How do you propose AI figure out based on a movie that the person in the movie consented to the making of the movie, but not to distribution afterwards? I would suggest even a skilled human cannot do that.
Perhaps it could run facial analysis, find the social media accounts of the person and check the messages. Cross reference with messages of friend and old boyfriends mentioned on e.g. FB relationship status. Run some sentiment analysis towards possible SO's to see if there are bad intentions involved.
joking now, twenty years or less from now we might not be so sure. when everything is water marked so it can be tracked computers will have an easier time of sorting it out.
I believe that you're joking, but essentially the same concept -- the idea that someone's public-facing behavior is evidence of what they've consented to in private -- is sadly, disturbingly prevalent in sexual assault cases.
Afaics this is because there are no other forms of evidence available in sexual assault cases where what's being contested is consent. Two people have had sex, but testify differently over whether one of them said "yes". How do you figure out which one is telling the truth? I know it's very distressing for the victim, but if we keep "innocent until proven guilty" while making circumstantial evidence inadmissible then I don't see how anyone could ever be successfully prosecuted for this kind of assault
Probably illegal, depending on the exact circumstances.
"a photograph or film is disclosed if it, or any data or other thing which is capable of being converted into it, is given, shown or made available to a person other than B."
From a quick reading, you can't just have it, you have to have consent to show it or a really solid reason why it had to be shown (such as in relation to another investigation, like this was the only photo that was proof)
So no, showing off someone's private pics you took if they did not consent that you could show them would be considered illegal under this. Basically the law codifies the transaction of intimate pictures
Relevent section:
(1)A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (“B”) in an intimate situation,
(b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distress, and
(c)the photograph or film has not previously been disclosed to the public at large, or any section of the public, by B or with B’s consent.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a photograph or film is disclosed if it, or any data or other thing which is capable of being converted into it, is given, shown or made available to a person other than B.
(3)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), A has a defence if any of the following facts is established—
(a)B consented to the photograph or film being disclosed,
(b)A reasonably believed that B consented to the photograph or film being disclosed,
(c)A reasonably believed that disclosure of the photograph or film was necessary for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of crime, or
(d)A reasonably believed that disclosure of the photograph or film was in the public interest.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), consent to the photograph or film being disclosed may be—
(a)consent which is specific to the particular disclosure or (as the case may be) the particular threatened disclosure, or
(b)consent to disclosure generally where that consent covers the particular disclosure or (as the case may be) the particular threatened disclosure.
In the UK (and most of the EU for that matter) disclosing private information to a third party without permission is a tort; i.e. it is a form of injury to the first party, and the first party can approach the courts to seek redress. In some circumstances it can also be a criminal offence.
this is interesting. say someone accidentally sent a private picture of themselves to a group chat is it then illegal for someone in this group to share the picture a third party? likewise if someone accidentally sent a private picture to an individual is it then illegal for that individual to share the picture with a third party?
edit: just noticed there is an intent requirement in the law as well.
Stupid censorship. The only thing that should make "revenge porn" illegal is the copyright issue of the people who share this material not having the copyright.
You should leave these kind of issues to the people without Asperger's to take care of. I understand that some people lack social awareness, but I don't understand people who refuse to acknowledge that they have no say on the matter because of, let's say, a certain kind of incompetence.
So you'd be okay with a(n ex) partner posting intimate pictures and/or videos of you online for the whole world to see? Without you saying it's okay? Your face totally visible? Many wouldn't. It can be life-ruining.
I wouldn't send intimate pictures to anyone in the first place, because that goes against what I find moral. I respect others' choice to engage in these things, but the last thing we need is more laws that can get people locked up for posting pictures online, when there was already a perfectly usable law in place (copyright).
Firstly, the copyright of the pictures is almost always likely to reside with the person taking the pictures who is often the one sharing them.
Secondly, in many/most jurisdictions many/most forms of copyright violation fall under civil, not criminal law. However, this is a criminal act and the penalty should be much higher.
What? This is not a simple copyright violation this is a sexual violation. I don't want to see someone go to jail for uploading a movie, fines are a sufficient punishment. But if you expose someone online like this you're not reducing their profits you're deeply injuring a person that once trusted you. There is little hope of ever removing a photo like this once in the public internet, these women need all the protection the law can give.
Rubbish. Copyright rests with the photographer. That's going to be the person uploading, not the person in the photo. In the case of an abusive relationship consent to be photographed probably doesn't exist either (and is not relevant for copyright as I understand)
In the case of photos of two or more copyright becomes even more inappropriate.
Given some of the news pieces about revenge porn, from both sides of the Atlantic, this seems a very sensible addition.
How do you define "violence" ? According to [0] I would have thought that sharing intimate pictures could very well be psychologically harmful and therefore would be a form of abuse. While I'm not sure what the legal definition of violence is (different per country I imagine) I'd imagine that abuse is a kind of violence.
Besides anything else, surely a basic moral compass suggests this is wrong, and on a different part of the spectrum to "copyright infringement"
There's such a thing as "Psychological violence". Violence is not just punches and kicks.
In fact pshycial force is only one of several definitions of violence in the dictionary ("rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment") which also includes things such as: "roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent" and "intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme" for "violence".
> There's such a thing as "Psychological violence".
That's a dishonest redefining of a word. The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.
What redefinition? Just look at modern definitions of violence, for example that of the World Health Organization. That definition has been around for ages, and is rather uncontroversial, unlike you seem to suggest.
And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence.
>And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence.
Heck, even back to the very etymology of the word from latin it means both "vehement" (showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense) and exerting strong physical force.
Check a dictionary for "violence". You'll find several lemmas unrelated to force and beating. Also Google for "psychological violence", "emotional violence" etc. You'll find it's a common use.
>* The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.*
People have been using the word "violence" for non-physical for centuries, it's not some sudden "motivation" that causes this.
It makes sense to use the term for something like exposing an ex-girlfriend's/wife's naked photographs on the world.
I don't think many would find the practice acceptable in the first place, for there to be any need to classify it as "violence" to convince people it's bad.
It's emotional violence. It's effectively a sexual assault by voyeurism that can be re-committed each time the image is viewed and amplified each time it's passed around. In the typical case of an image being passed around a school, the victim feels sexually assaulted by literally everyone they know, and may face sexist administrative consequences as well, and often dies by suicide.
I honestly find it disturbing you don't see that or don't care.
Modern society and the law, seeing women as particularly vulnerable and in need of protection, recognize forms of violence against women that need not involve physical contact or threat of physical contact. Calling a woman a "bitch" can, in some cases, be considered violence against her because it is implicitly threatening.
So you're a respected member of this community, a highly intelligent and rational programmer dude with 16k karma.
And you want us to believe you sincerely think calling someone a fag constitutes a "hate crime", even though the term is nebulous enough to be meaningless?
It's always nice to have one's karma-farming efforts noticed and appreciated. I'm saving up for my trip to Alaska.
As a programmer I've made my peace with the nebulousness of terms involving humans. People are made from language, and our core beliefs are abstract nouns.
It's a crime like speeding on the highway: only a tiny fraction of the incidents might ever make it to prosecution, but occasionally it gets people killed. So people should bear that in mind and choose not to do it.
>People are made from language, and our core beliefs are abstract nouns.
People are made of the cybernetics of language, environment, sensual stimuli, calculation, and reflexes. Our core beliefs are mostly evolved strategies and tools for navigating a world that has rapidly changed from that evolutionary environment.
With that said, how is a hate crime...a crime? It's ridiculous to expect a tribal OS to abandon its tribal software to such a level that it computes things either as a maximiizing solitary agent or an agent who considers all other agents as equal utlity, despite information suggesting otherwise.
That's honestly a ridiculous onus to put on people, especially those we would consider "the majority". The greater danger is giving government another vague blankish check to react to the demands of the idiocy of a society that doesn't look for things to think about but instead for things to feel about. Which is a fucking horrible basis to start trying to formulate laws and regulations.
I trust the mendacity of government (and most human hierarchies in general) far more than I trust the ability of civil servants to follow a spirit of the law as opposed to disavowing liability by adopting legalistic attitudes.
> As a programmer I've made my peace with the nebulousness of terms involving humans.
But that implies you're fine with my identity as a human being getting nebulified, which constitutes a "snoosnoo crime" and violence against me.
Nevermind that a "snoosnoo crime" doesn't mean anything, because it means whatever I want it to mean and that's good enough for me.
All that matters with regard to you and your hateful snoosnoo crime is that it's a serious affront to my humanity, and you need to be locked up for committing it.
You, Sir, are a hateful, violent criminal! I demand justice!
So if it's not violence...why is it illegal and why should it carry a serious jail sentence?
Everytime you ask the law to regulate something, you open the jar of unintended consequences.
You complain about the government and yet you want to give them more power and responsibility.
Honestly, this revenge porn shit is a moral hysteria that's one of the many tools of spectacle. If this much hysteria were used for something like "Make sure daytime workers receive 30 minutes of sunlight light a day", it'd probably be more effective towards human happiness and productivity.
Besides the points other people made, I would also like to add that the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, not the model. That's why there are laws protecting a model's rights and protecting people's privacy in addition to copyright.
Is all revenge porn barred under the law or are there circumstances to take into account? If your longtime spouse cheats on you, turns your world upside, and further abandons you, is not revenge porn some people's last power they have to (equally immorally) strike back?
I don't know if the law should be written to allow people to "strike back". Self defence is one thing but revenge is not a good justification. If you allow revenge for one action where do you
draw the line? After generations everyone would have cause to "strike back" at someone.
Cheating is not. It's certainly a valid reason to end a relationship but you do not have a right to another person's affection. If they behave like a jerk, walk away.
The sorts of mentalities that see cheating as a crime, do that because they see women as self-stealing property or disobedient chattels. They are in other words disgustingly abusive, controlling and sexist. In this case it is the anger against the cheating, not the cheating itself, that is the violence.
Exactly. Furthermore, the law does not delineate what is right and what is wrong; that is a moral issue. It is a "best effort." The absence of legal ramifications does not mean that something is morally acceptable.
Many people agree that revenge porn is wrong, which is why the law (as the lowest common denominator) now reflects that sentiment.
So "revenge porn" is bad because it hurts people's feeling
No, because it is harmful. It harms a person's reputation. It also violates a person's privacy.
But cheating on someone shouldn't be criminalized even though it hurts at least as much
This is a false choice.
Society has decided that punishing people for cheating is a stupid idea. Society has also decided that punishing people for tax fraud is a good idea. These things are both completely irrelevant to any laws on revenge porn.
Cheating on people is harmful too. It often results in broken homes and marriages, which is harmful to children's development and well-being.
So by that logic, cheating should be illegal too.
By the way, society hasn't decided anything because it's not a sentient being.
The politicians running our governments have decided that punishing people for "tax fraud" is a great idea, mostly because they don't want people to stop paying taxes.. which everyone would do right away if there was no punishment for disobedience.
Perhaps it's time for law makers to think about going after those who profit by hosting these images? I'd much rather see resources spent taking these guys down, over going after the likes of Mega.
A useful step. It's worth carefully parsing this section:
"(5)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), A has a defence if the following matter is established—
(a)B was in the intimate situation shown in the photograph or film,
(b)B was not in the intimate situation as a result of a deliberate act of another person to which B did not agree, and
(c)when B was in the intimate situation—
(i)B was in a place to which members of the public had access (whether or not on payment of a fee), and
(ii)members of the public were present."
.. which is kind of clunkily worded, but seems to be there to provide a defence for people taking photos of those voluntarily exposing themselves in public. I'm not quite sure how this will be applied to tabloid telescopic voyeurism. A sufficiently aggressive prosecutor could either kill the Daily Mail overnight or force them to admit that most of their "snaps" are in fact staged publicity.
I listened to the story of Chrissy. My takeaway is "Before drinking until blacking out make sure you are in the right company!" People may change so practically there is no such thing as "right company"...
hi, am Anderson, i had my friend help me hack my ex's email, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was a his phone number. he's email is (cyberlord7714@gmail.com)..IF u need help tell him Anderson referred you to him and he'll help. Am sure his going to help you do it, good luck
73 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadTechnology how to detect these type of content using AI - that could be a tech news, not merely a fact of some angry ex uploading naughty pics.
I am joking, of course.
(Besides which, Hacker News is not just for tech news. Read the guidelines.)
The law relates to "a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (“B”) in an intimate situation,"
which is further defined:
"a person is in an “intimate situation” if—
(a)the person is engaging or participating in, or present during, an act which—
(i)a reasonable person would consider to be a sexual act, and
(ii)is not of a kind ordinarily done in public, or
(b)the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear."
How about this. Would you be comfortable with someone who had an intimate/sexual photo of you sharing it around?
Don't be shitty to other people. Why is this hard?
Probably illegal, depending on the exact circumstances.
"a photograph or film is disclosed if it, or any data or other thing which is capable of being converted into it, is given, shown or made available to a person other than B."
From a quick reading, you can't just have it, you have to have consent to show it or a really solid reason why it had to be shown (such as in relation to another investigation, like this was the only photo that was proof)
So no, showing off someone's private pics you took if they did not consent that you could show them would be considered illegal under this. Basically the law codifies the transaction of intimate pictures
Relevent section: (1)A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (“B”) in an intimate situation,
(b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distress, and
(c)the photograph or film has not previously been disclosed to the public at large, or any section of the public, by B or with B’s consent.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a photograph or film is disclosed if it, or any data or other thing which is capable of being converted into it, is given, shown or made available to a person other than B.
(3)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), A has a defence if any of the following facts is established—
(a)B consented to the photograph or film being disclosed,
(b)A reasonably believed that B consented to the photograph or film being disclosed,
(c)A reasonably believed that disclosure of the photograph or film was necessary for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of crime, or
(d)A reasonably believed that disclosure of the photograph or film was in the public interest.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), consent to the photograph or film being disclosed may be—
(a)consent which is specific to the particular disclosure or (as the case may be) the particular threatened disclosure, or
(b)consent to disclosure generally where that consent covers the particular disclosure or (as the case may be) the particular threatened disclosure.
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/enacted
edit: just noticed there is an intent requirement in the law as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Firstly, the copyright of the pictures is almost always likely to reside with the person taking the pictures who is often the one sharing them.
Secondly, in many/most jurisdictions many/most forms of copyright violation fall under civil, not criminal law. However, this is a criminal act and the penalty should be much higher.
Your girl/boyfriend takes a photo of you nude. Then they post it online without your consent. Are you okay with this?
In the case of photos of two or more copyright becomes even more inappropriate.
Given some of the news pieces about revenge porn, from both sides of the Atlantic, this seems a very sensible addition.
Besides anything else, surely a basic moral compass suggests this is wrong, and on a different part of the spectrum to "copyright infringement"
[0] http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/psychological-abuse/
In fact pshycial force is only one of several definitions of violence in the dictionary ("rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment") which also includes things such as: "roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent" and "intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme" for "violence".
That's a dishonest redefining of a word. The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.
And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence.
Heck, even back to the very etymology of the word from latin it means both "vehement" (showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense) and exerting strong physical force.
It's neither dishonest nor redefinition.
Check a dictionary for "violence". You'll find several lemmas unrelated to force and beating. Also Google for "psychological violence", "emotional violence" etc. You'll find it's a common use.
>* The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.*
People have been using the word "violence" for non-physical for centuries, it's not some sudden "motivation" that causes this.
It makes sense to use the term for something like exposing an ex-girlfriend's/wife's naked photographs on the world.
I don't think many would find the practice acceptable in the first place, for there to be any need to classify it as "violence" to convince people it's bad.
I honestly find it disturbing you don't see that or don't care.
What about men then? No one would take you seriously if you said the same thing about a man being called a "fag"!
But oh noes won't-you-please-think-of-the-women works every damn time!
And you want us to believe you sincerely think calling someone a fag constitutes a "hate crime", even though the term is nebulous enough to be meaningless?
Hate speech is a crime in many Western democracies outside the USA.
As a programmer I've made my peace with the nebulousness of terms involving humans. People are made from language, and our core beliefs are abstract nouns.
It's a crime like speeding on the highway: only a tiny fraction of the incidents might ever make it to prosecution, but occasionally it gets people killed. So people should bear that in mind and choose not to do it.
People are made of the cybernetics of language, environment, sensual stimuli, calculation, and reflexes. Our core beliefs are mostly evolved strategies and tools for navigating a world that has rapidly changed from that evolutionary environment.
With that said, how is a hate crime...a crime? It's ridiculous to expect a tribal OS to abandon its tribal software to such a level that it computes things either as a maximiizing solitary agent or an agent who considers all other agents as equal utlity, despite information suggesting otherwise.
That's honestly a ridiculous onus to put on people, especially those we would consider "the majority". The greater danger is giving government another vague blankish check to react to the demands of the idiocy of a society that doesn't look for things to think about but instead for things to feel about. Which is a fucking horrible basis to start trying to formulate laws and regulations.
I trust the mendacity of government (and most human hierarchies in general) far more than I trust the ability of civil servants to follow a spirit of the law as opposed to disavowing liability by adopting legalistic attitudes.
But that implies you're fine with my identity as a human being getting nebulified, which constitutes a "snoosnoo crime" and violence against me.
Nevermind that a "snoosnoo crime" doesn't mean anything, because it means whatever I want it to mean and that's good enough for me.
All that matters with regard to you and your hateful snoosnoo crime is that it's a serious affront to my humanity, and you need to be locked up for committing it.
You, Sir, are a hateful, violent criminal! I demand justice!
But it's not violence.
Everytime you ask the law to regulate something, you open the jar of unintended consequences.
You complain about the government and yet you want to give them more power and responsibility.
Honestly, this revenge porn shit is a moral hysteria that's one of the many tools of spectacle. If this much hysteria were used for something like "Make sure daytime workers receive 30 minutes of sunlight light a day", it'd probably be more effective towards human happiness and productivity.
Oh well.
All (properly) criminal activities must have a victim, but they don't have to involve physical force.
Some examples:
+ theft
+ defamation
+ espionage
But cheating on someone shouldn't be criminalized even though it hurts at least as much!
Cheating is not. It's certainly a valid reason to end a relationship but you do not have a right to another person's affection. If they behave like a jerk, walk away.
The sorts of mentalities that see cheating as a crime, do that because they see women as self-stealing property or disobedient chattels. They are in other words disgustingly abusive, controlling and sexist. In this case it is the anger against the cheating, not the cheating itself, that is the violence.
Exactly. Furthermore, the law does not delineate what is right and what is wrong; that is a moral issue. It is a "best effort." The absence of legal ramifications does not mean that something is morally acceptable.
Many people agree that revenge porn is wrong, which is why the law (as the lowest common denominator) now reflects that sentiment.
No, because it is harmful. It harms a person's reputation. It also violates a person's privacy.
But cheating on someone shouldn't be criminalized even though it hurts at least as much
This is a false choice.
Society has decided that punishing people for cheating is a stupid idea. Society has also decided that punishing people for tax fraud is a good idea. These things are both completely irrelevant to any laws on revenge porn.
So by that logic, cheating should be illegal too.
By the way, society hasn't decided anything because it's not a sentient being.
The politicians running our governments have decided that punishing people for "tax fraud" is a great idea, mostly because they don't want people to stop paying taxes.. which everyone would do right away if there was no punishment for disobedience.
"(5)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), A has a defence if the following matter is established—
(a)B was in the intimate situation shown in the photograph or film,
(b)B was not in the intimate situation as a result of a deliberate act of another person to which B did not agree, and
(c)when B was in the intimate situation—
(i)B was in a place to which members of the public had access (whether or not on payment of a fee), and
(ii)members of the public were present."
.. which is kind of clunkily worded, but seems to be there to provide a defence for people taking photos of those voluntarily exposing themselves in public. I'm not quite sure how this will be applied to tabloid telescopic voyeurism. A sufficiently aggressive prosecutor could either kill the Daily Mail overnight or force them to admit that most of their "snaps" are in fact staged publicity.