Of course it’s not legal. This is called identity theft.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Aug 05:43
nextcollapse
Using the ID, sure. But what about providing the service?
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
on 04 Aug 06:06
nextcollapse
Depends.
You can argue that it’s basically art/political speech. You’ve done it to draw attention to flaws in the approach and to highlight how ineffectual the current system is, and that if you actually wanted to do make fake IDs you’d take a much less high-profile approach. As such, there’s no actual criminal intent required.
Don’t know if a judge would buy it though.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Aug 06:09
nextcollapse
Yeah, I think the creator of this is playing with fire personally.
Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
on 04 Aug 06:15
nextcollapse
Especially a UK one.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 04 Aug 07:25
collapse
Civil disobedience is done with full knowledge you are breaking the law.
Given that many online services currently asking for ID have a proven track record of massive data leaks I’d argue that demanding people upload photos of their ID is complicity in identity theft too.
On the criminal side, It’s identity fraud, and also an offence under the Misuse of Computers Act, gaining access to a system unauthorisedly. Civilly, it’s almost certainly a violation of the ToS.
Yeah this is not worth the risk. Identity fraud of a politicians can be a serious crime. The pay off for this is a minor inconvenience for some desk worker and a few slop articles written about you.
Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk
on 04 Aug 18:26
collapse
It can be used by AI age verification tools on a bunch of websites. So yes I guess that is fraud. But these tools claim not to store the data in the verification process. If somebody could prove a made up ID was used then I suspect they’re in bigger shit for a GDPR leak.
It’s a case of mutually assured destruction: to charge someone with impersonation, they would have to admit that they saved data that was supposed to be only for age verification and then deleted.
underline960@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Aug 04:44
nextcollapse
Rather than In addition to this, they should leak all the websites that MPs are visiting.
If it’s anything like the United States, we’re sure to find some embarrassing search histories (at the very least).
“My OpenAI credits got hugged to death, please use a known postcode (like one from Keir Starmer’s constituency, WC2B6NH) in the meantime,” the author asks.
While the OSA is dumb, this is also bad design, and why applications are going to use so much power.
Cache the image creation results. Use a random address generator. This would drop the LLM use to the bare minimum.
They’re using ChatGPT for fake address generation if it even needs a cache for that part. There are plenty of libraries to do that locally. They should only need to cache generated images, which is the only thing a model would be useful for here.
threaded - newest
I’d love to hear some informed commentary on the legality of this, if it’s legal, it’s surely an oversight in the law.
Edit : just to be clear, I’m talking about creating the ID, rather than using it.
Of course it’s not legal. This is called identity theft.
Using the ID, sure. But what about providing the service?
Depends.
You can argue that it’s basically art/political speech. You’ve done it to draw attention to flaws in the approach and to highlight how ineffectual the current system is, and that if you actually wanted to do make fake IDs you’d take a much less high-profile approach. As such, there’s no actual criminal intent required.
Don’t know if a judge would buy it though.
Yeah, I think the creator of this is playing with fire personally.
Especially a UK one.
Civil disobedience is done with full knowledge you are breaking the law.
I think it would fall under forgery which is definitely illegal and doesn’t require you to use the ID.
Given that many online services currently asking for ID have a proven track record of massive data leaks I’d argue that demanding people upload photos of their ID is complicity in identity theft too.
That would be a bit harder to make stick, but I would agree.
On the criminal side, It’s identity fraud, and also an offence under the Misuse of Computers Act, gaining access to a system unauthorisedly. Civilly, it’s almost certainly a violation of the ToS.
Yeah this is not worth the risk. Identity fraud of a politicians can be a serious crime. The pay off for this is a minor inconvenience for some desk worker and a few slop articles written about you.
It can be used by AI age verification tools on a bunch of websites. So yes I guess that is fraud. But these tools claim not to store the data in the verification process. If somebody could prove a made up ID was used then I suspect they’re in bigger shit for a GDPR leak.
It’s a case of mutually assured destruction: to charge someone with impersonation, they would have to admit that they saved data that was supposed to be only for age verification and then deleted.
Rather thanIn addition to this, they should leak all the websites that MPs are visiting.If it’s anything like the United States, we’re sure to find some embarrassing search histories (at the very least).
No privacy for me. No privacy for you.
Neil Parish MP: I’m resigning after porn moment of madness
Well he did it love in the commons not surprised he’s going
While the OSA is dumb, this is also bad design, and why applications are going to use so much power.
Cache the image creation results. Use a random address generator. This would drop the LLM use to the bare minimum.
That’s…exactly what they are doing and telling you to use a known post code so you hit the cache…
They’re using ChatGPT for fake address generation if it even needs a cache for that part. There are plenty of libraries to do that locally. They should only need to cache generated images, which is the only thing a model would be useful for here.