Bill Description: House Bill 391 would criminalize the disclosure or threatened disclosure of provocative AI-generated content that appears to be someone recognizable.
Rating: 0
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes?
House Bill 391 would create Section 18-6606, Idaho Code, to define "explicit synthetic media" and to criminalize the disclosure or threatened disclosure of such material. The bill defines "synthetic media" as "any image or video created or altered using technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to realistically misrepresent an identifiable individual as engaging in conduct that the identifiable individual did not engage in."
Under this bill, disclosing any "synthetic media" deemed "explicit" or threatening to disclose such material "with the intent to obtain money or other valuable consideration …" would be a misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony (carrying up to 10 years imprisonment) for a second or subsequent offense within a 5-year period.
This bill appears to be responding to a technology broadly referred to as "deep fakes," where AI technology is used, for example, to place an image of someone's head from a photo or series of photos on the body of an actor or actress doing something funny or provocative. Most such videos are of poor quality and are not intended to appear genuine, but as AI technology advances, so does the possibility of creating more realistic and convincing deep fakes that could be used to target specific individuals.
This bill does not address some of the broader implications of deep fakes (such as their potential to be used in misleading political commercials or product endorsements). Instead, it focuses only on those that are "explicit" and used to "annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, offend, humiliate, or degrade."
There may be elements of these prohibitions that are warranted, but it is troubling to see concepts such as threats and intimidation lumped in with mere annoyance and offense. It is appropriate to protect individual rights, but we must be careful not to inadvertently criminalize free speech and artistic expression in the process — even in cases where it might annoy or offend someone.
(0)
