Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to prohibit
“nudify” apps which create intimate images of other people using
artificial intelligence without their consent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act introduced new offences which
criminalised the sharing of, or threatening to share, intimate
images, including deepfakes, without consent. Where individuals
create these images using any kind of technology and share or
threaten to share them online, they may be committing an offence.
The Act will additionally give online platforms new duties to
tackle this content by removing it, including where it has been
created via AI apps.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. There has
been a huge increase in the use of nudify apps and the creation
of deepfake porn since the Law Commission stated that it was less
sure that the level of harm caused by the making of these images
and videos was serious enough to criminalise. Does my noble
friend agree that the making of these images and videos without a
person’s consent does in fact cause serious harm, regardless of
whether a person is aware of it, and that, if allowed to
continue, represents a real threat to all women?
(Con)
I start by acknowledging that the creation of intimate image
deepfakes using AI or other means is abusive and deeply
distressing to anyone concerned and very disturbing to all of us.
The Law Commission consulted widely on this, looking at the
process of taking, making, possessing and sharing deepfakes, and
its conclusion was that the focus of legislative effort ought to
be on sharing, which it now is. That said, this is a fast-moving
space. The capabilities of these tools are growing rapidly and,
sadly, the number of users is growing rapidly, so we will
continue to monitor that.
(Lab)
My Lords, the applications referred to in the excellent Question
put by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, represent a dangerous and
overwhelmingly misogynistic trend of non-consensual deepfake
pornography. They are able to be developed and distributed only
because of advances in AI, and sit alongside the use of deepfakes
for political disinformation and fraud. Polling suggests public
ambivalence towards AI but near unanimity around deepfakes, with
80% of people supporting a ban, according to a recent YouGov
survey. Cloud computing and services hosting AI models are
essential for deepfake creation, and the fact that all major
cloud suppliers have a presence in the UK empowers our Government
uniquely to enforce best practice. Does the Minister agree that
our regulatory system should not merely ban deepfakes but go
further, imposing upon the developers a duty to show how and in
what way they are applying existing techniques and restrictions
that could prevent their creation in the first place?
(Con)
An outright ban on the creation of any deepfake material presents
a number of challenges, but obviously I applaud the sentiment
behind the question. With respect particularly to deepfakes
involved in intimate image abuse, we are clearly putting in place
the offence of sharing, whether as part of the new intimate image
abuse offences in the Online Safety Act that commenced two weeks
ago, as part of the Criminal Justice Bill shortly to come before
your Lordships’ House, or indeed under the existing child sexual
exploitation and abuse offences. There are severe penalties for
the sharing of intimate image abuse deepfakes, but it is a
fast-moving space and we have to continue to monitor it.
(LD)
My Lords, it is quite clear that simply banning the sharing of
these deepfakes is not sufficient. This is an issue that concerns
us all, whether in relation to sexual images, fraud or
misinformation. Can the Government not overcome their reluctance
to regulate AI? What evidence would persuade them to go further
and make sure that the creators of these deepfakes are
liable?
(Con)
As regards the overall regulation of AI, I hope that noble Lords
have had a chance to peruse the Government’s response to the AI
White Paper consultation. It makes the argument very clearly that
there will come a time when it is right to legislate to create
binding rules on all creators of AI. When that time comes, due to
the policies that we are putting in place, we will have an agreed
risk register informing us. We will have set up monitoring and
evaluation techniques, again gathering evidence. We will have
working relationships with the AI labs, defined procedures for
the creation of AI, and regulators trained to regulate AI within
their own sectors. That means that, when we do regulate AI, it
will be done in a targeted and sophisticated way, on the basis of
evidence.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government have been far too complacent on this
issue. During the passage of the then Online Safety Bill, we
warned a number of times that, given that this is a fast-moving
technology, as the Minister says, the Government needed to get
ahead of the game. Given the proliferation of these ghastly
images and the appalling impact this has on people’s lives, does
the Minister now agree that neither the emergence of these apps
nor their misuse is surprising? If that is the case, why did the
Government not broaden the scope of their amendments when they
had the opportunity to do so? Will the Minister now look for ways
in which we can plug the gaps that are clearly emerging?
(Con)
As the noble Lord said, it is a fast-moving space, and that
requires an adaptive, agile response in legislating for it. That
is the approach that we are taking. As to the argument that we
can now see that it is not working, I am not sure that that is
the case. The intimate image abuse offences commenced on 31
January—two weeks ago. I am pleased to see that, yesterday, we
had our first cyberflashing conviction under those provisions.
Using an evidence base, looking forward, we will have to consider
carefully what is working before we go ahead and implement
further bans.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, during the last Assembly election in Northern Ireland,
two female candidates from either side of the community in
Northern Ireland were targeted with deepfake porn, which was
solely designed to damage their chances in that election. We know
the number of people who will be going to the polls in the next
year. Surely the Minister and the Government need to work with
the Electoral Commission to raise this issue, because it is a
very important issue in democracy for female candidates.
(Con)
I absolutely agree, and the instance that the noble Baroness
described is deplorable. I am pleased to say two things very
briefly. First, the sharing she describes now carries, as a base
offence, up to six months in prison; if, as in the case the noble
Baroness put forward, the sharing is designed for the purposes of
malice or gaining sexual gratification, that sentence goes up to
two years. That regime is now live. On elections, we have set up
the Defending Democracy Taskforce, with a new unit implemented
last year specifically dedicated to safeguarding the election
against such threats.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asked a Question that
was forensic, specific, nimble and agile—all adjectives that the
Minister keeps using: “Why not ban these nudify apps?”. Why not
ban the tools of the wicked trade, rather than waiting for
individuals to misuse them? What is the positive use of this? Is
it that big tech is now so deep in our politics that we do not
dare regulate this technology to make sure that it is not used
for ill?
(Con)
The reason the making is not banned is that the sharing is
banned, and the reason we did that is that Law Commission—as set
out very clearly in its document—made the argument that this was
the most appropriate way to have a coherent and effective body of
law preventing this deplorable misuse of technologies.
The
My Lords, it would be very helpful if the Minister could explain.
If I heard him correctly, he said that sharing has a six month
ban but for malicious sharing it could be up to two years. Could
he explain what non-malicious use would be?
(Con)
There is a base offence in the law of sharing intimate images
without consent or the reasonable belief of consent. That can
extend to two years if the intent is to cause alarm, distress or
humiliation, or if the purpose is to gain sexual gratification.
Crucially, there is an offence of threatening to share these
materials which also carries a two-year penalty.
