Aggregator

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波利用環境委員会 CISPR　A作業班(第21回)開催案内

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波利用環境委員会 CISPR　H作業班(第17回)開催案内

情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 衛星通信システム委員会作業班（第32回）

　中台戦争勃発を見据えて南西諸島に自衛隊の基地が次々と建設される沖縄県。県民は戦争の足音がヒタヒタと近づいていることを肌で感じているだろう。東京に住んでいると、予想はつくけれど、感覚がつかめず、他人事に陥ってしまう。　しかし、最近ある出来事で自分の心は変化した。南鳥島に陸上自衛隊の地対艦ミサイル訓練用の射撃場が整備される。日本最東端のサンゴ礁でできた南鳥島は小笠原村の一部で本州から１８００㌔㍍離れているとはいえ、れっきとした東京都の島だ。射程１００㌔を超えるミサイル射撃場の整..

楽天グループ株式会社が提供するスマートフォンアプリ「楽天市場アプリ」には、アクセス制限不備の脆弱性が存在します。

9月には自民党の総裁選、立憲民主党の代表選が予定されています。しかし報道は政局一辺倒です。防衛費の増大、敵基地攻撃、武器輸出解禁と勇ましい掛け声とともに進む軍事化をどうするのか、という論議が深まらないまま現実がなし崩しで進む懸念があります。市民外交を掲げて活動する「新外交イニシアティブ」（ND)が政権交代に向けた安全保障戦略提言のシンポジウムを開催します。（大野和興）

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波利用環境委員会 CISPR　B作業班(第25回)開催案内

第725回 入札監理小委員会 （会議資料）

「消費者保護ルールの実施状況モニタリング2024年度調査計画」（案）に対する意見募集

令和6年7月の熱中症による救急搬送状況

第208回統計委員会

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　陸上無線通信委員会 小電力システム作業班（第18回）の開催について

情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 IPネットワーク設備委員会（第79回） 開催案内

弾道ミサイルを想定した住民避難訓練の実施

「消費者保護ルールの在り方に関する検討会報告書2024（案）」 に対する意見募集の結果及び 「消費者保護ルールの在り方に関する検討会報告書2024」の公表

第41回企画部会

令和6年8月20日付　総務省人事

Performers and ordinary humans are increasingly concerned that they may be replaced or defamed by AI-generated imitations. We’re seeing a host of bills designed to address that concern – but every one just generates new problems. Case in point: the NO FAKES Act. We flagged numerous flaws in a “discussion draft” back in April, to no avail: the final text has been released, and it’s even worse.  

NO FAKES creates a classic “hecklers’ veto”: anyone can use a specious accusation to get speech they don’t like taken down.

Under NO FAKES, any human person has the right to sue anyone who has either made, or made available, their “digital replica.” A replica is broadly defined as “a newly-created, computer generated, electronic representation of the image, voice or visual likeness” of a person. The right applies to the person themselves; anyone who has a license to use their image, voice, or likeness; and their heirs for up to 70 years after the person dies. Because it is a federal intellectual property right, Section 230 protections – a crucial liability shield for platforms and anyone else that hosts or shares user-generated content—will not apply. And that legal risk begins the moment a person gets a notice that the content is unlawful, even if they didn't create the replica and have no way to confirm whether or not it was authorized, or have any way to verify the claim. NO FAKES thereby creates a classic “hecklers’ veto”: anyone can use a specious accusation to get speech they don’t like taken down.  

The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”?  

These are just some of the many open questions, all of which will lead to full employment for lawyers, but likely no one else, particularly not those whose livelihood depends on the freedom to create journalism or art about famous people. 

The bill also includes a safe harbor scheme modelled on the DMCA notice and takedown process. To stay within the NO FAKES safe harbors, a platform that receives a notice of illegality must remove “all instances” of the allegedly unlawful content—a broad requirement that will encourage platforms to adopt “replica filters” similar to the deeply flawed copyright filters like YouTube’s Content I.D. Platforms that ignore such a notice can be on the hook just for linking to unauthorized replicas. And every single copy made, transmitted, or displayed is a separate violation incurring a $5000 penalty – which will add up fast. The bill does throw platforms a not-very-helpful-bone: if they can show they had an objectively reasonable belief that the content was lawful, they only have to cough up $1 million if they guess wrong.  

All of this is a recipe for private censorship. For decades, the DMCA process has been regularly abused to target lawful speech, and there’s every reason to suppose NO FAKES will lead to the same result.  

All of this is a recipe for private censorship. 

What is worse, NO FAKES offers even fewer safeguards for lawful speech than the DMCA. For example, the DMCA includes a relatively simple counter-notice process that a speaker can use to get their work restored. NO FAKES does not. Instead, NO FAKES puts the burden on the speaker to run to court within 14 days to defend their rights. The powerful have lawyers on retainer who can do that, but most creators, activists, and citizen journalists do not.  

NO FAKES does include a provision that, in theory, would allow improperly targeted speakers to hold notice senders accountable. But they must prove that the lie was “knowing,” which can be interpreted to mean that the sender gets off scot-free as long as they subjectively believes the lie to be true, no matter how unreasonable that belief. Given the multiple open questions about how to interpret the various exemptions (not to mention the common confusions about the limits of IP protection that we’ve already seen), that’s pretty cold comfort. 

These significant flaws should doom the bill, and that’s a shame. Deceptive AI-generated replicas can cause real harms, and performers have a right to fair compensation for the use of their likenesses, should they choose to allow that use. Existing laws can address most of this, but Congress should be considering narrowly-targeted and proportionate proposals to fill in the gaps.  

The NO FAKES Act is neither targeted nor proportionate. It’s also a significant Congressional overreach—the Constitution forbids granting a property right in (and therefore a monopoly over) facts, including a person’s name or likeness.  

The best we can say about NO FAKES is that it has provisions protecting individuals with unequal bargaining power in negotiations around use of their likeness. For example, the new right can’t be completely transferred to someone else (like a film studio or advertising agency) while the person is alive, so a person can’t be pressured or tricked into handing over total control of their public identity (their heirs still can, but the dead celebrity presumably won’t care). And minors have some additional protections, such as a limit on how long their rights can be licensed before they are adults.   

TAKE ACTION

Throw Out the NO FAKES Act and Start Over

But the costs of the bill far outweigh the benefits. NO FAKES creates an expansive and confusing new intellectual property right that lasts far longer than is reasonable or prudent, and has far too few safeguards for lawful speech. The Senate should throw it out and start over.