• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle







  • The reason they have to include the type of tech in the law is because that tech made it possible for unskilled bad actors to get on it

    Yeah, and that’s the part I don’t like. If you can’t define why it’s bad without taking into account the skill level of the criminal then I’m not convinced it’s bad.

    As you point out defamation is already illegal and deliberately spreading false information about someone with the intent to harm their reputation is obviously wrong and way easier to define.

    And is that not why you consider a painting less ‘bad’? Because it couldn’t be misconstrued as evidence? Note that the act explicitly says a digital forgery should be considered a forgery even when it’s made abundantly clear that it’s not authentic.



  • The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.

    And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn’t be illegal simply because it is easy.

    Deepfakes shouldn’t be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to ‘technology’ and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.