Rep. Joe Morelle, D.-N.Y., appeared with a New Jersey high school victim of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes to discuss a bill stalled in the House.

  • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    (d) Limitations.—For purposes of this section, a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be held liable on account of—

    “(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of intimate digital depictions; or

    “(2) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or other persons the technical means to restrict access to intimate digital depictions.

    I appreciate your reading into the text. I am not a lawyer so it isn’t always clear how to read the legal language crafted into these bills. Since the quoted part of the law is under the criminal penalty section of the bill, I read it as releasing the service provider from criminal liability if they try to stop the distribution of it. I see your point as how you read it and that makes sense to me

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, expressions can have meanings that are unclear to non-experts, like reckless disregard. It means specific things in the context of specific laws and I can’t guess how it should be interpreted here.


      shall not be held liable on account of any action taken

      1. to restrict access.

      2. to make available the technical means to restrict access.

      I took some words out to improve readability.

      I believe the second one is for, EG, someone making a database of banned material, so that it can be filtered automatically on upload. Or if someone uses those images to train an AI to recognize fakes. For that purpose it will be necessary to “disclose” (IE distribute) the images to the people working on it; perhaps an outside company.