UK government pledges law against sexually explicit deepfakes
- Reference: 1736414892
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/01/09/uk_government_promises_law_against_deepfake_smut/
- Source link:
It said the growth of artificially created but realistic images was alarming and caused devastating harm to victims, particularly the women and girls who are often the target.
The government promises to introduce a new offence, meaning perpetrators could be charged for both creating and sharing these images under the government's Crime and Policing Bill, which will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.
[1]
It will also create new offences for the taking of intimate images without consent while those installing equipment for the purpose of making intimate images without consent are also set to be covered by the law.
[2]
[3]
In a statement, victims minister Alex Davies-Jones said: "It is unacceptable that one in three women have been victims of online abuse. This demeaning and disgusting form of chauvinism must not become normalized.
"These new offences will help prevent people being victimized online. We are putting offenders on notice – they will face the full force of the law," she said.
[4]
A two-year jail term could apply to both criminals who take an intimate image without consent and those who install equipment for that purpose.
In a statement Baroness Jones, technology minister, said: "With these new measures, we're sending an unequivocal message: creating or sharing these vile images is not only unacceptable but criminal. Tech companies need to step up too - platforms hosting this content will face tougher scrutiny and significant penalties."
The Justice Ministry said sexually explicit deepfake offences are set to apply to images of adults, as the law already covers such images of children.
[5]China's Spamouflage cranks up trolling of US Senator Rubio as election day looms
[6]Why send a message when you can get your Zoom digital video clone to read the script?
[7]AI giants pinky swear (again) not to help make deepfake smut
[8]YouTube confirms it'll pull AI fakes in 48 hours if a complaint's upheld
It is already an offence to share or threaten to share intimate images, including deepfakes, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, following amendments that were made by the Online Safety Act 2023.
In September last year, some of the largest AI firms in America [9]promised to prevent their AI products from being used to generate non-consensual deepfake pornography and child sexual abuse material.
[10]
Adobe, Anthropic, Cohere, Microsoft, OpenAI, and open source web data repository Common Crawl were among those making the non-binding commitments to the Biden administration.
Google's YouTube has also [11]created privacy guidelines that allow people to request the removal of AI-generated videos that mimic them, the company said in July last year. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z3-sVdJudNbAEDmQc2xJPgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z3-sVdJudNbAEDmQc2xJPgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z3-sVdJudNbAEDmQc2xJPgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z3-sVdJudNbAEDmQc2xJPgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/21/china_spamouflage_trolls_marc_rubio/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/11/zoom_clips_avatar_scripted_message/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/13/ai_deepfake_pledge/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/02/youtube_deepfake_privacy_rules/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/13/ai_deepfake_pledge/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z3-sVdJudNbAEDmQc2xJPgAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/02/youtube_deepfake_privacy_rules/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Installing equipment?
I'm pretty sure the installing equipment relates to someone putting in a spy camera. While there would be issues for CCTV installers, I expect the purpose is to nab people who set up cameras in locations like changing rooms but are caught before anything personal is recorded.
At the same time, overly broad laws are often abused to the benefit of the rich and powerful.
Viewing...
Is still OK though right ?
Is there any reason copyright laws cannot be toughened up to tackle deepfakes. If everyone owns their own likeness, no-one else should be able to use it for any purpose without permission.
It would make photojournalism far more difficult and could be used to prevent reporting of politicians' activities that they would like to keep out of the public eye
For example, you can't use that picture of me accepting a brown envelope because it infringes my copyright. Or you can't show that film of some event because it has a person clearly visible in the background and you have no way of getting their permission to use their copyright.
That would have quite an effect on journalism. Any articles about a given individual that they approved of could be replete with high quality photos, any critical articles wouldn't be allowed so much as a caricature.
I can imagine politicians and celebrities being quite enthusiastic.
This could be a true test of the definition of "intelligence" in AI. If I use a non-intelligent tool, like a hammer, to something criminal then it's my fault but the hammer can't really be punished. However, if and intelligent person knowingly assists me then they are an accessory. If AI does what is says on the tin then surely it is complicit in any crime and therefore should be punished, shouldn't it. Take it off-line for 6 months every time it does something against the law and see if it learns anything from it.
Installing equipment?
Yeah, there's no way that won't be incredibly broadly interpreted.
Just imagine a year in jail for building a general purpose PC for a friend who then uses it to create a porno deepfake.