I don’t expect this to be too popular on Reddit though.
That’s a shame, my favourites are where the Tories fuck the economy.
If I deepfake the King’s face onto a naked woman with massive boobs for the intent to humour myself or others is that considered pornographic and could I be prosecuted?
Obviously good in principle – though as often with such laws, it’s already covered under other laws, another example of the Tories getting out of dreadful underfunding of the criminal justice system by making it look like they’re “doing something”.
In practice though, deepfakes are a load of moral panic about nothing. You cannot make a believable deepfake video of a celebrity with thousands of frames of reference (check out the Linus Tech Tips video on this for examples). It is impossible to make one of someone via their social media images. They’ve been around for years now, the technology hit a hard limit.
I made a thread on Reddit “Change My View” about this about 5 years ago and despite all the “trust me bro, the AI is changing rapidly!” stuff, they’re if anything less convincing than they were in 2017 when the moral panic first started.
Bad news for 4chan weirdos who want to make fakes of some minor league celebrity, good news for anyone worried. (incoming downvotes from incel neckbeards who want to make fakes of some girl they creep over…)
Isnt the whole point of a deep fake to be unrecognisable as a fake? Who is this new law protecting? The rich and famous or just your average Jo?
Good in principle but I don’t understand how they think they’re going to be able to enforce this. My guess is it’ll just be used to add additional charges to someone when they seize devices for a different crime.
Probably a good call, we’ll have to see how the next few years shake out to see if the law is actually enforced
David Brent of the office to start calling the police
Be interesting to see what the legal definition of deepfake is.
There is a long tradition of “face-in-hole” boards at the seaside, and the modern equivalent of photo filters, which presumably would not be covered by the law.
People are missing the point about laws like this. It’s not really meant to be enforced, it’s meant to allow CPS to prosecute for cases where someone has done something clearly wrong, but the law is too vague or outdated to support the case.
For example, let’s say I created a deepfake of a woman I knew personally and shared it between a group of friends. This would definitely be a form of sexual harassment (especially if I claimed that it wasn’t a deepfake), but it’s possible that it would fall between the cracks legally. With this law, I could be prosecuted more easily, without the risk of legal bullshit.
Another pointless law which the nature of the Internet will absolutely ignore.
2 guys in prison.
What you in for? Drug dealing and murder
And you? Mickey mouse fucking Donald duck XD
Now I’ll never see Carol Vorderman get spit roasted.
As usual, people see the words porn, deepfake, illegal and start celebrating.
If it’s one thing the UK has, it’s world beating lack of foresight.
I’m more concerned of what the scope of this is because let’s be realistic, this won’t stop at “photographic depictions.”
Would sharing hentai artwork made with things like StableDiffusion etc. be illegal because “StableDiffusion = Deepfake” under gov’t logic?
How about baroque style nude paintings again made with AI tech?
I’m uncomfortable with this being illegal. Yes, I can see it can cause distress. But should it be outlawed? I’m struggling to see the rationale for that, and see worrying steps further in the direction of an authoritarian government.
This is a bridge too far. Is criminalization really the best and most appropriate remedy for every conceivable social ill?
I’d be curious to see the specific language of the legislation. Particularly how they define “deepfake.”
Whilst I support not sharing porno deepfakes, this is a fucking nanny state.
Every fucking thing needs a fucking license – even watching porn
Get a license.
19 comments
About fucking time.
[removed]
Good.
I don’t expect this to be too popular on Reddit though.
That’s a shame, my favourites are where the Tories fuck the economy.
If I deepfake the King’s face onto a naked woman with massive boobs for the intent to humour myself or others is that considered pornographic and could I be prosecuted?
Obviously good in principle – though as often with such laws, it’s already covered under other laws, another example of the Tories getting out of dreadful underfunding of the criminal justice system by making it look like they’re “doing something”.
In practice though, deepfakes are a load of moral panic about nothing. You cannot make a believable deepfake video of a celebrity with thousands of frames of reference (check out the Linus Tech Tips video on this for examples). It is impossible to make one of someone via their social media images. They’ve been around for years now, the technology hit a hard limit.
I made a thread on Reddit “Change My View” about this about 5 years ago and despite all the “trust me bro, the AI is changing rapidly!” stuff, they’re if anything less convincing than they were in 2017 when the moral panic first started.
Bad news for 4chan weirdos who want to make fakes of some minor league celebrity, good news for anyone worried. (incoming downvotes from incel neckbeards who want to make fakes of some girl they creep over…)
Isnt the whole point of a deep fake to be unrecognisable as a fake? Who is this new law protecting? The rich and famous or just your average Jo?
Good in principle but I don’t understand how they think they’re going to be able to enforce this. My guess is it’ll just be used to add additional charges to someone when they seize devices for a different crime.
Probably a good call, we’ll have to see how the next few years shake out to see if the law is actually enforced
David Brent of the office to start calling the police
Be interesting to see what the legal definition of deepfake is.
There is a long tradition of “face-in-hole” boards at the seaside, and the modern equivalent of photo filters, which presumably would not be covered by the law.
People are missing the point about laws like this. It’s not really meant to be enforced, it’s meant to allow CPS to prosecute for cases where someone has done something clearly wrong, but the law is too vague or outdated to support the case.
For example, let’s say I created a deepfake of a woman I knew personally and shared it between a group of friends. This would definitely be a form of sexual harassment (especially if I claimed that it wasn’t a deepfake), but it’s possible that it would fall between the cracks legally. With this law, I could be prosecuted more easily, without the risk of legal bullshit.
Another pointless law which the nature of the Internet will absolutely ignore.
2 guys in prison.
What you in for? Drug dealing and murder
And you? Mickey mouse fucking Donald duck XD
Now I’ll never see Carol Vorderman get spit roasted.
As usual, people see the words porn, deepfake, illegal and start celebrating.
If it’s one thing the UK has, it’s world beating lack of foresight.
I’m more concerned of what the scope of this is because let’s be realistic, this won’t stop at “photographic depictions.”
Would sharing hentai artwork made with things like StableDiffusion etc. be illegal because “StableDiffusion = Deepfake” under gov’t logic?
How about baroque style nude paintings again made with AI tech?
I’m uncomfortable with this being illegal. Yes, I can see it can cause distress. But should it be outlawed? I’m struggling to see the rationale for that, and see worrying steps further in the direction of an authoritarian government.
This is a bridge too far. Is criminalization really the best and most appropriate remedy for every conceivable social ill?
I’d be curious to see the specific language of the legislation. Particularly how they define “deepfake.”
Whilst I support not sharing porno deepfakes, this is a fucking nanny state.
Every fucking thing needs a fucking license – even watching porn
Get a license.