New Jersey Passed A Law Against Deep Fakes

[DocCathode]

@MrDibble

Sure. Irrelevant, but sure.

How is it irrelevant? Obscenity decisions are made on a case by case basis. You just repeated that an entire category of images are obscene.

Pornographic deepfakes of nonconsenting women meet my definition of an obscene case.

I want to ask something here- why “women”? First, why not ‘girls and women’? Second, why exclude boys and men? I have no doubt that the majority of people making deep fakes are heterosexual men and boys making images of women and girls they know. But, I would be amazed if that was always the case.

@MrDibble

It’s also a plain English term.

The use “plain English” terms should be avoided when a thread is about the law in general and links to the text of a specific law in the OP. If some one uses them in their everyday meaning, things get confusing.

Like here

@MrDibble

Pornographic deepfakes of nonconsenting women meet my definition of an obscene case.

You use the word “case” which would indicate you are using the legal meaning of the word “obscene”. Except that, as I have said, obscenity is decided on a case by case basis and is made on what an image depicts and not on how it was created.

@MrDibble

If the person is nonconsenting in both cases, they are both obscene.

Same problem here. If you mean “obscene by the legal definition” please say that. If you mean something like ‘immoral, evil and wrong’. please stop using the word obscene.

@MrDibble

I have exactly zero problem with nudity. I appreciate and celebrate willing nudity. That’s not the issue here.

Except that no actual nudity is involved here. That is a big difference.

@MrDibble

Yes - in the case of deepfakes, it depicts violation of consent. That’s obscene to me.

Once again, do you mean ‘legally meets the definition of obscene’ or ‘this is wrong and immoral and I really hate it!’?

@MrDibble

So, violation of consent is not obscene to you?

First, please don’t put words in my mouth.

Second, do you my personal definition? Or are you asking if in my opinion it meets the legal definition of obscenity?
My personal definition- I would avoid using the word “obscene”. If a person did not consent to both the taking of the photo and the sharing of the photo, it is in my moral opinion wrong to do either.

Whether it meets the legal definition of obscenity depends on the image.

However, in a deep fake no one is actually naked.

@MrDibble

So? It doesn’t go far enough in the case of deepfakes, clearly. So criminalize it too.

Just how does it not go far enough? For what reasons should deep fakes be criminalized?

@MrDibble

Did I say all lying was? No. But some lying is. Deepfakes should be in that set.

They should be in that set for what reasons?

@MrDibble

Nice try at playing a completely non sequitur mental health card,

When did I do that? I never said ‘being mentally ill qualifies me to say this-’.

@MrDibble

here’s my rape victim trump.:

I’m an actual survivor of multiple rapes and I’m telling you that no, it is not an insult and you do not speak for all survivors. Or any, for that matter, if you’re not one.

First, how do you know i do not speak for any? It’s odd that you know the feelings of the people I mentioned better than I do.

Second- It is not something I speak of often, and it thankfully only happened once. But it did happen. Speaking as a survivor- Yes, it absolutely is an insult. High school was a living hell for me. It was heaven compared to that incident. Rumors and bullying happened to me all the time in high school. They were nothing, nothing compared to being raped. (Before anybody mentions it- no I have not posted about this before. I will likely not post about it again. And no, I am not referring to the time an older boy molested me. That also only happened once. I may have mentioned it twice in all my time posting here)

@MrDibble

I mean, did you even try? Plenty of non-porn deepfakes out there

Did you read the quote you responded to?

@DocCathode

Unless, you can find cites for deep fakes of ordinary people being used for purposes other than porn?

Note that I said “ordinary people”. That would exclude famous people including politicians.

@MrDibble

Sure, take your sweet time.

Just what do you mean by this?.

@Jophiel

More commonly, he makes no attempt to say it’s a real photo and just passes it around (or keeps it) so everyone can say “Hehehehe… that’s what Cindy looks like naked” and get their jollies seeing a depiction of Cindy naked regardless of its validity.

Again, most of these images are made from photos taken from social media accounts and the like. Then you run it through some app (or Telegram service, etc) that uses AI to “remove” the clothing. It’s still obvious that it’s a photo taken at a dance, on a boat, at a party, out with friends at a Starbucks, etc. The goal isn’t to trick people into thinking Melissa got naked at a Chili’s, it’s just to say “Here’s what Melissa looks like if she was naked”.

If the images are not even being presented as real, outlawing them is truly ridiculous.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@DocCathode

If the images are not even being presented as real, outlawing them is truly ridiculous.

Even if Melissa is, say, eleven?

[Jophiel]

@DocCathode

If the images are not even being presented as real, outlawing them is truly ridiculous.

Again, they cause real harm. That’s why people are trying to get them legislated in some way. Also there’s no blanket statement to be made about the images. While most may not be presented as real, some are. Most may be passed around for “amusement” while some are targeted abuse. Many involve minors (given the number of incidents reported at middle and high schools), etc.

[MrDibble]

@DocCathode

Obscenity decisions are made on a case by case basis. You just repeated that an entire category of images are obscene.

I’m saying the equivalent of “in each case, I would judge this obscene”. Because they all share a commonality that in itself renders them obscene.

@DocCathode

I want to ask something here- why “women”? First, why not ‘girls and women’?

Because girls are women.

@DocCathode

Second, why exclude boys and men?

Those would be obscene too. But as you acknowledge, vanishingly small amounts of deepfake porn are about men (around 1% by what I can gather).

But if you wanna “whatabout mens” this, feel free.

@DocCathode

The use “plain English” terms should be avoided when a thread is about the law in general and links to the text of a specific law in the OP.

The implied question in the OP wasn’t how I would argue the law in court. It was whether I supported the law or not. I support the law on moral, not legal, grounds. So I’m going to argue for it on moral, not legalistic grounds. Case [heh] in point:

@DocCathode

You use the word “case” which would indicate you are using the legal meaning of the word “obscene”.

No. I use the word case here as a synonym for “matter” or “item under consideration” or “example”

@DocCathode

what an image depicts

And I’m saying all sexual depictions of identifiable nonconsenting adults are obscene because of what they depict.

@DocCathode

. If you mean something like ‘immoral, evil and wrong’. please stop using the word obscene.

Nope. I’ve told you how I’m using the word, in its plain English meaning. So you’re fully informed of my usage, and continuing to harp on about legalism is now a you problem.

@DocCathode

Except that no actual nudity is involved here.

It depicts nudity - this hangs on “what an image depicts”, you said.

But yeah, I’m sure the fact that they were never actually nude is a great comfort to the violated individuals, and that fact completely removes any sense of shame, violation and hurt they feel. \s

@DocCathode

Once again, do you mean ‘legally meets the definition of obscene’ or ‘this is wrong and immoral and I really hate it!’?

What part of “to me” was unclear?

@DocCathode

First, please don’t put words in my mouth.

If I wanted to put words in your mouth, I wouldn’t have asked a question.

@DocCathode

However, in a deep fake no one is actually naked.

You keep coming back to this as if it matters to the victims. It really, really doesn’t.
Deepfake porn documentary explores its 'life-shattering' impact

@DocCathode

Just how does it not go far enough? For what reasons should deep fakes be criminalized?

So that perpetrators can be jailed and acknowledged as the actual sex offenders they are.

@DocCathode

They should be in that set for what reasons?

Because they are exactly the kind of harmful lying the set of exceptions is for.

@DocCathode

I never said ‘being mentally ill qualifies me to say this-’.

I didn’t say you said that.
I was referring to the implied appeal to emotion, not authority.

@DocCathode

First, how do you know i do not speak for any?

Did you miss the qualifier at the end of that sentence?

@DocCathode

Yes, it absolutely is an insult.

To you. Not to “all the survivors”, which was what you said.

@DocCathode

Note that I said “ordinary people”. That would exclude famous people including politicians.

So what I’m hearing here is deepfake porn of an underage actress would be (legally) A-OK to you, because a) famous and b) “not really naked”? Can that really be the case?

But in any case, I’m sure somewhere in the 4% of deepfakes that aren’t sexual, there are some that aren’t famous people. But that hardly concerns me, I’m only concerned with the obscene ones. If some tiny fraction of 4% has to also fall under the axe, I’m OK with that, too.

@DocCathode

Just what do you mean by this?.

I mean take as long as you need to formulate your reply. What did you think I meant?

[DocCathode]

@MrDibble

The implied question in the OP wasn’t how I would argue the law in court. It was whether I supported the law or not. I support the law on moral, not legal, grounds. So I’m going to argue for it on moral, not legalistic grounds. Case [heh] in point:

Again, the OP is about a recently passed law. I linked to the text of the law at the end of the OP.

@DocCathode

Again, I strongly disagree. Obviously, I think Nazis are bad people. However, I strongly support their right to speak and assemble. Even Governor Murphy noted that other states had passed laws against deep fakes, but they had been ruled as unconstitutional violations of the first amendment.

I thought that made it clear that I am arguing on legal rather than moral grounds.

@MrDibble

Nope. I’ve told you how I’m using the word, in its plain English meaning. So you’re fully informed of my usage, and continuing to harp on about legalism is now a you problem.

I politely disagree. We are discussing a law. The text of the law is linked to in my OP. Your continuing to use a word that has an everyday meaning and a different meaning as a legal term which is arguably relevant to the topic is a you problem- especially considering the wide variety of other words you could use.

@MrDibble

And I’m saying all sexual depictions of identifiable nonconsenting adults are obscene because of what they depict.

Unless the image shows somebody who is clearly a minor engaged in a sex act (to which they cannot legally consent) how are you getting “nonconsenting” from the actual image? That may be the background information about the image. That may be the context. That information is not found in the actual image.

@MrDibble

Did you miss the qualifier at the end of that sentence?

Yes, I did. Here it is again.

@MrDibble

here’s my rape victim trump.:

I’m an actual survivor of multiple rapes and I’m telling you that no, it is not an insult and you do not speak for all survivors. Or any, for that matter, if you’re not one.

" Or any, for that matter, if you’re not one."

So, if it hadn’t happened to me personally- I would be unable to speak on behalf of any of the people I’ve known, some of the quite well and for quite a long time, but you would? How does that make sense?

[MrDibble]

@DocCathode

Again, the OP is about a recently passed law.

Yes, I’m aware.

@DocCathode

I thought that made it clear that I am arguing on legal rather than moral grounds.

“Free speech trumps everything” is a moral stance, not a legal one - especially when exceptions to free speech have been pointed out to you.

@DocCathode

Your continuing to use a word that has an everyday meaning and a different meaning as a legal term which is arguably relevant to the topic is a you problem

I’m not the one harping on about it while ignoring other points and even direct questions raised by my interlocutor.

@DocCathode

how are you getting “nonconsenting” from the actual image?

I’m … not?

@DocCathode

Yes, I did.

So?

@DocCathode

So, if it hadn’t happened to me personally- I would be unable to speak on behalf of any of the people I’ve known,

You still can’t, unless they’ve actually told you that deepfake porn being prosecuted as an actual sex crime is insulting to them and that they’d like you to publicize that stance.

Otherwise, you can only speak for just one survivor, as I did:

@DocCathode

ybut ou would

I didn’t. I spoke for myself. Who you had unconsentingly included in your “all survivors”.

I did say you couldn’t speak for other survivors. That’s not the same as speaking for them. That’s a comment on your standing only.

[MrDibble]

I notice you have completely skipped addressing the viewpoint of the actual victim in that BBC article, by the way.

[DocCathode]

Oops. You are right. This is what happens when I do to many things at once.

Yes deep fakes can be harmful. So can a whole bunch of other things that are still legal. I keep mentioning “actual nudity” because that was for quite a while the ‘bright line’ under the law. If you created a painting or wrote a story, other people would likely hate it. But, you hadn’t broken the law and the painting or story were not illegal. Deep fake laws move that bright line. While I view deep fakes as mainly a bad thing, I don’t have the visceral hatred or revulsion that many people in this thread seem to have for them.

[MrDibble]

@DocCathode

So can a whole bunch of other things that are still legal.

That’s awfully nonspecific - I’d love to know exactly what kind of things you’re comparing sexual violation to, there.

@DocCathode

I keep mentioning “actual nudity” because that was for quite a while the ‘bright line’ under the law.

It’s a dumb line.

If I came across a photorealistic drawing done by hand (like those coloured pencil drawings of celebs that were all the rage a hot minute ago) with the same kind of content, I would want that to be prosecuted the same way.

[Jophiel]

@DocCathode

Again, the OP is about a recently passed law. I linked to the text of the law at the end of the OP.

Honestly, I haven’t seen YOU discuss the law aside from saying you don’t like it. I read the law and see that it doesn’t make creation/distribution of deepfakes a singularly prosecutable offense, only if they are being used in the commission of another crime. The maximum penalty is five years/$30,000.

By the way, the penalty for aggravated sexual assault in New Jersey is 5-20 years and up to $150,000 so I don’t see any value in trying to say this somehow makes rape “cheaper” or otherwise comparing the two since there’s no attempt at equivalence between the two laws.

So what exactly are you objecting to here and what are we supposed to debate? Just that you think people should be able to make photorealistic fake AI renders of people? You can! It might be immoral and unethical and creepy but you are still allowed to it. You just can’t use them to harass people, commit fraud or use them to commit other crimes.

Do I think the law is “good”? I think its intent is in the right place, although hobbled by both the First Amendment and by the realities of the technology. There’s probably some legal ground to work out in terms of harassment, such as does simply distributing the images count as harassment or does it need to be part of a larger pattern?

I don’t think that the First Amendment is inviolate when it comes to technology. Just as the people in the late 18th century didn’t plan for AR-15s and bump stocks, they also wrote the First Amendment at a time when distribution of “printed” material was far different from today. Had they known that one day we’d be sending nude pseudo-photos of their kids to perverts all over the globe via our telephones, maybe they’d have had a different opinion. We don’t know one way or the other but it seems ridiculous to shackle ourselves completely to that mindset and ignore the harm it’s causing.

[DocCathode]

@MrDibble

That’s awfully nonspecific - I’d love to know exactly what kind of things you’re comparing sexual violation to, there.

I’m not comparing anything to sexual violation. Those are your words, not mine.

@MrDibble

It’s a dumb line.

If I came across a photorealistic drawing done by hand (like those coloured pencil drawings of celebs that were all the rage a hot minute ago) with the same kind of content, I would want that to be prosecuted the same way.

I am not sure what to say to this. It seems the distance between our points of view is simply too great.

On Preview

Jophiel I see your post. It may take me a while, but I will respond.

[MrDibble]

@DocCathode

I’m not comparing anything to sexual violation. Those are your words, not mine.

Avoidance of answering the actual question asked of you (to expand on what you meant by “whole bunch of things”), noted.

[DocCathode]

@Jophiel

Honestly, I haven’t seen YOU discuss the law aside from saying you don’t like it.

I had hoped the thread would go in more legal direction. It went into a discussion of morality instead. At that point, I could either respond to what other people were actually posting and try to steer the thread back in a legal direction or I could keep discussing only legal issues and have other people (quite reasonably and correctly) complain that I wasn’t responding to what they were actually saying.

@Jophiel

I read the law and see that it doesn’t make creation/distribution of deepfakes a singularly prosecutable offense, only if they are being used in the commission of another crime. The maximum penalty is five years/$30,000.

I had also hoped that a Doper with legal skills would come in and help explain what the law actually says. As I said above

@DocCathode

I have read the linked text many times now. I am not sure which interpretation is correct.

I know what the segment on the local news said the law does. I know what Governor Murphy said the law does. These may or not be what the law actually does as written.

@Jophiel

By the way, the penalty for aggravated sexual assault in New Jersey is 5-20 years and up to $150,000 so I don’t see any value in trying to say this somehow makes rape “cheaper” or otherwise comparing the two since there’s no attempt at equivalence between the two laws.

I’m not sure who you are responding to here.

On Preview

@MrDibble

Avoidance of answering the actual question asked of you (to expand on what you meant by “whole bunch of things”), noted.

That was most certainly not the question asked of me.

@MrDibble

That’s awfully nonspecific - I’d love to know exactly what kind of things you’re comparing sexual violation to, there.

I answered truthfully. I am not comparing anything to sexual violation. I did not say anything about sexual violation at all.

@DocCathode

Yes deep fakes can be harmful. So can a whole bunch of other things that are still legal.

I said “harmful”. If you had asked me something like ‘What other forms of legal speech do you consider harmful?’ I would have answered

In no particular order and just off the top of my head-

Fox News- Yes almost every news source has a slant. Fox News has an extreme slant and then claims to be reporting only the truth and unaltered facts. I remember when the channel started. Their slogan was “Fair And Balanced” Yes, they have lost court cases. They are still on the air.

Ads for Neuriva, Prevagen and the entire supplement industry. They are very careful to tiptoe to the very edge of being legal, but never go over it. They mislead with terms like “clinically researched”. They say “help” and “support”. I lost respect for Miayim Bialik when she endorsed one as a somebody with a degree in neurobiology.

St0rmfr0nt- A whole bunch of haters getting together and hating online

Again, those are just a few that spring to mind.

[Jophiel]

@DocCathode

I had hoped the thread would go in more legal direction. It went into a discussion of morality instead.

Ok, but me saying “I haven’t seen you discuss the law” was, indeed, your opening to discuss the law. Would you like to discuss the law? Consider this your invitation. What specifically do you dislike about this law?

I don’t see any “at odds” about what the law does. The language is very plain:

A natural person commits a crime of the third degree if, without license or privilege to do so, the person generates or creates, or causes to be generated or created, a work of deceptive audio or visual media with the intent that it be used as part of a plan or course of conduct to commit any crime or offense, including but not limited to:

You are committing a crime if you create (directly or via prompting a 3rd party) fake media with the intent of using it in the commission of a crime. There isn’t a ton of grey area in that. You said the language was “at odds” with a statement from LSLGuy but he wasn’t, as far as I can tell, talking about the specific wording of the NJ law and just giving general opinions on whether laws against AI fakes was a good idea.

[MrDibble]

@DocCathode

That was most certainly not the question asked of me.

The question is “what kind of ‘things’”[you were talking about], the rest is gloss.

Anyway, let’s see what you’re talking about…

@DocCathode

Fox News

@DocCathode

Ads for Neuriva, Prevagen and the entire supplement industry.

@DocCathode

St0rmfr0nt-

You’re comparing actual sexual violation to a shady news service, shady advertising and a struggling hate website? That’s incredibly weak sauce.

@DocCathode

I could keep discussing only legal issues

Your supposed upside to the law wasn’t a “legal issue”, so you’ve been discussing more than just that from the OP.

[DocCathode]

@MrDibble

You’re comparing actual sexual violation to a shady news service, shady advertising and a struggling hate website? That’s incredibly weak sauce.

Again, I didn’t say anything about sexual violation. I said “harmful”.

@Jophiel

You are committing a crime if you create (directly or via prompting a 3rd party) fake media with the intent of using it in the commission of a crime. There isn’t a ton of grey area in that. You said the language was “at odds” with a statement from LSLGuy but he wasn’t, as far as I can tell, talking about the specific wording of the NJ law and just giving general opinions on whether laws against AI fakes was a good idea.

I can understand parts of the law. I cannot understand the entire text. I am genuinely unclear what some parts of it say, and whether or not the details in them are significant to the parts I think I understand. That is one of the reasons i wanted to discuss it.

[Jophiel]

@DocCathode

I am genuinely unclear what some parts of it say, and whether or not the details in them are significant to the parts I think I understand.

Such as?

I’m a little confused because you keep saying you want to discuss the law but you keep… not discussing the law, just talking about how you want to discuss the law.

I’m also not really sure how you can say it’s a bad law if you’re not sure what it says or how it functions.

[MrDibble]

@DocCathode

Again, I didn’t say anything about sexual violation

No, I did. That’s, in fact, the point. Deepfake porn is sexual violation.

Isn’t it?

[DocCathode]

@Jophiel

Such as?

Actually, I think I understand it now. It didn’t help that the local news report gave the impression that the law made the creation of deep fakes a crime in and of itself. I kept looking for that in the text, and not seeing it. I assumed I was missing something in the text or misunderstanding what I did see.

Taking a look at the article on Governor Murphy’s page that I linked to in the OP

Governor Murphy Signs Bipartisan Legislation Establishing Civil and Criminal Penalties for Deceptive AI Deepfakes

While a phrase like “in furtherance of a criminal act” would be much too long to add to the headline, they could have gone with words that do not make it sound like the very creation of deep fakes has been criminalized.

Moving on to the start of the article

NEWARK — Governor Phil Murphy today signed A3540/S2544, establishing civil and criminal penalties for the production and dissemination of deceptive audio or visual media, commonly known as “deepfakes.” The Governor was joined by Lieutenant Governor Tahesha Way, Attorney General Matt Platkin, and Westfield High School junior and advocate Francesca Mani.

Yeah, that definitely sounds like just creating them is now illegal.

What the law actually does is only mentioned briefly, about halfway down the page.

Under the provisions of this law, individuals making or distributing deceptive audio or visual media for the furtherance of additional criminal activity are committing a crime of the third degree and may be subject to imprisonment and a fine of up to $30,000.

I finally realize that sentence is the correct one. So making a deep fake is legal. Sharing it with others is always legal if some form of disclaimer ‘This is an AI generated image and does not depict an actual event’. If you create a deep fake and pass it off as an actual photographic image, you are probably committing a criminal act under this law. In between those two is some grey area that I am not certain of.

@Jophiel

I’m a little confused because you keep saying you want to discuss the law but you keep… not discussing the law, just talking about how you want to discuss the law.

If I had absolute control of this thread, this would not be an issue. I don’t. So it is an issue. Unless a post is so thoroughly off topic that I can report it as a hijack, it will remain in this thread. If I do not address the points and questions in that post, odds are that poster will just keep repeating them until I do. I know I would. So, the only thing I can do is respond and try to nudge things back the way I want them.

@Jophiel

I’m also not really sure how you can say it’s a bad law if you’re not sure what it says or how it functions.

I find this to be a very valid point. The answer is that I thought from the report on the local news, and Governor Murphy’s page that I had at least a layman’s understanding of the law. I posted the text thinking that the law had been reported accurately and this was just the fine print. Now that I finally understand the text of the law, I have lost whatever faith in the media I had remaining. The report on the news, and the article I linked to were misleading.

And now to one of those posts I mentioned before

@MrDibble

No, I did. That’s, in fact, the point. Deepfake porn is sexual violation.

Isn’t it?

Technically it is. IIRC Technically chickens are dinosaurs.

Obviously you feel that it qualifies on more than that basis. You have previously described it as “sexual violence”. I’m not sure what else to say here. With the term “sexual violation” I can at least see and I think understand your side. But, I think on this matter that is the best we can reasonably hope for.

[Jophiel]

@DocCathode

So making a deep fake is legal. Sharing it with others is always legal if some form of disclaimer ‘This is an AI generated image and does not depict an actual event’. If you create a deep fake and pass it off as an actual photographic image, you are probably committing a criminal act under this law.

No, not really. Making a deepfake is fine. Passing it off as a real image is fine if you’re not doing so as part of committing a crime. If I make a photo of myself with Elon Musk and tell people “Look, I hung out with Elon Musk!” then that’s perfectly legal despite being a lie. If I use that photo to convince people to invest in my company because I claim to have the support of Elon Musk (“Here I am hanging out with him!”), then I am committing fraud and my use of the photo can lead to additional charges. Or if my defrauded investors pursue civil charges, I may be hit with additional fines.

Interestingly, it just mentions license or privilege to create such media. I don’t have a license or permission to use Musk’s image. But I could use AI to generate a bunch of fake images of factories and tell investors that my West Nowherestan factories are well underway and the time to invest in them is now. I would still be committing fraud but the AI fake portion wouldn’t play into it since I don’t need permission to make fake factory photos.

In the case of nudes, ethics aside, making fake nudes of Becky the Barista is legal. Showing them to my friend and claiming that Becky and I had sex is weird and scummy but also legal. Until it reaches the point of legal harassment, I’m not breaking the law just because I made a fake photo and lied about it to someone. I’m not invested enough to look up NJ harassment laws but there’s your boundary for when my creation/distribution of those photos becomes a crime.

@DocCathode

If I do not address the points and questions in that post, odds are that poster will just keep repeating them until I do.

You do, however, have the power to speak beyond just answering other people’s points. “Hey, that’s all well and good but I also want to know why [stuff explicitly about the law goes here]…”

Do you still think it’s a terrible law? If so, why?