Our approach to issues involving digital harm, in various forms, has been piecemeal, slow, often ineffective or wishful thinking.
This lack of proper oversight of private online companies and any incentive for them to do better has been highlighted in the recent Manage My Health ransomware event, but it is not the only concerning situation in this area.
The issue of sexualised images made of people without their consent and then circulated has hit the headlines in recent weeks in relation to Grok — Elon Musk’s X’s (formerly Twitter) Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot.
Although Grok is not the only tool which allows for the development of such fake images, it was the sheer number of fakes being generated earlier this month globally which forced the spotlight on to it.
At the height of the scandal, it was reported one researcher had found two non-consensual sexual images were being generated every second on the platform. Also, that nude images of children aged 11 to 13 were being generated and then circulated on the dark web.
Anything with Elon Musk attached to it is likely to attract global attention, but those governments specifically singling it out and planning to ban it appear to be playing whack-a-mole.
In the case of X, it has said it takes action against illegal content on the platform, including child sexual abuse material, by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary.
"Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content," it said in a statement.
However, if there is no specific law preventing this, as is the case in New Zealand, that misses the mark.
The idea this is some sort of freedom of creativity/speech area which must be defended is hard to swallow.
She points out there are hundreds of websites where people can "nudify" a supplied photo.
While some of them require proof of consent, most of them do not. This technology can also be used for videos.
Last May she dramatically drew attention to the issue in Parliament by waving around a naked image, supposedly of herself, but something she had created in minutes using freely available internet software.
Ms McClure’s Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill to address this issue was drawn from the parliamentary biscuit tin in October and awaits its first reading.
It would amend existing laws to expand the definition of an ‘intimate visual recording’ to include images or videos created, synthesised or altered to depict a person’s likeness in intimate contexts without their consent.
Ms McClure is hopeful her Bill will be read for a first time in the first quarter of this year, but it is hard to gauge what importance the government will place on such issues in an election year.
There does not seem to be any appetite for developing a cohesive approach to all things digital, and it is worth noting several MPs from the government have drawn up member’s Bills in this area rather than the government taking the lead itself.
National MP Catherine Wedd had lodged the Social Media (Age-Appropriate Users) Bill before the Government began making serious noises about this issue. Her Bill was also drawn from the ballot in October but has yet to have its first reading.
In December, former media and communications minister Melissa Lee lodged the Harmful Digital Communications (Political Commentary) Amendment Bill which she says is designed to ensure the current Act is not misused to stifle political commentary. It has yet to be drawn from the ballot.
We acknowledge these questions are complex and likely to be controversial but the current higgledy-piggledy way of dealing with them is not serving us well.
