you're a public figure, say running for public office, and your rivals produce a deepfake porn of you and distribute it? Do you think that might affect the outcome of the election? I say it likely would, and that's definite harm to your professional, and perhaps personal reputation, and very likely your career.
You see where I'm coming from with this, yes?
Some may treat it as a laughing matter, just a joke, who would take it seriously? But it's not a laughing matter, any more than spreading slander around is a laughing matter.
It all comes down to consent. If someone who is the object of a deepfake did not consent to having their image used that way, then they have been done harm just as surely as if someone physically attacked them.
Re:Here's the litmus test: (Score:4, Insightful)
they have been done harm just as surely as if someone physically attacked them
So what you're saying is that it is no worse to kill them and use their corpses as puppets in our porn videos than to alter a photo of them. What a relief!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy Rebuttal. (Score:4, Informative)
No, I don't want that. But the distinction I make that you don't is that I don't think that just because I don't want people to do something -- even if I think it's immoral -- it should be illegal. I don't want people to say mean things about me on the internet, and I think it's immoral to cheat on your partners, but those things should not be illegal.
Would you want people to be able to post fake videos of you that could cost you jobs, relationships, and the respect of your pears? No you wouldn't and that's the end of the argument. Slander is already illegal and deep fakes are nothing more or less.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you want people to be able to post fake videos of you that could cost you jobs, relationships, and the respect of your pears?
I hate it when my fucking bowl of fruit doesn't respect me.
Also, you really should look up what the legal definitions for slander, libel, and defamation are if you want to try to argue legal points with them. Here's a hint: Slander only involves making known false statements OUT LOUD with your voice, in a way specifically designed to hurt the reputation of another.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying me making a video of you getting rammed up your ass by your father that looked convincing wouldn't be slander?
You're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be distasteful, yes. But if someone wanted to screw me over that badly, they'd just find other ways. What you're suggesting is that malice would suddenly appear from nowhere, where there had been none before.
This simply isn't true.
And if you did it for your own gratification, and I never knew, to be honest, I wouldn't really care. It's not something I'd worry about, because I have plenty of real, solid, present things to worry about and get on with in my life (and many things to be cheery about
Re:Easy Rebuttal. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I don't want that. But the distinction I make that you don't is that I don't think that just because I don't want people to do something -- even if I think it's immoral -- it should be illegal. I don't want people to say mean things about me on the internet, and I think it's immoral to cheat on your partners, but those things should not be illegal.
Would you want people to be able to post fake videos of you that could cost you jobs, relationships, and the respect of your pears? No you wouldn't and that's the end of the argument. Slander is already illegal and deep fakes are nothing more or less.
When someone says “and that’s the end of the argument”or similar, it becomes apparent that they are trying to preempt debate by claiming victory. To the rest of us, it’s clearly not the end of the argument, as you haven’t understood (nor rebutted in any way) the GP’s arguments about legislating based on morality.
Re: (Score:2)
When someone says "I can't caste doubt on your argument so I'll attack something else" it becomes apparent that they are trying to preempt debate by claiming victory.
Fuck off and engage in a debate of ideas and not slander.
Re: (Score:2)
What I see is that you think we should legislate based on morality, which is relative and a very dangerous slope.
While I agree that the hype about deepfakes is overblown, I can't agree with you here. All legislation is based on morality. Murder (for example) is illegal because it is morally wrong, not because it affects the GNP or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Would you want your face pasted onto some virtual avatars' body, performing sex acts?
Why would I care?
If most people think that's wrong, then it's wrong.
Most people think you're wrong.
'Causing harm' to someone isn't limited to just physical harm. It can be emotional, reputational, or financial, or all the above.
If they're uploading porn with my face on it, and passing it off as me, that might do harm to my reputation. Or, it might enhance it. But if they're just fapping to it, then it does me no harm.
It all comes down to consent. If someone who is the object of a deepfake did not consent to having their image used that way, then they have been done harm just as surely as if someone physically attacked them.
That's a really dumb thing to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people think it's wrong. Some people think it's fine. If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't watch it.
If, on the other hand, people start making money out of someone's image, that's lawyer land, or if they do it to harrass someone, that's harrassment or a load of other legal problems.
If you make a vid like this of someone's wife, and then go and show it to them (or the wife), expect bad things to happen to you.
So, if someone drew a lewd picture of someone, you'd say that they have suffered harm?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wants to draw pictures of my mom 100 feet tall shoving the empire state building up her butt, I could care less. This is no different. You don't own the rights to someone else's creative works, and I see no reason why someone's right to artistic expression should be infringed here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It all comes down to consent. If someone who is the object of a deepfake did not consent to having their image used that way, then they have been done harm just as surely as if someone physically attacked them.
What a load of crap.
If Tom Cruise doesn't consent me to cutting his picture out of a magazine to set fire to, or to have a wank to, or to roll a blunt with he has been done zero harm and you are a moron if you think that is the same as me punching him in the nose.
Similarly Katy Perry is done zero
Wow total control of women's bodies (Score:2)
So vice is saying it's programmed to completely block being used against men. Good to know
To those who believe this is victimless. (Score:5, Informative)
There are comments above who portray the issue as victimless. It may seem so if you do not often leave the house. There are already women being killed around the world because of people shaming them on social media with deep fakes. Certain cultures practice honour killings and the women have far less freedom than their western counterparts. Through the distribution of deep fakes these women are in real danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's all utterly stupid and I feel bad having written it, but it's just to illustrate why your argument is terrible. We co
Re: (Score:3)
Certain cultures practice honour killings and the women have far less freedom than their western counterparts.
None of these are problems with any kind of porn. All of the issues you cited are problems with primitive cultures. That's where you need to focus your attention.
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
"This new type of nonconsensual porn..."
Program the avatar to consent and you're good.
Of course (Score:2, Funny)
...one COULD see this as FREEING women from their previous choices, allowing them to be/do whatever they want.
"Um, we were going to hire you but a web search brought up this...staggering collection of brutal rape porn, bukkake, bestiality, and pedophilia. I mean, seriously, it's like you spend the majority of the last 15 years getting hammered at home, at work, in the grocery store, in the machine shop, at school...we're not sure you're management material."
"Oh what? I don't know what you're talking about
Licensing of Likeness (Score:2)
http://performermag.com/band-management/contracts-law/legal-pad-what-you-should-know-about-likeness-rights/
VR's amplification of commoditizing the female form and the potential marginalization of women's issues relating to ownership/consent/autonomy is unsurprising and merits feminist criticism.
Any exploitation of misrepresentation will come with for
The good angle (Score:3)
Mark my words, this generation's elderly will be using VR and Deepfake technology to have sex with their dead partners.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
One is compelled to ask... (Score:3)
Or are you suggesting that Disney didn't have the money to pull off something convincing then that can be practically done on a desktop today?
bizarre (Score:5, Informative)
but a hybrid of both which gives people even more control of women's virtual bodies.
This is bizarre. What the heck are "women's virtual bodies"?
This gives you control over a computer simulation, which presumably belongs to (or is licensed by) you, not some other person.
This isn't Tron; people don't actually have "virtual bodies". That's ... not a thing.