Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft AI United States

Microsoft Pushes US Lawmakers to Crack Down on Deepfakes 35

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Microsoft is calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive law to crack down on images and audio created with AI -- known as deepfakes -- that aim to interfere in elections or maliciously target individuals. From a report: Noting that the tech sector and nonprofit groups have taken steps to address the problem, Microsoft President Brad Smith on Tuesday said, "It has become apparent that our laws will also need to evolve to combat deepfake fraud." He urged lawmakers to pass a "deepfake fraud statute to prevent cybercriminals from using this technology to steal from everyday Americans."

The company also is pushing for Congress to label AI-generated content as synthetic and for federal and state laws that penalize the creation and distribution of sexually exploitive deepfakes. The goal, Smith said, is to safeguard elections, thwart scams and protect women and children from online abuses. Congress is currently mulling several proposed bills that would regulate the distribution of deepfakes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Pushes US Lawmakers to Crack Down on Deepfakes More

Microsoft Pushes US Lawmakers to Crack Down on Deepfakes

Comments Filter:

  • your mom (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    let out a deep fake when I went down on her crack

  • Only outlaws will make DeepFakes.

  • Safety (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 )
    My deepest desire is not that my children grow up safe. It's that they grow up free.
    • Well, I think that's just selling yourself & your family short. Why not say...

      My deepest desire is not that my children grow up as bubble-wrapped ninjas. It's that they grow up like free-range chickens.

      My deepest desire is not that my children grow up with the caution of a cat. It's that they grow up with the spirit of a squirrel on a sugar high.

      My deepest desire is not that my children grow up in a padded room. It's that they grow up dancing in a field of unicorns.

      My deepest desire is not that

    • My deepest desire is not that my children grow up safe. It's that they grow up free.

      Freedom is passe. It was beginning to be passe in the 1980s. 9/11 marked the final nail in the coffin, where the largest outcry was not, "Give me freedom or give me death!" Instead, it became, "PLEASE SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!" And it doesn't appear to be letting up any time soon.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by whitroth ( 9367 )

        Oh, really? So you're saying right-wing President Raygun and his GOP were "protecting us from ourselves"?

        And "free" - free to be shot by some 2nd Amendment misquoting murderer?

        • Oh, really? So you're saying right-wing President Raygun and his GOP were "protecting us from ourselves"?

          And "free" - free to be shot by some 2nd Amendment misquoting murderer?

          No. But the constant pleas to the government to please god save us all have led to an inflated sense of self for government officials, which leads to them trampling our rights into the ground because they think that's giving us what we want.

          And fuck Ronnie Raygun's rotting corpse to oblivion. That man literally laid the foundations for destroying an entire country, and the Republican Party still seems determined to follow through on finishing the building. Not that Democrats are paragons of virtue, but when

  • Will the absence of oversight lead to the distopian future in which film or photographic evidence can be dismissed out of hand?

    Law enforcement's primary investigative technique will be nullified.

    • You're assuming that oversight could prevent that future. I don't see how. Even if every photograph is cryptographically signed someone can apply the same signature to a fake photo.
    • Courts have centuries of experience dealing with falsified evidence, Deep Fakes can make them cheaper and better, but that is why you can question the background of the photo, who took it, why, how it became evidence in the case, etc. Deepfakes will change online interactions and PR more than the rules of evidence
      • You clearly have overestimated the amount of work anyone acting the judicial system is willing to work for those convictions.....

  • You can bet that the various spook agencies LOVE deepfakes.

  • Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert@[ ]shdot.fi ... m ['sla' in gap]> on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @11:28AM (#64666834) Homepage

    Fraud is already illegal, a criminal doesn't care if he uses illegal tools while committing a crime.
    If you try to bury deepfakes then you'll only make it more difficult to learn about them, and thus more likely that people will fall for them when they are targeted by criminals. Instead there should be publicity and education so that people know deepfakes are everywhere, and how to protect themselves.

    The recent story with Ferrari is a good one, they were able to see through the scam.

  • After all the intractable problems MS has created, they go and ask Congress to solve this one?

    If the bank robber goes to the police to report that his car was stolen, what should happen?

    • If the bank robber goes to the police to report that his car was stolen, what should happen?

      The police will get information on the stolen car and do an investigation.

      What did you think would happen?

      • I would think the police might be more interested in the fact that he robbed the bank than that his car got stolen.

  • Without deepfakes how will they attack their opponents?
  • The AI people have come up with something they cannot control, and so they want to push the problem to the courts. "Yeah, sorry about X, but that's a civil matter - sue the other party, not us".
    • "The AI people" have nothing to do with it aside from making the tools. The only reason to frame it that way is to attack the tool itself. You don't like deep fakes. Fine. But they're out there and that can't be stopped. You don't get to control what other people do on their own hardware. Deal with it.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KlomDark ( 6370 )
        Making the tools they cannot control, you mean. Thus, why they are attempting to punt the issue to the government.

  • That's rich... It's like an Pablo Escobar pushing for tougher drug laws. "Please regulated me!" What a fucking joke...

    If Microsoft is so concerned about deepfakes, all they have to do is shut down their AI tools, restrict access to them or watermark the hell out of anything they produce. You know, stop selling drugs...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mmell ( 832646 )

      Uh, I can create a pretty awesome deepfake using only FOSS. Just sayin', if M$ can do it, Linux can do it (for free-ish?). Apple, too (for the right price).

      I'll still use A/I, there are already hundreds, perhaps thousands to choose from. No need to involve Microsoft technology here at all. Photoshop incorporates (tiny, highly specialized) "artificial intelligence" of a sort - it's why it's more powerful than MS-Paint, and can create photorealistic images of things that only exist in an appropriately-sk

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kmoser ( 1469707 )
        That's like saying anyone can create a ghost gun with plans from the Internet so why restrict gun companies from selling guns? That's just whatabout-ism and doesn't change the fact that both are vectors for guns being readily available to the public.

  • Wrong in two ways (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @12:29PM (#64666972)

    He urged lawmakers to pass a "deepfake fraud statute to prevent cybercriminals from using this technology to steal from everyday Americans."

    When did a mere statute ever, to any meaningful extent, prevent criminals from doing anything?

    The goal, Smith said, is to safeguard elections, thwart scams and protect women and children from online abuses.

    So men don't also require this protection? Does that mean that men will never be targeted, or that unlike women and children they're tough enough to handle it, or that they simply don't matter? I'm seriously trying hard to come up with a fourth option here, and I can't.

    The fact that whoever vetted this virtue-signalling little screed didn't pick up on the inconsistency is very telling.

  • I hear deepfakes are okay there, as long as it's called satire [apnews.com].

  • Everything not compulsory must be forbidden.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon

Close