Tag: internet

California’s New AI Law Proposals Could Impact Memes

California’s state legislature has passed several bills related to “AI,” including a ban on deepfakes “around elections.”

The lawmakers squeezed these bills in during the last week of the current sessions of the state Senate and House, and it is now up to Governor Gavin Newsom (who has called for such laws) to sign or veto them by the end of this month.

One of the likely future laws is Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, which aims to regulate how sites, apps, and social media (defined for the purposes of the legislation as large online platforms) should deal with content that the bill considers to be “materially deceptive related to elections in California.”

Namely, the bill wants such content blocked, specifying that this refers to “specified” periods – 120 days before and 60 days after an election. And campaigns will have to disclose if their ads contain AI-altered content.

Now comes the hard part – what qualifies for blocking as deceptive, in order to “defend democracy from deepfakes”? It’s a very broad “definition” that can be interpreted all the way to banning memes.

For example, who’s to say if – satirical – content that shows a candidate “saying something (they) did not do or say” can end up “reasonably likely” harming the reputation or prospects of a candidate? And who’s to judge what “reasonably likely” is? But the bill uses these terms, and there’s more.

Also outlawed would be content showing an election official “doing or saying something in connection with the performance of their elections-related duties that the elections official did not do or say and that is reasonably likely to falsely undermine confidence in the outcome of one or more election contests.”

If the bill gets signed into law on September 30, given the time-frame, it would comprehensively cover not only the current campaign, but the period after it.

Keep reading

BRAZILIAN CONFUSION: Hefty Fines for Accessing Social Media Platform X via VPN Were NOT Rescinded – What Changed Was that VPNs Are Not Outright Banned In the Country Anymore

Brazil, thy name is confusion.

There is a saying here in the ‘tropical country’ that says: ‘Brazil is for professionals‘.

Being born and raised here, we are used to a maze of bureaucracy and a general lack of clarity in all public matters.

Following the blocking of the social platform X in Brazil, a question that was raised by freedom lovers worldwide was the usage of VPN’s by Brazilian users to bypass this spurious prohibition.

This was highly anticipated by our Supreme Court overlords, who decided in a first moment to prohibit the usage of VPN, as well as instituting a 50k reals (over $9k) fine for using VPNs to access X.

This decision was later partially reformed, and that’s where the confusion started.

Some social media users (I saw it posted by DogeDesigner/@cb_doge and also by Charlie Kirk/@Charliekirk11) are suggesting that the fines for accessing X via VPN were rescinded – which would in fact be a victory for free speech.

But that is not the case – as much as I can find.

In fact, what changed is the previous decision to make VPN forbidden in Brazil. That is no longer the case, which is good news for the 75 million VPN users in Brazil.

But it is still forbidden to use this technology to access X, and the fines are still on, although there is some level of push back from the Order of Attorneys of Brazil (OAB).

Keep reading

NO FAKES – A Dream for Lawyers, a Nightmare for Everyone Else

Performers and ordinary humans are increasingly concerned that they may be replaced or defamed by AI-generated imitations. We’re seeing a host of bills designed to address that concern – but every one just generates new problems. Case in point: the NO FAKES Act. We flagged numerous flaws in a “discussion draft” back in April, to no avail: the final text has been released, and it’s even worse.  

Under NO FAKES, any human person has the right to sue anyone who has either made, or made available, their “digital replica.” A replica is broadly defined as “a newly-created, computer generated, electronic representation of the image, voice or visual likeness” of a person. The right applies to the person themselves; anyone who has a license to use their image, voice, or likeness; and their heirs for up to 70 years after the person dies. Because it is a federal intellectual property right, Section 230 protections – a crucial liability shield for platforms and anyone else that hosts or shares user-generated content—will not apply. And that legal risk begins the moment a person gets a notice that the content is unlawful, even if they didn’t create the replica and have no way to confirm whether or not it was authorized, or have any way to verify the claim. NO FAKES thereby creates a classic “hecklers’ veto”: anyone can use a specious accusation to get speech they don’t like taken down.  

The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”?  

These are just some of the many open questions, all of which will lead to full employment for lawyers, but likely no one else, particularly not those whose livelihood depends on the freedom to create journalism or art about famous people. 

Keep reading

Shut It Down

The recent protests in Bangladesh have led to another example of a national government shutting down the internet and telecommunications. The Bangladeshi government claimed that the shutdown was implemented to stop misinformation. In 2023 the internet was shut down in Libya after a natural disaster to prevent criticism of the local authorities and their response to the emergency. At this time, thirty-nine nations across the world at some time have shut down the internet for one reason or the other. What was once a speculative concept has now become a practice that will soon be accepted.

The United Nations has made access to the internet a right; intentionally denying individuals access to the internet is considered a human rights violation. Though when it comes to human rights, national governments have a tendency to use international bodies such as the UN as a reason for action while dismissing such “rules” for themselves. Such rules are bent, ignored, and broken whenever national governments see fit.  According to Access Now, in 2023 alone there were 283 known internet shut downs used by governments against their citizens, India being the most prolific. The world’s biggest democratic government sees fit to exercise control of information and the communications over those it rules.

Large corporations have a tendency to work with national governments so that they may operate in those nations. Russia and China have provisions to isolate their internet access from the rest of the world, along with “kill switches.” The Australian government has passed laws allowing its federal government to “shut down the net” should its leadership see fit. The potential exists for most nations to do this. All that is needed is a crisis. The provision for a “threat to national interest” allows for governments to cut individuals off from the world and one another.

In Syria the internet was even shut down during high school exams in an attempt to stop students from cheating. Given the extreme rigidity of study and examination for schooling in nations like South Korea, such a reason could also be used there as well. Cultural and state directed interests are going to be key reasons as to why information and communications are controlled and denied. It will vary according to the self-interest of particular regimes and national flavors.

The U.S. government attempted to pass the right to use an internet “kill switch” but scrutiny prevented it from being allowed. With populist leaders and panic mongering of the forever changing crises on the horizon, it is likely that such an option will someday be on the table. It is of no surprise that the United Kingdom has in its power to impose such a shut down. The public is assured that failsafes exist to prevent it from being abused (though given the British government’s fear of memes, it may not really take much).

In a crisis, information and communications are crucial. Advocates for state power and a strong central authority agree, which is why they don’t want them spread. The belief that angels rule the nation and wise magicians control the economy is pervasive and resonates the world over. Information and communications are a sacred act of defiance against evil and authoritarianism in its many variants.

Keep reading

Fascism 2.0 – The changing face of social media censorship

Facebook make only about £34 a year from the average customer in the UK – a little under £3 a month (and that’s before costs) so clearly there is no head-room or motivation, for a human level of customer service or attention. The user is not the customer; rather, they are the product whose data is sold to advertisers.

Thus, users do not have a direct customer relationship with the platform. The network is not directly incentivised to “care” about the user before the advertiser. And no matter where you lie on the spectrum between “free speech absolutism” and “private entities have the right to censor any user”, with such low margins it is inevitable machine processing will have to be used to moderate posts and deal with the customer interface.

But it is a fact the customer processing and management capabilities Social Networks are now evolving is being utilised in a variety of ways beyond just moderation. And it is also true this automated processing is being done at scale and is now applied to every post every member makes. 68% of US voters are on Facebook. In the UK it’s 66% and France 73.2%. The figures are similar for every democratic nation in the West. So it is vitally important the applied rules should be politically neutral.

The power that exists within the ability to machine-process every users posts is far deeper and more profound than perhaps many realise. And while it can’t directly dictate what users write in their messages it has the capacity to fundamentally shape which messages gain traction.

Social Media services have become de-facto town squares and most would agree their corporate owners should avoid ever putting a hand on the scales and influencing politics.

Additionally as everyone who uses Facebook is aware, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics, the system will qualify an individual’s reach; sometimes to an extreme degree. Or that user will simply be banned for a period of time, or banned from the network entirely.

So we can ask the question, since the social media corporations have so much censorship power, how do we know they aren’t engaging in unethical political interference? Can they be trusted with the responsibility?

I will return to this question, but it’s clear that trust in these corporations is deeply misplaced.

Keep reading

VPNs Vanish from Brazil’s App Store as Internet Freedom Faces Unprecedented Clampdown

In Brazil, a significant upheaval in digital privacy and access to information is unfolding, as a notable number of reputable VPN services—including NordVPN, ExpressVPN, Surfshark, and VyprVPN—have vanished from the local iOS App Store. This move is widely believed to comply with Brazilian authorities’ secret directives, reflecting a concerning trend towards online censorship.

This development is particularly alarming in light of the recent decision X made to shutdown its operations in the country. X terminated its operations after a protracted legal confrontation with Brazilian officials, who had accused the platform of insufficient efforts to combat disinformation, specifically its failure to block accounts spreading false information and hate speech. Despite the shutdown, X’s app is still accessible in Brazil.

Keep reading

San Francisco City Attorney Sues Sites That “Undress” Women With AI

San Francisco’s City Attorney has filed a lawsuit against the owners of 16 websites that have allowed users to “nudify” women and young girls using AI.

The office of San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu on Aug. 15 said he was suing the owners of 16 of the “most-visited websites” that allow users to “undress” people in a photo to make “nonconsensual nude images of women and girls.”

A redacted version of the suit filed in the city’s Superior Court alleges the site owners include individuals and companies from Los Angeles, New Mexico, the United Kingdom and Estonia who have violated California and United States laws on deepfake porn, revenge porn and child sexual abuse material.

The websites are far from unknown, either. The complaint claims that they have racked up 200 million visits in just the first half of the year.

One website boasted that it allows its users to “see anyone naked.” Another says, “Imagine wasting time taking her out on dates when you can just use [the website] to get her nudes,” according to the complaint.

Keep reading

California Appeals Court Limits Privacy Rights of Online Messages

A legal battle, seen as a major privacy rights issue, came down to the extent to which the Stored Communications Act (SCA) protects user data, and is now headed to the Supreme Court of California.

This comes after the California Court of Appeal ruled in the Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court case that the majority of remotely stored messages are not covered by the Act’s law designed to prevent unlawful access to stored communications – Section 2702.

The CSA is there to stop platforms that provide online communications and storage from sharing contents of users’ online accounts (messages, emails, photos…). There are some exceptions in the legislation itself, e.g., unless the government obtains a warrant, that sets the bar relatively high.

But now, it looks like Big Tech’s “standard” business model – exploiting user data for massive profits – is coming back to haunt those users in yet another way.

Namely, the California Court of Appeal has found that if providers of that stored user data already have access to it, in order to monetize this content, then that content is effectively already disclosed and CSA has no business trying to protect it.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

And if this ruling stands, then tech companies can be asked to turn over user data without a warrant – a subpoena, the civil variety included – could potentially suffice.

Keep reading

“I’m Not Leaving”: Kim Dotcom Defiant After NZ Approves Extradition For Trial In United States

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom says he’s not going anywhere after New Zealand’s justice minister said on Thursday that he will be extradited to the Untied States on charges related to his defunct file-sharing website Megaupload.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced that he had signed an extradition order for Dotcom, saying in a statement: “I considered all of the information carefully, and have decided that Mr Dotcom should be surrendered to the US to face trial,” adding “As is common practice, I have allowed Mr Dotcom a short period of time to consider and take advice on my decision.”

The extradition order comes 12 years after an FBI-ordered raid on his Auckland mansion. In 2017, the high court in New Zealand first approved his extradition – with an appeal court reaffirming the finding in 2018. In 2020, the country’s supreme court again affirmed the finding, however they also left the door open for further judicial review.

Dotcom responded to the decision, posting on Tuesday that “the obedient US colony in the South Pacific just decided to extradite me for what users uploaded to Megaupload.”

He later said: “I love New Zealand. I’m not leaving.”

Keep reading

Biden-Harris Task Force Urges Online Age Verification Digital ID Tool Development

The online digital ID age verification creep in the US continues from a number of directions, through “recommendations” and “studies” – essentially, the government is nudging the industry to move in the direction of implementing digital ID age verification tools.

At this point, it is happening via various initiatives and legislation, still, without being formally mandated.

One instance is a recommendation coming from the Biden-Harris Administration’s Kids Online Health and Safety Task Force, which is telling online service providers they should “develop and inform parents about age verification tools built into the app or available at the device level.”

The task force is led by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS (its Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, SAMHSA,) in what is referred to in official statements as “close partnership” with the Department of Commerce.

Keep reading