Laws against synthesis and other related crimes

From Stop Synthetic Filth! wiki
Revision as of 12:27, 24 March 2021 by Juho Kunsola (talk | contribs) (→‎Law on synthetic filth in California: + and an identical Senate bill was coauthored by w:California Senator w:Connie Leyva. + <ref name="OpenStates AB 602">)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Laws and their application

Law on synthetic filth in Virginia

w:Virginia, an avant-garde state. Motto "w:Sic semper tyrannis"
Homie w:Marcus Simon (marcussimon.com) is a Member of the w:Virginia House of Delegates and a true pioneer in legislating against synthetic filth.

Since July 1 2019[1] w:Virginia w:has criminalized the sale and dissemination of unauthorized synthetic pornography, but not the manufacture.[2], as § 18.2-386.2 titled 'Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.' became part of the w:Code of Virginia.

Code of Virginia (TOC) » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 8. Crimes Involving Morals and Decency » Article 5. Obscenity and Related Offenses » § 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty

The law § 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty. of Virginia is as follows:

A. Any w:person who, with the w:intent to w:coerce, w:harass, or w:intimidate, w:maliciously w:disseminates or w:sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that w:depicts another person who is totally w:nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the w:genitals, pubic area, w:buttocks, or female w:breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not w:licensed or w:authorized to disseminate or sell such w:videographic or w:still image is w:guilty of a Class 1 w:misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's w:face, w:likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic.

B. If a person uses w:services of an w:Internet service provider, an electronic mail service provider, or any other information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server in committing acts prohibited under this section, such provider shall not be held responsible for violating this section for content provided by another person.

C. Venue for a prosecution under this section may lie in the w:jurisdiction where the unlawful act occurs or where any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever is produced, reproduced, found, stored, received, or possessed in violation of this section.

D. The provisions of this section shall not preclude prosecution under any other w:statute.[2]

The identical bills were House Bill 2678 presented by w:Delegate w:Marcus Simon to the w:Virginia House of Delegates on January 14 2019 and three day later an identical Senate bill 1736 was introduced to the w:Senate of Virginia by Senator w:Adam Ebbin.


Law on synthetic filth in Texas

w:Texas, the Lone Star State has protected the political candidates, but not ordinary folk against synthetic filth.

Since September 1 2019 w:Texas senate bill SB 751 w:amendments to the election code came into effect, giving w:candidates in w:elections a 30-day protection period to the elections during which making and distributing digital look-alikes or synthetic fakes of the candidates is an offense. The law text defines the subject of the law as "a video, created with the intent to deceive, that appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not occur in reality"[3]


Law on synthetic filth in California

w:California moved later than Virginia, but it outlawed also the distribution of synthetic filth on Jan 1 2020.
Homie w:Marc Berman, a righteous fighter for our human rights in this age of industrial disinformation filth and a member of the w:California State Assembly, most loved for authoring AB-602, which came into effect on Jan 1 2020, banning both the manufacturing and w:digital distribution of synthetic pornography without the w:consent of the people depicted.

January 1 2020 [4] the w:California w:US state law AB-602 came into effect banning the manufacturing and w:digital distribution of synthetic pornography without the w:consent of the people depicted. AB-602 provides victims of synthetic pornography with w:injunctive relief and poses legal threats of w:statutory and w:punitive damages on w:criminals making or distributing synthetic pornography without consent. The bill AB-602 was signed into law by California w:Governor w:Gavin Newsom on October 3 2019 and was authored by w:California State Assembly member w:Marc Berman and an identical Senate bill was coauthored by w:California Senator w:Connie Leyva.[5][6]


The law of California is as follows:

Law on synthetic filth in China

On January 1 2020 Chinese law requiring that synthetically faked footage should bear a clear notice about its fakeness came into effect. Failure to comply could be considered a w:crime the w:Cyberspace Administration of China (cac.gov.cn) stated on its website. China announced this new law in November 2019.[7] The Chinese government seems to be reserving the right to prosecute both users and w:online video platforms failing to abide by the rules. [8]


Law on synthetic filth in the UK

The UK needs to improve its legislation. Please sign the petition initiated by Helen Mort in late 2020.
w:Helen Mort is a British poet, novelist and activist against synthetic human-like fakes. Please sign the petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org originated by her and to be delivered to the w:Law Commission (England and Wales) and the prime minister.

The UK law does not seem very up-to-date on the issue of synthetic filth.

The independent w:Law Commission (England and Wales) is currently reviewing the law as it applies to taking, making and sharing intimate images without consent. The outcome of the consultation is due to be published later in 2021.[9]

"In 2019, law expert Dr Aislinn O’Connell told w:The Independent that our current laws on image sharing are piecemeal and not fit for purpose. In October 2018 The w:Women and Equalities Committee called on the UK Government to introduce new legislation on image-based sexual abuse in order to criminalise ALL non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate sexual images."[10] This call is for similar laws as California put in place on January 1 2020.

The petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org by w:Helen Mort aims to petition the UK govt for proper legislation against synthetic filth. See the mediatheque for a video by Helen Mort on her ordeal of becoming the victim of covert disinformation attacks.


'My experience of harmful ‘deepfake’ images, a talk and poetry about w:Helen Mort's ordeal uploaded to w:Vimeo by herself on 2020-12-18


Resources and reporting on law

AI and law in general

w:Library of Congress (loc.gov) reading room

Reviews and regulation From the w:Library of Congress:

w:Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (gibsondunn.com) publishes a quarterly legal update on 'Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems'. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher is a global w:law firm, founded in Los Angeles in 1890.


From Europe

The w:European Union's Parliament's w:European Parliamentary Research Service on The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives.

Synthetic filth in the law and media

The countries that have unfortunately banned full face veil

“There are currently 16 nations that have banned the burqa (not to be confused with the hijab), including w:Tunisia,[11] w:Austria, w:Denmark, w:France, w:Belgium, w:Tajikistan, w:Latvia,[12] w:Bulgaria,[13] w:Cameroon, w:Chad, w:Congo-Brazzaville, w:Gabon, w:Netherlands,[14] w:China,[15] w:Morocco, and w:Switzerland.”

~ Wikipedia on w:Hijab by country as of 2021-03-13


Taking into consideration these times of industrial disinformation, it is vicious and uncivilized to have laws banning wearing a the full face veil in public.

Quotes on the current laws and their application

“If no-one who wants to hurt you knows what you look like, so how could someone malevolent make a covert digital look-alike of you?”

~ Juho Kunsola on The fine last line of defense with stopping power i.e. Why banning the burka, niqāb and other forms of full facial veil is not a wise, nor civilized move.



Law proposals

Law proposals to ban covert modeling by Juho Kunsola


Existing law in Chapter 24. of the Finnish Criminal Code - "Offences against privacy, public peace and personal reputation" seems to be ineffective against many synthetic human-like fake attack and seems it could be used to frame victims for crimes with digital sound-alikes.

The portions affected by or affecting the synthetic filth situation in bold font:

  • Section 1 - Invasion of domestic premises (879/2013)
  • Section 1(a) - Harassing communications (879/2013)
  • Section 2 - Aggravated invasion of domestic premises (531/2000)
  • Section 3 - Invasion of public premises (585/2005)
  • Section 4 - Aggravated invasion of public premises (531/2000)
  • Section 5 - Eavesdropping (531/2000)
  • Section 6 - Illicit observation (531/2000)
  • Section 7 - Preparation of eavesdropping or illicit observation (531/2000)
  • Section 8 - Dissemination of information violating personal privacy (879/2013)
  • Section 8(a) - Aggravated dissemination of information violating personal privacy (879/2013)
  • Section 9 - Defamation (879/2013)
  • Section 10 - Aggravated defamation (879/2013)
  • Section 11 - Definition (531/2000)
  • Section 12 - Right to bring charges (879/2013)
  • Section 13 - Corporate criminal liability (511/2011)
Subtraction of the diffuse reflection from the specular reflection. Image is scaled for luminocity. Diffuse reflection is acquired by placing polarizers in 90 degree angle and specular with 0 degree angle.

Original picture by Debevec et al. - Copyright ACM 2000 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=311779.344855

Law proposal to ban covert modeling of human voice

§1 Covert modeling of a human voice

Acquiring such a model of a human's voice, that deceptively resembles some dead or living person's voice model of human voice, possession, purchase, sale, yielding, import and export without the express consent of the target is punishable.

§2 Application of covert voice models

Producing and making available media from a covert voice model is punishable.

§3 Aggravated application of covert voice models

If produced media is for a purpose to

  • frame a human target or targets for crimes
  • to attempt extortion or
  • to defame the target,

the crime should be judged as aggravated.

Law proposal to ban covert modeling of human appearance

Obs. Should banning modeling people's appearance without explicit permission be pursued it must be formulated so that this does not make Adequate Porn Watcher AI (concept) illegal / impossible.

One would assume that collecting permissions to model each porn is not plausible, so the question is that can we ban covert modeling from non-pornographic pictures, while still retaining the ability to model all porn found on the Internet.

§1 Covert modeling of human appearance

Covertly acquiring

without without consent covert modeling of appearance is illegal. Also possession, purchase, sale, yielding, import and export of covert models are punishable.

§2 Aggravated covert modeling of human appearance

If a covert model of the head or the face is attached to a look-alike of a naked body, regardless of whether that is synthetic or of human, the crime should be judged as aggravated.

§3 Application of covert appearance models

Projection and making available media from covert models defined in §1 is punishable.


§4 Aggravated application of covert appearance models

If the projection is portrayed in a nude or sexual situation or used with the intent to frame for a crime or for blackmail, the crime should be judged as aggravated.

References

  1. ↑ "New state laws go into effect July 1".
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty". w:Virginia. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
  3. ↑ "Relating to the creation of a criminal offense for fabricating a deceptive video with intent to influence the outcome of an election". w:Texas. 2019-06-14. Retrieved 2021-01-23. In this section, "deep fake video" means a video, created with the intent to deceive, that appears to depict a real person performing an action that did not occur in reality
  4. ↑ Johnson, R.J. (2019-12-30). "Here Are the New California Laws Going Into Effect in 2020". KFI. iHeartMedia. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
  5. ↑ "AB 602 - California Assembly Bill 2019-2020 Regular Session - Depiction of individual using digital or electronic technology: sexually explicit material: cause of action". openstates.org. openstates.org. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
  6. ↑ Mihalcik, Carrie (2019-10-04). "California laws seek to crack down on deepfakes in politics and porn". w:cnet.com. w:CNET. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
  7. ↑ "China seeks to root out fake news and deepfakes with new online content rules". w:Reuters.com. w:Reuters. 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
  8. ↑ Statt, Nick (2019-11-29). "China makes it a criminal offense to publish deepfakes or fake news without disclosure". w:The Verge. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
  9. ↑ Royle, Sara (2021-01-05). "'Deepfake porn images still give me nightmares'". w:BBC Online. w:BBC. Retrieved 2021-01-31. She alerted the police to the images but was told that no action could be taken. Dr Aislinn O'Connell, a lecturer in law at Royal Holloway University of London, explained that Helen's case fell outside the current law.
  10. ↑ Mort, Helen (2020). "Change.org petition: 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images'". w:Change.org. w:Change.org. Retrieved 2021-01-31. Unlike other forms of revenge porn, creating pictures or videos like this is not yet illegal in the UK, though it is in some places in the US. The police were unable to help me.
  11. ↑ "Tunisian PM bans wearing of niqab in public institutions". Reuters. 5 July 2019. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
  12. ↑ "A European government has banned Islamic face veils despite them being worn by just three women". 21 April 2016. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
  13. ↑ Bulgaria the latest European country to ban the burqa and [niqab in public places, Smh.com.au: accessed 5 December 2016.
  14. ↑ Halasz, Stephanie; McKenzie, Sheena (27 June 2018). "The Netherlands introduces burqa ban in some public spaces" (27 June 2018). CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
  15. ↑ Phillips, Tom (13 January 2015). "China bans burqa in capital of Muslim region of Xinjiang". The Telegraph (13 January 2015). The Telegraph. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
Retrieved from "https://stop-synthetic-filth.org/w/index.php?title=Laws_against_synthesis_and_other_related_crimes&oldid=3056"