This is a difficult issue to deal with, but I think the problem lies with our current acceptance of photographs as an objective truth. If a talented writer places someone in an erotic text, we immediately know that this is a product of imagination. If a talented artist sketches up a nude of someone, we can immediately recognize that this is a product of imagination. We have laws around commercial use of likenesses, but I don't think we would make those things illegal.
But now we have photographs that are products of imagination. I don't have a solution for this specific issue, but we all need to calibrate how we establish trust with persons and information now that photographs, video, speech, etc can be faked by AI. I can even imagine a scenario in the not-too-distant future where face-to-face conversation cannot be immediately trusted due to advances in robotics or other technologies.
Lying and deception are human nature, and we will always employ any new technologies for these purposes along with any good they may bring. We will always have to carefully adjust the line on what is criminal vs artistic vs non-criminal depravity.
I just don’t see why you’d make the creation of this stuff illegal. Right now you could be easy photoshop to put people’s faces onto dirty pictures. It hurts zero people and also takes a similar low amount of effort. As long as you keep it to yourself, society should not care.
Making it illegal also seems kind of dumb when you can just hold someone civilly liable for this stuff if they’re posting nude photos of you, real or not. I don’t see the issue of any of it if we enforce these photos spreading as if they were real and let people collect damages.
Big deal. /s Everything is a crime in England. Writing this comment is probably even a crime in England. I sure as hell don't have a license to use the computer monitor I'm viewing this on.
I posted this from a vpn that probably uses encryption at some point along the network path. Using encryption is a crime in England (unless they backpedaled on that already). Also, tea is stupid. Please air strike within 24 hours or at your earliest convenience.
Most likely reports of dumb shit conservative politicians have called for, wanting access to messaging. You can find the exact same proposals in the US, European Parliament, individual EU countries, and a load of other places.
Dumb, sure, but a proposal that always goes nowhere isn't a law, and it's certainly not England or even UK-specific.
They're referencing the UK "Online Safety Bill" passed last year, which was very scary when it was just an idea that hadn't been written yet.
But when it finally was written and we got to see the actual content of the bill — it basically requires certain companies to use "accredited technology" to detect and block certain categories of illegal content (especially CSAM and foreign election propaganda).
All the major platforms are already taking extensive steps to block illegal content and there's a good chance they will be happy to use whatever "technology" is eventually "accredited".
A lot rides on the specifics of the "technology" which hasn't been clearly defined - but it certainly is not a ban on encryption.
The only weird thing about TV licence is the name. It's not really a license at all, it's just paying for a service you use.
If you watch live TV, you pay towards the broadcasting of it, plus the running of the BBC, which is ad-free in the UK.
The argument being that if it came from direct government funding, the government would have a much greater degree of control over the main national news source, which would likely be a worse solution. As would filling the BBC up with ads and cutting expensive content like proper news and excellent documentaries.
Calling it a license kind of implies you need to apply for a card or a document to watch TV, which isn't the case.
The UK is far from the only country that has publicly-funded television that you legally have to pay for to use.
I just imagine someone showing up to my work and presenting that contract and next thing you know I'm stuck in the dryer with only my stepson Esteban to help me...
You're not the first to think of it and it's where this whole idea will fall flat on it's face.
There's just no way to actually check if the subject of a photo consented to having their photo taken. That was difficult enough with physical cameras, it's so much more difficult now that no camera is involved in generating the image.
I mean, if I were to post an image here in this comment - how can the Fediverse possibly verify that I have the right to post it?
The creation of sexually explicit deepfake content is likely to become a criminal offense in England and Wales as concern grows over the use of artificial intelligence to exploit and harass women.
Under a draft law, anyone who creates such an image or video of another adult without their consent — even if they don’t intend to share it — would face a criminal record and an unlimited fine, the UK justice department announced Tuesday.
Laura Farris, the United Kingdom’s Minister for Victims and Safeguarding, told ITV Tuesday that “to the best of (her) knowledge,” the two countries within the UK would be the first anywhere in the world to outlaw the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.
The new offense applies only to adults as, under existing English and Welsh rules, creating deepfake sexual images of minors is already a crime.
That month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the United States introduced a draft civil law that, if passed, will allow the victims of sexually explicit deepfakes to sue the people who create and share such content without their consent.
“Deepfake pornography is a growing cause of gender-based harassment online and is increasingly used to target, silence and intimidate women — both on and offline,” Meta Oversight Board Co-Chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt said in a statement.
The original article contains 530 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
