Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibibu | Hacker News Reader

You don't see a tangible difference in the detectability of the fake being a factor? The glued on photo will always be uncanny, but deepfake will not.

View on HN

A deepfake is more detectable as a fake than a good photoshop, and people have been using that for this sort of thing for decades, but ultimately it doesn't really matter. The fact is that giving children police records doesn't improve the situation in any way. These kids need education and parenting, not jail time, court dates, and a sex offender status.

> glued on photo will always be uncanny, but deepfake will not

Eh, this is still a civil matter. Unless the picture was made for the purpose of harassment, there is no ill will we can presuppose the perpetrators had towards the victim. Just immense immaturity and a lack of judgement and empathy. Judgement and empathy can be taught. (If it was done with the intent of causing distress, i.e. cruelly, it's a matter for the police.)

Did you read the article? It states they created the images and were sharing them. This 'boys will be boys' mentality contributes to these things.

> Did you read the article? It states they created the images and were sharing them.

I'd need to see more to conclude harassment, i.e. proof of intent to cause psychological harm, versus teasing without any clue about the impacts of one's actions.

> 'boys will be boys' mentality

I don't think this is equivalent. This is immature kids playing with new technology and pushing the boundaries of decency with it. Without proof of intended malice, or evidence of actual harm, it's not a matter for criminal procedure.

> proof of intent to cause psychological harm, versus teasing without any clue about the impacts of one's actions

Teasing, whether you have a clue or not, is intent to cause psychological harm.

> Without proof of intended malice, or evidence of actual harm, it's not a matter for criminal procedure.

I concur. However I think it absolutely is grounds for a civil matter.

> Teasing, whether you have a clue or not, is intent to cause psychological harm

As someone who teased and was teased, was bullied and may have crossed into bullying, I disagree. The behaviours, when done with a group, are the seeking of social approval. The victim is closer to irrelevant than targeted. Where it crosses into bullying or harassment is where the victim is germane.

> I'd need to see more to conclude harassment,

Yes, that's why invesitgations happen.

Fair enough. But this is like 1/100th of the transgression of spreading actual photos from gym class showers, which is a thing that happens quite a lot since everyone has a camera nowadays.

> spreading actual photos from gym class showers, which is a thing that happens quite a lot

Source? It's a shower. Where are you hiding the phone?

You don't hide it. You take a camera and photograph some girl or guy far down in the pecking order.

I guess the FBI might knock down my door soon after trying to Google for some report or stats about it. Just some random news articles. Maybe I overestimated the problem?

I think we can assume ill intent, the same as if they were spreading lies or real nudes (revenge porn).

Huh? Bunch of horny teens sharing fake pictures of nudes. Forgive me, but assuming ill intent is what is dangerous here.

Of classmates. The second you drag in another party who did not consent you have crossed a serious line.

> Eh, this is still a civil matter.

Well, yes, that's clearly true whether or not it is also a criminal matter.

> Unless the picture was made for the purpose of harassment, there is no ill will we can presuppose the perpetrators had towards the victim

That is almost tautologically true, but on what bases do you conclude that it is so certain as not to warrant inquiry that there was no intent to harrass?

> on what bases do you conclude that it is so certain as not to warrant inquiry that there was no intent to harrass

I conclude it is uncertain enough to warrant solely civil engagement on the basis of them being kids. Otherwise, every five year old pantsing their sibling becomes a matter for armed law enforcement.

Yeah, no, that doesn't follow. "Kids" aren't a uniform category; there's a reason that kids under 7 are generally viewed as incapable of the necessary mental capacity for criminal accountability, and between 7 and 14 there is in most states a presumption of incapacity that must be overcome in addition to the usual proof requirements for crime. So, no, you don't have to treat acts by minors in their late teens as irrefutably noncriminal without investigation to avoid considering acts by five year olds to be that way (even before considering ways that the act you suggest for the five year old was dissimilar to the one at issue for the older minors in the article, which would be another axis on which treatment could also reasonably be differentiated.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com