Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act
Description: This bill makes it a crime to intentionally disclose a digital depiction that has been altered using artificial intelligence or similar technology of an individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Sponsors: Rep. Morelle, Joseph D. [D-NY-25]
Target Audience
Population: people with intimate digital images potentially exposed to AI alterations
Estimated Size: 130000000
- Deepfakes of intimate nature can potentially affect anyone with digital images on the internet.
- AI technology for altering images is globally accessible, posing a worldwide risk.
- The bill targets individuals against whom such deepfakes are likely to be made and distributed, often without their consent.
Reasoning
- The policy addresses a potential violation of personal privacy and integrity, which could affect a wide range of individuals with digital images online.
- The act's impact will vary based on personal exposure to digital technologies and platforms, awareness, and past experiences with privacy violations.
- Considering budget limitations, the policy's initial direct impact might be limited but can set a precedent for future regulations and protection measures.
- The target population consists of individuals with online presence, especially those who are active on social media and may have intimate images potentially exposed to AI alterations.
- Only a fraction of the U.S. population will be directly impacted, but the policy might offer broader societal reassurance.
Simulated Interviews
Social Media Influencer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my online content being misused, especially when it's personal or professional.
- The policy gives me some peace of mind, but I hope enforcement is strict and effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see legislative steps being taken against AI misuse.
- Even if I'm not directly affected now, this could benefit many who are vulnerable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (New York, New York)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A friend's friend faced a similar issue, and it was traumatic.
- I feel a bit safer knowing there's legal backing to deter such crimes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Lawyer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for digital privacy.
- However, enforcement mechanisms need more clarity for this to be effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT Consultant (Miami, Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy is necessary given the rise of AI misuse.
- I feel slightly more assured about the protection of my personal data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Actress (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know such laws are being considered, but actions speak louder than words.
- I've dealt with privacy issues before, so any added protection is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Digital Security Expert (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good policy move, though it should be backed by further advancement in AI-proof security measures.
- Policy alone isn't enough; technology needs to rise to new challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Educator (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly offline, but I worry about my grandchildren growing up in a digital world.
- If this policy helps protect them, that's good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Journalist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Intrigued by how this regulation will play out in tech-heavy areas.
- The policy is a necessary conversation starter for digital ethics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that can protect my children online is a win in my book.
- I hope for comprehensive education around the policy for greater reach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $83000000)
Year 5: $56000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $88000000)
Year 10: $63000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $99000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- There is a need for collaboration with technology companies to address technical challenges in detecting deepfakes.
- Educating the public about the risks and preventive measures is critical for the effectiveness of the law.
- Enforcement feasibility, considering the global nature of digital space, poses significant challenges.