There is a tendency to confuse digital manipulation of images with Artificial Intelligence (AI). They are not the same thing. AI involves the extrapolation and creative application of data without the direct intervention of humans.
Thank you for calling attention to this. This feels like such an obvious perversion of consent and autonomy. Whether the images are real or not—or whether digitally manipulated or created by AI—no longer matters if technology is good enough to make us believe the images might be real, good enough that the people consuming the images don’t care if it’s fake because it looks real enough, good enough to violate the privacy and safety of the affected real world person.
It would great to take the bull by the horns here and promote a universal law of body autonomy. The universal law of body autonomy would protect your right to your body (against rape, circumcision, anyone other than yourself determining your gender, and much more), your right to be as dressed or as nude as you want, and also your right to use the image of your body, like a copyright. If someone else steals your image then it could be criminalized like a copyright violation or worse.
Oh yes! I would totally support this kind of legislation all the way. However, it would have to contend with the current US Supreme Court Ruling that public figures by nature of them being public figures are fair game under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. What we need is a ruling either by the court or by the legislature that protects a person's right to privacy. That will reverse the court's decision and also solve a ton of other issues as well.
Problem is that there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution. There is, however, a mention of property. If a person keeps their nude image private, I could reasonably infer that the image is their property. A digital spoof could be considered vandalism or even forgery. Not saying SCOTUS would, but it could.
It could also be considered a form of slander/libel but that is vulnerable to current jurisprudence. You get to digitally strip public figures but the rest of us would be protected. There are apps out now that use AI to digitally strip anyone in a photo.
Good luck on getting the legislature to pass anything useful.
True, But I do not believe the Constitution is set in stone forever. I am not an originalist and neither were the Framers. There is a reason they put the elasticity clause in the document. They were smart enough to know in the future we would need to stretch it if needed to. The Bill or Rights also says that simply because some rights are not explicitly written in the bill, doesn't mean that we don't have them. The country was created by geniuses, so it could be run by idiots. Not having a reference to privacy in the 21st century is causing all kinds of problems.
"The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
That isn't considered very elastic. The powers are specifically enumerated. Congress can only pass laws necessary and proper for the enumerated powers. If they can pass laws not related to enumerated powers, there is no point in having enumeration. Flexibility exists in the amendment process, the 9th and 10th amendments, and the powers of the several states to pass laws not prohibited by the Constitution. The Interstate Commerce Clause has also been used to stretch Federal power, often IMHO, stretched too far. Ditto with the power to tax.
There is even question as to how far governmental agencies can regulate without a specific act of Congress, even if Congress delegated generic authority to do so.
The courts have been extremely reticent to use the 9th amendment. It is the only possible justification for Roe v. Wade, yet they never mentioned it. Every court's position has been that it could only be used for "rights" that are traditionally and universally exercised but not mentioned. Given that nobody would dare to offend such rights, even if not specifically protected, It is considered close to moot.
As helpful as this is, it's also a strong comment on how abused this kind of technology will be... given that the volume and severity was enough to enact legislation before AI advances.
The problem is that it's hard to put the genie back in the lamp. Even with legislation that has teeth, we really need to set and vocalize standards to change the tide. I would think that as naturists, this would be something we would want to be on the forefront of, given we don't want nudity to be associated with lewdness. 🤷♀️
Pandora's box has been opened with the invention of this kind of technology. If I had my way, it would never have seen the light of day. I agree with you. We should be at the forefront of this because we risk completely losing the story of the benefits of nudity for self, others, and the environment because of it. No one is going to have a positive outlook on nudity if it is continuously associated with lewdness, perversion, and deviant behavior, which AI will only increase.
We've lost too much ground already because we've allowed others to dictate the story. Story is the single most powerful thing our species has. It's the only way we can get massive amounts of humans to cooperate. We need to reclaim the story.
Yes! And it's been such a powerful symbol for activism in the past, I have to believe there still is power in it. That there's a story to tell that can help others.
A person ought to have a right to not have their image misrepresented without any further legislation. Some variety of slander or libel. But there are people who would object to this because they think its perfectly okay to do it to someone they don't like. How many times have I seen a digitally nude Trump be used in political cartoons? If you can do it to Trump, you can do it to Taylor.
I don't agree that Trump and Taylor is the same. The distance between a political cartoon and pornography is at least as big as the distance from the east coast to the west coast.
A good quote to put it in context: "What men fear most about going to prison is what women fear most walking down the sidewalk." Just because women's bodies have been normalized in some way to be sexualized does not make it right, acceptable or comparable to a cartoon, which is usually exaggerated and nonsexual.
For this and other reasons, I am worried about the way we can manipulate images, put words in peoples' mouths, and manipulate each other (mostly get manipulated). I don't know what to do about this, though.
There is a tendency to confuse digital manipulation of images with Artificial Intelligence (AI). They are not the same thing. AI involves the extrapolation and creative application of data without the direct intervention of humans.
Thank you for calling attention to this. This feels like such an obvious perversion of consent and autonomy. Whether the images are real or not—or whether digitally manipulated or created by AI—no longer matters if technology is good enough to make us believe the images might be real, good enough that the people consuming the images don’t care if it’s fake because it looks real enough, good enough to violate the privacy and safety of the affected real world person.
Precisely.
It would great to take the bull by the horns here and promote a universal law of body autonomy. The universal law of body autonomy would protect your right to your body (against rape, circumcision, anyone other than yourself determining your gender, and much more), your right to be as dressed or as nude as you want, and also your right to use the image of your body, like a copyright. If someone else steals your image then it could be criminalized like a copyright violation or worse.
Now this is some legislation I could get behind
$83M of worse, please. 🙏
Oh yes! I would totally support this kind of legislation all the way. However, it would have to contend with the current US Supreme Court Ruling that public figures by nature of them being public figures are fair game under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. What we need is a ruling either by the court or by the legislature that protects a person's right to privacy. That will reverse the court's decision and also solve a ton of other issues as well.
Problem is that there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution. There is, however, a mention of property. If a person keeps their nude image private, I could reasonably infer that the image is their property. A digital spoof could be considered vandalism or even forgery. Not saying SCOTUS would, but it could.
It could also be considered a form of slander/libel but that is vulnerable to current jurisprudence. You get to digitally strip public figures but the rest of us would be protected. There are apps out now that use AI to digitally strip anyone in a photo.
Good luck on getting the legislature to pass anything useful.
True, But I do not believe the Constitution is set in stone forever. I am not an originalist and neither were the Framers. There is a reason they put the elasticity clause in the document. They were smart enough to know in the future we would need to stretch it if needed to. The Bill or Rights also says that simply because some rights are not explicitly written in the bill, doesn't mean that we don't have them. The country was created by geniuses, so it could be run by idiots. Not having a reference to privacy in the 21st century is causing all kinds of problems.
"The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
That isn't considered very elastic. The powers are specifically enumerated. Congress can only pass laws necessary and proper for the enumerated powers. If they can pass laws not related to enumerated powers, there is no point in having enumeration. Flexibility exists in the amendment process, the 9th and 10th amendments, and the powers of the several states to pass laws not prohibited by the Constitution. The Interstate Commerce Clause has also been used to stretch Federal power, often IMHO, stretched too far. Ditto with the power to tax.
There is even question as to how far governmental agencies can regulate without a specific act of Congress, even if Congress delegated generic authority to do so.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1224939610/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine
The courts have been extremely reticent to use the 9th amendment. It is the only possible justification for Roe v. Wade, yet they never mentioned it. Every court's position has been that it could only be used for "rights" that are traditionally and universally exercised but not mentioned. Given that nobody would dare to offend such rights, even if not specifically protected, It is considered close to moot.
Revenge porn laws have been passed in most states, which this should fall under: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/sep/29/legal-protections-revenge-porn-victims-work-erick-adame.
As helpful as this is, it's also a strong comment on how abused this kind of technology will be... given that the volume and severity was enough to enact legislation before AI advances.
The problem is that it's hard to put the genie back in the lamp. Even with legislation that has teeth, we really need to set and vocalize standards to change the tide. I would think that as naturists, this would be something we would want to be on the forefront of, given we don't want nudity to be associated with lewdness. 🤷♀️
Pandora's box has been opened with the invention of this kind of technology. If I had my way, it would never have seen the light of day. I agree with you. We should be at the forefront of this because we risk completely losing the story of the benefits of nudity for self, others, and the environment because of it. No one is going to have a positive outlook on nudity if it is continuously associated with lewdness, perversion, and deviant behavior, which AI will only increase.
We've lost too much ground already because we've allowed others to dictate the story. Story is the single most powerful thing our species has. It's the only way we can get massive amounts of humans to cooperate. We need to reclaim the story.
Yes! And it's been such a powerful symbol for activism in the past, I have to believe there still is power in it. That there's a story to tell that can help others.
A person ought to have a right to not have their image misrepresented without any further legislation. Some variety of slander or libel. But there are people who would object to this because they think its perfectly okay to do it to someone they don't like. How many times have I seen a digitally nude Trump be used in political cartoons? If you can do it to Trump, you can do it to Taylor.
Bravo to her for flipping them the musical bird.
I don't agree that Trump and Taylor is the same. The distance between a political cartoon and pornography is at least as big as the distance from the east coast to the west coast.
A good quote to put it in context: "What men fear most about going to prison is what women fear most walking down the sidewalk." Just because women's bodies have been normalized in some way to be sexualized does not make it right, acceptable or comparable to a cartoon, which is usually exaggerated and nonsexual.
For this and other reasons, I am worried about the way we can manipulate images, put words in peoples' mouths, and manipulate each other (mostly get manipulated). I don't know what to do about this, though.