Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO tackle revenge porn will cover crimes in which ‘deepfake’ technology is used, the government has confirmed.
Deepfake technology is a form of artificial intelligence that involves the creation of fabricated content that appears to be real.
This can include, for example, manipulated videos that appear to show a politician or celebrity speaking about something or engaging in an activity. A number of US states have moved to ban deepfakes in a bid to curb doctored political videos and combat the use of this technology for revenge porn.
Now the Department of Justice has said it will also seek to legislate for the use of this technology in cases of revenge porn.
Speaking at the Law Reform Commission’s annual conference in Dublin last week, Dr John Danaher of NUIG Law School, expressed concern about the harm this technology can cause in society.
He said legislators need to consider whether the current legislation contains adequate protections from abuse uses of deepfake technology, and keep it in mind for any relevant laws it enacts in the coming years.
Fiction and reality
Danaher referenced an example in which this technology was used to manipulate a video of former US President Barack Obama.
He said there are researchers who are experimenting with creating entirely synthetic audio files, so they will not need previous audio from the person or someone else to impersonate them in audio, as seen above.
“If you look at this video, it’s not entirely convincing, there’s something stilted and artificial about it but as the tech improves, it’s likely that even the most discerning viewers of this will find it difficult to tell the difference between fiction and reality,” he said.
He said there is already a long history of synthetic representations of political figures, such as caricatures, but he believes there is “something pretty worrying about deep fake technology”.
“The highly realistic nature of the audiovisual material created makes this the ideal vehicle for harassment, manipulation or fraud,” Danaher said.
He said he is most concerned about how deep fake technologies will be “weaponised to harm and intimate others, particularly members of vulnerable populations”.
It’s difficult to legislate in this area. How do you define the difference between real and synthetic media? How do you balance the free speech rights against the potential harm to others? Do we use specialised laws to deal with these problems or can existing laws on say defamation or fraud be up to the task.
“Furthermore, given that deep fakes can be created and distributed by unknown actors, who would any cause of redress be against?”
Deeptrace, an Amsterdam-based cybersecurity company, published a report this year which found 96% of the deepfake videos on the internet are pornographic videos. And 100% of the deepfake content on pornography websites contain female subjects.
By contrast, non-pornographic deepfake videos on YouTube contained a majority of male subjects.
The report quotes Professor of Law at Boston University Danielle Citron, who said this technology was being “weaponised against women by inserting their faces into porn”.
“It is terrifying, embarrassing, demeaning and silencing. Deepfake sex videos say to individuals that their bodies are not their own and can make it difficult to stay online, get or keep a job and feel safe. ”
The ten individuals most frequently targeted by deepfake pornography include a number of British actresses and several South Korean musicians.
In June this year a computer app than enabled users to ‘strip’ photos of clothed women using this type of technology was launched. The volume of traffic and download requests in the first 24 hours caused the website to go offline and the creators subsequently said they would not release any further versions because “the world is not ready”.
However, the software continues to be independently repackaged and distributed.
Legislating
The Cabinet here has approved proposed legislation aimed at tackling the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. The Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill, which provides for a six-month prison sentence upon conviction, was originally put forward by the Labour Party in 2017.
The bill is based on a Law Reform Commission report, which recommends the outlawing of two kinds of incidents: one which forbids the posting online of intimate images without consent, the other which will prevent secretly filming or photographing private areas of a person, also known as ‘upskirting’ and ‘down-blousing’.
The government will is now drafting its own amendments to the bill.
In its current form, the wording of the bill covers images that have been “altered”. Dr Danaher last week said this wording may not withstand challenges in cases where deepfake technology is used.
“Someone might argue that synthetically constructed images are not strictly speaking altered, they are constructed and artificial.”
He said the wording should be modified to include the possibility of synthetic revenge porn.
In July, the US state of Virginia expanded its revenge porn legislation to include fabricated or manipulated videos and images. This means it is illegal in the state to share nude images of a person, whether or not they are real.
The state of California in recent weeks also passed two bills – one making it illegal to post manipulated videos of political figures and a second giving people the right to sue anyone who puts their image into a pornographic video.
In response to a query from TheJournal.ie about Danaher’s suggestion, the Department of Justice said it is giving “significant consideration to the definition of an intimate image” as it prepares its amendments to the bill.
“It is intended that such a definition will encompass images or videos that have been altered or created to make it seem like an individual featured in the image or video.
“The amendments are currently being drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Once the amendments are finalised, it is intended that they will be brought forward to Committee Stage in the Dáil.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So they have all agreed on how much extra taxation is needed to save the world.
@Derek Anderson: nope.
For an example. Moving to an electric family car costs about €45k – €60k which most of us don’t have to spend on a car. How is the regular working person or family to go green when it’s financially crippling.
@TheKloppKop: the year 2180 will do
@TheKloppKop: that’s just your transportation! Retrofit your house to the new standard and add another €100,000 on minimum
How come our planet is after becoming so fragile all of a sudden. Another plan to restrict people’s movement.
@John brett: where are you getting this all of a Sudden, they have been saying this decades.
@Sue Kelly: Yes they have been saying this for decades. That’s why people are complacent. They are doing nowhere near enough to address the problem they are talking about. People think we have plentry of time. And let’s face it. Very few are prepared to make the sacrifices that are realistically needed to make the difference; you and me included.
@John brett: planet has always been fragile, a combination of 6 Celsius warming and/or over hunting killed off the Giant Irish Elk, the mammoth, wolly rhinoceros, dire wolves, saber toothed tigers, North America Camels and horses, and many other megafauna, and also 2 subspecies of humans (Neanderthal and Devensovan).
We’ve been very lucky these past 10,000 years, global temperature have hardly varied by 1 degree Celsius, that said a little further warming was enough to turn the Sahara from a green oasis to a desert by 6000 years ago. That happened over several thousand years, not 100.
@Vonvonic: What sacrifices would that be Sue? I recycle as much as is humanly possible, I try not to turn on the heat unless it’s baltic, I cycle to work, and much and all as I’d love to buy an electric car, I couldn’t afford one. Been green comes at a great cost which the average person can’t afford, so what I outlined earlier is about all I can contribute.
@The Firestarter: You shouldn’t personalise what I’ve said. Greta is right. To solve this problem is going to take wholesale structural changes on how we live… all of us. I don’t see it happening to be honest… we’re way to find of our stuff for that.
@Vonvonic: fond
@Vonvonic: that’s baloney. I swear that gremlins head will do a 360 one of these days. I can’t afford to be green. Even the new refill deodorant is €25 or something. I can get 2 pairs of jeans for that.
@The Firestarter: Sure even if you got an electric car eventually you won’t even be able to charge the thing. Our energy policy for the future seems to revolve around wind…
Unless China and American come on board we are at nothing.
@marcusmckenna: absolutely. Well said
@Anna Carr: Their choices shouldn’t impact ours. We already owe them 100 years of carbon emissions, and their excessive emissions in the last 2 decades are one of the sole stimuli that prevented total global collapse post 2008.
Regardless, if just Europe went carbon neutral by 2030 it would still buy more time for the transition.
This needs to be done. And any contribution will help stave off complete catastrophe and save some extra fraction of our civilisation
If you think I’m being dramatic: it’s accepted that 1.5°+ of heating will doom vulnerable nations. This puts us on course for 2.7°. That will doom the southern stretches of the north and have catastrophic impacts on the productivity of farmlands.
It’s the end of our civilisation.
Anything that can delay that will help.
@Alan Dunne: We already owe them 100 years of carbon emissions…lol
Unlike Europe China has been using coal for 6,000 years
China & India had an iron industry in 1300BC, they were mass producing iron and later steel products 1,000 years before Europe, the iron & later steel industry became a state monopoly in China in 200BC.
Yep, so if we just get people to pay more taxes the Climate God will be Appeased and will not destroy us.
How wonderful now could they take Eamonn Ryan and send him to MARS
Ireland is but a dot in the Atlantic Ocean so no matter what we do will make no difference but Irish people will pay the price in taxes
@Colette Mooney: you’re correct of course that carbon taxes have very little to do with limiting the climate catastrophe but if Ireland were to decide to act effectively, equitably, and immediately, even alone, it’s not something we should hesitate to do.
Developing energy independence, sustainable farming, these are things that will stand us in very good stead to face whats coming.
And though our actions alone won’t stop it, they will delay it, even marginally, and even a delay can help us avert civilisational catastrophe if everyone gets on board eventually.
Followed it a lot this week to see what could be done and all I heard was some of the best fiction speeches you’ll ever hear
If you and me would stop buying tat and trashing the planet.. In other words the root cause of the problem it seems to me, is insatiable consumerism. This Christmas is a good place to start.
@Charles Barker: well said
Forget about Ireland….have a look at the 16 lane Highways in LA full of large 4 x 4 ‘s with 5ltr engines
COP-OUT26, nothing of real substance agreed. India, USA, China and Russia are inserting loopholes which can effectively negate any commitments.
The biggest load of ballix
@Stiofán Ó Cearnaigh: I’d say you wouldn’t be able to elaborate on that by even two or three sentences.
Any mention of the rainforests?
I feel sorry for the people that believe the aspirational political doublespeak and rhetoric that comes from politicians at these summits.
Politicians speaking about climate change or carbon emissions should have to wear and display corporate sponsorship, in the same way as motor racing drivers do.
It’s much more revealing to look at what the any past commitments have resulted in on these issues, rather than the can kicking soundbites which are meant to delfate and negate the legitimate arguments and campaigns, which challenge the financial interests of their corporate sponsors.
They operate on a simple formula, issue a meaningful soundbite to placate the masses, over a long enough timeframe so they think its being addressed, but they also dont expect to see results any time soon..
Anything there that won’t be completely useless and cost us a fortune?
@Anna Carr: Rumour has it Eamon Ryan returned with massive Euro signs in his eyes and a strange, twisted smile. Must have gone really well!
Ugh god you lot give over about tax and the cost of this. Do you want to live or not? Do you want a safe world for your kids? The economy is what we make it. Nature doesn’t care about it. Which do you think would win? Nature or the economy? Hint: one had been around a lot longer and has survived mass extinction before.
Órla is busy typing
Interestingly there’s no mention of Germany’s stance on this (who, you know, also happens to be EU’s powerhouse): https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/government-dispute-over-e-fuels-stops-germany-signing-cop26-car-pledge
Nor is there any mention of where the likes of Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, and BMW stand wrt the issue.
One wonders why.. Could it be that by creating the notion that everyone is (and must be) behind this, additional taxes and cost of living skyrocketing will be easier to swallow? Talking about selective reporting 101…
Why don’t just provide us all with electric cars if they are that concerned.
A lot of people are being left behind in the rush to be green.
Not that they will notice as smugness goes with the gig.
The idea that everybody can walk and cycle everywhere is a typical example.
The idea that everyone can afford to live a green lifestyle.
An awful lot of us can barely afford to live at present.
Of course we don’t matter and we won’t be asked or conducted with.
Real equality is one of the first casualties of these policies.
Rules are regulations don’t count anymore.
Just say your saving the planet and you get away with anything.
have your say