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.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the threat AI poses to human social structures. We have yet to appreciate the gravity of what these new technologies enable. It’s incredibly dangerous yet equally naive to think that AI-generated porn laws will keep us safe.
Firstly, the cat’s out of the bag. We can ban the technology or its misuse all we like, but can we really practically stop people from computing mathematical functions? Legal or not, generative AI can and will be used to generate content that hurts people. We need better planning for identifying, authenticating, and responding when this misuse happens.
Secondly, we have an already huge, huge problem with fake news and disinformation. What is such a law for this special case of AI porn going to do for our inability to address harmful content?
It’s a shame, but it strikes me as more feel-good than actually doing something effective.
A challenge is that generally the same technology to detect ai content can be used to improve it. It’s gonna be an arms race
People said the same thing when, after the printing press, there was rampant plagiarism and reverse-plagiarism (attributing words to someone who never said them).
After a period of epistemic chaos, the result was several decades of chartered monopoly and government censorship to get it under control.
I hope we won’t need heavy-handed regulation this time around. But that will only happen if we learn from history. We need to get this under control now, while we have the chance to start a framework for protecting our fellow human beings from harm. Complaining that it’s hard is not an excuse for doing nothing.
reverse-plagiarism (attributing words to someone who never said them).
Isn’t this just called libel/slander/defamation? Which, to be fair, is overpoliced in places like Australia, Canada, etc.
Just ban any instance of generative unconsentual generative nudity, AI or not.
I just drew a stick figure of Johnny Depp and it’s indeed naked. And I’d do it again, too.
removed by mod
How different is photoshopped fakes from AI fakes? Are we going to try to bad that too?
ETA: *ban that too. Thx phone kb.
What does the method matter? If the result is an artifact that is convincing enough for the average person to believe that the subject knowingly posed for sex acts that never occurred, the personal experience and social stigma is traumatizing no matter how it was made.
As the sociologist Brooke Harrington puts it, if there was an E = mc2 of social science, it would be SD > PD, “social death is more frightening than physical death.”
What does the method matter?
That’s my point. If we’re going to ban AI fakes should we then ban ALL fakes? Where do we draw the line and how do we do that without limiting free speech? I’m not sure it is possible.
And the days of believing everything you see are over but most don’t know it yet.
You’re restricting speech whether or not you confine your censorship to only AI-generated images.
Where do we draw the line
It’s ever-changing. We’re social animals, not math equations, so it’s all according to the kind of society we want.
how do we do that without limiting free speech?
All freedoms are in tension between “freedom to” and “freedom from”. I can have the freedom to fire my gun in the air. I can have the freedom from my neighbor’s randomly-falling bullets. I can’t have both of those codified in law (unless I’m granted some special status over my neighbors).
I think that, many times, what we run into is a mismatch between a group thinking in terms of “freedom to” and a group thinking in terms of “freedom from”.
The “freedom to” folks feel like any restriction on their ability to act is a breach of liberty, because they aren’t worried about “freedom from”. If, for example, I live in the middle of nowhere and have no neighbors, what falling bullets do I have to fear except my own?
The “freedom from” folks feel like having to endure the effects of others’ actions is a breach of liberty, because they aren’t worried about “freedom to”. If I spend my life dodging falling bullets, I’m not likely to fire more into the sky.
And the days of believing everything you see are over but most don’t know it yet.
We said the same thing about the printing press. And it plunged us into a long period of epistemic chaos, with rampant plagiarism and reverse-plagiarism (attributing words to someone who never spoke them). The fallout of this led the crown to seize presses and allocate exclusive printing rights to a chartered monopoly (with some censorship just for funsies).
We can either complain it’s too hard and do nothing, eventually leading to an overreaction to a policy that is obviously not sustainable… Or we can learn from history, get our heads in the game, and start imagining a framework that embraces the transformative power of large-scale computing while respecting the humanity of our comrades.
C2PA is a good start, but it’s probably DOA in the hacker zeitgeist. We tend to view even an opt-in standard for proof of authenticity as a gateway to universal requirements for proof of authenticity and a locked-down tyrannical internet forever and ever. Possibly because a substantial portion of us are terminally online selfish assholes who never have to spend a second worrying about deepfakes of ourselves. And also fancy ourselves utilitarian techno-solutionists willing to sacrifice the squishy unquantifiable touchy-feely human emotions that just get in the way of objective rational progress towards a transhuman future. It’s a noble sacrifice, we say, while profiting disproportionately and suffering none of the fallout.
If (as it seems) the point is not impersonation but damage to the person’s honor/image, where exactly is the line?
If realism is the determining factor, what about a hyperrealistic human work? And if it is under human interpretation how realistic it should be, could a sketch be included?
A sketch would probably not convince anyone that the subject consensually participated in sex acts that never occurred.
Good question. The bill doesn’t define realistic. There’s no condition that it should fool anyone.
This definitely goes beyond AI and includes photoshops, 3d renders and any other digital art. I think it would also include hand drawn images, once they are digitized, EG by photographing them on a phone. Always provided that the depictions are in some way “realistic”.
I feel we are in need of a societal shift here, just like another commenter said about the printing press. When that first came out, the pushback was from the worry that the words would be attributed to someone who never said them (reverse plaigerism). The societal adjustment to this was the universal doubt that anyone said that thing without proof.
For generative AI, when it becomes widespread, photos will be generateable for literally everyone, not just minors but every person with photos online. It will be a societal shift; images will be assumed to be AI generated, making any guilt or shame about a nude photo existing obselete.
Just a matter of time so may as well start now!
I agree that this is probably the inevitable end result of the proliferation of the technology. The journey society is going to have to take to get to that point is going to be pretty uncomfortable though I think.
I really wonder whether this is the right move.
This girl, and many others, are victims and I don’t want to diminish that, but I for better or worse I just don’t see how legislation can resolve this.
Surely deepfakes will be just different enough to the subject to create reasonable doubt that it depicts the subject.
I wonder whether, as deep fakes become commonplace, people might be more willing to just ignore it like any other form of trolling.
My dude there are people out there thinking they’re in a relationship with Johnny fucking Depp because some Nigerian scammer sent them five badly photoshopped pictures. Step out of your bubble, maybe. This shit isn’t easy to spot for the vaaaaaast majority of people and why would this lie with the victim to sort of clear their name or hope that idiots realize it’s fake?
Especially with and around teenagers who can barely think further than their next meal?
Good lord.
WDYM “step out of your bubble”?
It’s not a question of being able to detect whether or not a video is fake. When deepfakes become so prevalent that everyone’s grandma understands that they’re prevalent, it won’t matter whether you can identify the video as fake.
Surely deepfakes will be just different enough to the subject to create reasonable doubt that it depicts the subject.
That’s a major assumption. Do people really think a school board will really consider that when a student creates a fake Only Fans of a teacher? A random University or Company doesn’t even give reason for denying an application when they see any form of online nudity? People are lazy as fuck and will just move on to the next candidate or let someone go to save their own image rather than that off the victim.
My point is, when it becomes as easy to generate deepfakes as it is to order your groceries, the question will become “why is the university searching for deepfakes of everyone”
I think you’re right if the goal is to stop them all together.
But what we can do is stop people from sending them around and saying that it’s true/actually the person.
Once they’ve turned it from a art project into a weapon, it should have similar consequences to “revenge porn.”
I don’t know how strong the laws are on the topic but I feel this falls under harassment or libel. In most cases this will cause emotional distress and harm to a person’s reputation. If you’re trying to show off your AI skills you can use a subject that isn’t real or depict a real person wearing clothes. This is clearly an attack in my mind.
I would think this would be covered by libel, slander, defamation type laws. The crime is basically lying about a persons actions and character.
Photos of a person can vary in subtle ways too, perhaps as a person ages or even just changes their makeup or something. It’s not valid to require everything to be perfectly clear-cut in some objective way.
Life is subjective, which is why courts always try to take the mental state of the accused into account, things like whether malice was present, whether the accused was in a rational state of mind, etc. This is why we have first and second degree murder as two different things.
I think it doesn’t go far enough. Straight up, no one should be permitted to create or transmit the likeness of anyone [prior to, say, 20 years following their death] without their explicit, written permission. Make the fine $1,000,000 or 10% of the offender’s net worth, whichever is greater; same penalty and corporate revocation for any corporation involved. Everyone involved from the prompt writer to the work-for-hire people should be liable for the full penalty. I can’t think of a valid, non-entertainment (parody/humor), reason for non-consensual impersonation - and using it for humor or parody is a slippery slope to propaganda weaponization. There is no baby in this tub of bathwater.
I’m not sure this is practically possible.
A $1m penalty is more or less instant bankruptcy for 99% of the population. It’s probably not much of a deterrent for, say an 18 year old. In my jurisdiction I don’t think there are criminal penalties higher than a few thousand dollaridoos. It doesn’t matter whether you think this act is so aggregious that it deserves a penalty 1000 time higher than any other, my point is that it would be unenforceable ineffective.
Secondly, how do you determine whether an image is someone’s likeness? Create any random image and surely it will look like someone, but that doesn’t mean that creating that image violates that someone.
The missing factor is intent. Make a random image, that’s that. But if proven that the accused made efforts to recreate a victim’s likeness that shows intent. Any explicit work by the accused with the likeness would be used to prove the charges.
Yeah, just like the FBI warnings on VHS tapes about massive fines and jail time stopped us from copying them in the 80s and 90s…
no one should be permitted to create or transmit the likeness of anyone [prior to, say, 20 years following their death] without their explicit, written permission.
I dig the sentiment. I do. And If this were my own fantasy world, I’d agree. But unfortunately, we don’t live in the timeline where that is considered even close to reasonable.
Correction: Fortunately, not unfortunately. A rule like that would prohibit any form of public / street photography, news videos, surveillance videos, family photos with random strangers in the background… it’s not reasonable at all.
I hope it won’t overregulate technology itself but instead would be ruled by already existing means about defaming people and taking photoes without their consent, sharing them. Plus, if she’s a teen, it’s a production of CSAM. This person had an illegal intent, just used a new tool not unlike others, just more efficient.
deleted by creator
Lol your wife has seemingly zero ability to critically think of a position other than her own, in the context of a discussion.
deleted by creator
Cool, but my comment isn’t incorrect based on your literal words.
You pitched an argument you read online, for discussion.
She questioned your integrity, as if you held that position as your own.
She clearly lacks the ability to consider your voicing a third party, hypothetical point, as a separate actor. This is indicated by your words regarding her vehement revulsion and need for you to assert out loud that YOU don’t hold that position.
Also not sure where you got the evidence I’m unfamiliar with either that author, or the word “permutation” as this thread discusses neither.
How dare you claim his wife isn’t the sweetest, smartest person in the world. You MUST be wrong!
It’s not trolling it’s bullying. You need to think beyond this being about “porn”. This is a reputational attack that makes the victim more likely to be further victimised via date rape, stalking, murder. These things already happen based on rumours, deepfakes images/videos will only make it worse. The other problem is that it’s almost impossible to erase once it’s on the internet, so the victim will likely never be free of the trauma or danger as the images/videos resurface.
Trolling / bullying is just semantics, which I don’t think will help us very much.
I think the heightened risk of other crimes is… dubious. Is that conjecture?
Your position seems to be framed in the reality of several years ago, where if you saw a compromising video of someone it was likely real, while in 2024 the opposite is true.
Were headed towards a reality where someone can say “assistant, show me a deepfake of a fictitious person who looks a bit like that waitress at the Cafe getting double teamed by two black guys”. I don’t claim to know all the ethical considerations, but I do think that changing social norms are part of the picture.
I don’t have any authority to assert when anyone else should feel victimised. All I know is that in my own personal case, a few years ago I would’ve felt absolutely humiliated if someone saw a compromising video of me, but with the advent of deep fakes I just wouldn’t care very much. If someone claimed to have seen it I would ask them why they were watching it, and why in the world they would want to tell me about their proclivities.
FOSTA is still in effect and still causing harm to sex workers while actually protecting human traffickers from investigation (leaving victims stuck as captive labor / sex slaves for longer). And it’d still regarded by our federal legislators as a win, since they don’t know any better and can still spin it as a win.
I don’t believe our legislators can actually write a bill that won’t be used by the federal Department of Justice merely to funnel kids for the sake of filling prison cells with warm bodies.
We’ve already seen DoJ’s unnuanced approach to teen sexting which convicts teens engaging in normal romantic intercourse as professional producers of CSAM.
Its just more fuel for the US prison industrial complex. It is going to heavily affect impoverished kids caught in the crossfire while kids in richer families will get the Brock Turner treatment.
This bill is wholly for political points and has nothing to do with serving the public or addressing disruption due to new technology.
Until we reform or even abolish the law enforcement state, anything we criminalize will be repurposed to target poor and minorities and lock them up in unconscionable conditions.
There is no world where a law aimed at this type of thing will ever be used for its intended purpose.
There are already laws against creating false content about people, so adding more laws isn’t going to make the previous laws more or less valid and it’s only going to waste time and money.
Of course it’s being pushed by a “teen” since this teen clearly doesn’t have any understanding of the issues at hand, the technology at hand nor the laws that already exist to help them with this issue.
It was up to the adults around this teen to help her navigate the issue and instead the incompetent pieces of worthless shit choose to push a new bill against AI rather than use the current legal framework that exists to actually help this girl.
Anything to abuse a child or teens situation for their political gain. Worthless trash.
Why did you put “teen” in scare quotes?
It was up to the adults around this teen to help her navigate the issue
Why do you assume they did not? What do you think they should do instead?
Anything to abuse a child or teens situation for their political gain.
Don’t you think it’s much stranger when people dismiss the abuse of children? For example, in this case: what do you think should have been done?
- Pretending abortion is in the same realm as AI tool abuse is ridiculous and completely dishonest.
.
- Scare quotes? Are you for real? Since you don’t understand, quotes denote emphasis or specificity, not emotion. “Teen”, the emphasis here, was used because teens are barely educated in legal matters and it’s their responsibility to seek assistance, not push legislation.
.
- If the adults in that area had actually responded properly, there wouldn’t be an article about a new bill against AI, instead there’d be an article about defamation and debasement of a minor (likely by another minor, but that doesn’t mean the other minors parents are infallible in this situation, you are either parents or you’re not, if you are, you’re responsible for your brats actions, if you’re not, then the state will take the child and destroy them mentally, and likely physically, for your failures as a parent).
.
- Not a single thing I said dismissed this, and I would go even further to say anyone pursuing the AI angle is the one dismissing this, especially given the laws that already exist that can be used to assist and protect the teen in question.
.
- We’ve had adobe premier for more than 2 decades before generative AI and all of the issues surrounding deepfakes then cover every issue with generative AI now and wasting peoples time and money on this does not help improve the situation, instead it makes a mockery of the victim for the purposes of pushing an agenda.
the state will take the child and destroy them mentally, and likely physically
What the heck are you talking about here?
Of course it’s being pushed by a “teen” since this teen clearly doesn’t have any understanding of the issues at hand…
…you’re responsible for your brats actions…
…it makes a mockery of the victim
I’m glad you care about the dignity of the victim.
removed by mod
removed by mod
Spamming a wall of links doesn’t make you look smart, especially when you use the same link twice in a row. (archived)
If anything, it makes you look like you don’t care. And if you do care, why not explain?
Speaking of which, when I asked you what your preferred course of action was regarding the teen who had deepfake porn made of her, you didn’t really point to anything.
Since you don’t understand, quotes denote emphasis or specificity, not emotion.
Actually quotes denote quotations. When used casually around an individual word or short phrase they generally indicate that the writer is emphasizing that these are someone else’s words, and that the writer would have chosen a different description. As in: These people are described as “teens” but are probably not only/mostly teenagers. That may not be what you meant, but it’s how that text will be read.
If you just want emphasis you might consider using bold or italics rather than quotes.
If the laws on the books aren’t being enforced by the local executive branch because they don’t understand the technology or terminology and see where it applies the re-writing the law so its more clear what the crime was and how the law can be enforced is absolutely an option.
The article states that there is no federal law governing the use and abuse of non-consensual deepfakes. The proposed bill also offers additional protections for victims. Putting that on the books isn’t a waste time or money. If the patchwork of local laws were working then this young woman wouldn’t be asking her congressperson of change.
So I respectfully disagree with your take that it is political grandstanding and unnecessary.
It’s being pushed by someone who was a victim of deep fake ai porn, so I think they understand the issues at hand just fine, you don’t have to agree with her, but don’t be a patronizing asshole about it.
Thanks for not actually reading my comment and making it clear to everyone who did that you’re either illiterate or a dishonest asshole.
I read your comment just fine, and the way you spoke about the teen in question was incredibly patronizing.
Then you should work on your reading comprehension.
Have you figured out what a scare quote is yet
Disagreeing strongly isn’t patronizing.
Saying “this teen clearly doesn’t have an understanding of the issues at hand” is.
[email protected] would call you “illiterate or a dishonest asshole” for missing that part of one of his walls of text, but honestly I think it’s understandable.
This is an actual law proceeding, with lawyers and adults involved. The teen is just the face of it.
More laws that will only affect people who follow laws
How? How will this only effect people who follow laws? If you aren’t making ai porn of real underage girls how would this affect you, a law abiding citizen?
It’s like how DRM only hurts people who purchase content legally.
It’s been very illegal to pirate games for decades, and still pirated content is quite common in the wild. What’s banning it (defamation) harder going to practically achieve?
Literally nothing, but morons will pretend otherwise in order to waste money and time because they can’t think of any other way to engage the problem.
Isn’t that… all laws?
Might as well not make any laws then.
Are you making a prescriptive statement for or against this particular one?
Does this also apply to other laws, for example the law to not rape?
I mean, they do usually effect the people that break them and go to prison too.
You mean the poor and disadvantaged?
Ah yes, the poor and disadvantaged who can afford a computer and an ai program and who make ai csam.
When working properly, everyone equally. I will admit we do not nearly reach that standard, though.
The ideal is there but how do you imprison organizations that have more money, connections then some nations.
The moment big money gets involved governments stop upholding even themselves to the law. I work at a subdivision under some part of government and the amount of unpaid court ordered fines for human right violations is massive and increasing. The fines can’t be paid cause there is no money. The problem causing the right violations can’t be fixed cause there’s no money. Yet government swims in money.
I think getting money out of politics will be a necessary first step towards addressing this.
deleted by creator
Just wait until them tech savvy folks in Congress try to understand the difference between ‘deepfakes’ in the sense of pasting a new face on existing footage and whole cloth generative AI creating the entire scene, and then someone tells them that the latter is derived from multiple existing media sources. Gonna be some smoke pouring out of their ears like in the cartoons trying to slice up all the specifics.
Just tell them the 2nd amendment guaranteed your rights to Gaussian Splatting.
Creating fake child porn of real people using things like Photoshop is already illegal in the US, I don’t see why new laws are required?
Well those laws clearly don’t work. So we should make new laws! Ones that DEFINITELY WILL work! And if they don’t, well I guess we just need more laws until we find ones that do.
Since we need a rule explicitly for AI related cases, even though it’s already covered by others, lets ensure that we also make a 100 page law for if the material is explicitly made in Photoshop, and also another 80 pages if it was made in Gimp. If you use MS Paint to do it, we need a special 200 page law that makes the punishment even harsher, because damn you got skillz and need to be punished more.
Can you point to anything wrong in the specific law that is being proposed?
No, I’m not criticizing the bill’s content. If you don’t enforce laws, new ones won’t work either. The new ones are, at best, an opportunity for people to huff and puff and pat themselves on the back at the cost of actual victims. At worst, it’s smoke and mirrors for what the new law actually does.
What is the difference between the bill’s content which you aren’t criticizing, and what the law actually does?
If the law would be bad, can’t you criticize the content of the bill in such a way that it wouldn’t do anything bad?
Regulatory capture. OpenAI wants to kick down the ladder
This is not at all about protecting children. That’s just manipulation. In truth, kids are more likely to prosecuted than protected by this bill.
There are already laws that could be used against teen bullies but it’s rarely done. (IMHO it would create more harm than good, anyway.)
This is part of an effort to turn the likenesses of people into intellectual property. Basically, it is about more money for the rich and famous.
This bill would even apply to anyone who shares a movie with a sex scene in it. It’s enough that the “depiction” is “realistic” and “created or altered using digital manipulation”. Pretty much any photo nowadays, and certainly any movie, can be said to “altered using digital manipulation”. There’s no mention of age, deception, AI, or anything that the PR bullshit suggests.
removed by mod
🤮 bruh she’s 14
She’s 18 somewhere am I right chat
No. You are not funny in the slightest.
It would be weird and creepy if this was an adult woman, but your “joke” about a situation involving children is just disgusting. You’re sick, please seek help
“I’m sure you are fun at parties” - Le heckin funnerino
At least I’m going to parties with people my own age and not creeping on literal high schoolers.
Jesus fuck dude stop acting like a pedophile
This comment got rule 3’d for a joke.
Excuse me but, the fuck is wrong with you?
I’m just living my best life
Victim is underage. Why don’t you take a seat over there?
Would it help if I wrote /s like some ledditor m’sir?
deleted by creator
I would have thought that deepfakes are defamation per se. The push to criminalize this is quite the break with American first amendment traditions.
If I understand correctly, this would put any image hoster, including Lemmy, in hot water because 230 immunity is only for civil suits and not federal criminal prosecution.
It’s not, people know it’s a deepfake most of the time and don’t claim it’s real
It might also be harassment.
If it’s not defamation or harassment, then I’m not sure what the problem is. As broad as this is, it looks unconstitutional to me.
the text of the bill exempts service providers from any liabilities as long as they make a good faith attempt to remove it as soon as they are aware of its existence. So if someone makes AI generated revenge porn on your instance as long as you take it down when notified, you want be in trouble.
Which part says that?
Section 2252D (a) Offense.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction—
“(1) with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm to the finances or reputation of the depicted individual; or
“(2) with actual knowledge that, or reckless disregard for whether, such disclosure or threatened disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm to the depicted individual,
…
(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.
So the law requires intent and carves out exceptions for service providers that try to remove it.
The lower part just says that overeager removal of depictions does not create liability. Say, onlyfans bans the account of a creator because some face recognition AI thought their porn depicted a celebrity. They have no recourse for lost income.
As to the upper part, I am not sure what “reckless disregard” means in this context. I don’t think it means that you only have to act if you happen to receive a complaint. If you see nudes of some non-porn celebrity, then it’s mostly likely a fake. It seems reckless not to remove it immediately. What if there are not enough mods to look at each image. Is it reckless to keep operating?
(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
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
-
to restrict access.
-
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.
-
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A teenage victim of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes joined Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., on Tuesday to advocate for a bipartisan bill that would criminalize sharing such material at the federal level.
In addition to criminalizing the nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit deepfakes, the measure would also create a right of private action for victims to be able to sue creators and distributors of the material while remaining anonymous.
Mani said her school administration told her on Oct. 20 that male classmates had created and shared sexually explicit deepfakes of her and more than 30 other girls.
After he heard about what happened at Mani’s high school, which is in his hometown, Rep. Tom Kean, R.-N.J., became the first Republican co-sponsor of Morelle’s bill.
The lack of legislative movement around deepfakes has raised concerns about the technology’s potential to disrupt the 2024 election cycle.
A legal expert who specializes in nonconsensual intimate imagery, Mary Anne Franks, who Morelle said helped inform the bill, said deepfakes have already targeted female politicians.
The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
