In forgery and fraudulent practices, providing for the offense of unauthorized dissemination of artificially generated impersonation of individual.
Impact
If passed, HB 431 will amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to create a new offense focusing on the dissemination of artificially generated impersonations. The bill outlines two levels of offenses: a misdemeanor of the first degree for general unauthorized dissemination, and a felony of the third degree if the intent behind the act is to defraud or harm another person. As such, the bill would enhance legal protections for individuals against deepfake technologies and other forms of digital misrepresentation, making it a significant addition to existing fraud-related laws.
Summary
House Bill 431 establishes a legal framework in Pennsylvania for addressing the unauthorized dissemination of artificially generated impersonations of individuals. The bill specifically targets scenarios where an individual disseminates a mimicked representation or voice of another person, created through artificial intelligence or advanced technologies, without the consent of the individual portrayed. It aims to mitigate the risks associated with such impersonations, which can potentially lead to defamation, fraud, and other harmful consequences. The proposed legislation is an important step in modernizing the state's approach to privacy rights in the digital age.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HB 431 appears to be generally supportive among lawmakers who recognize the growing threats posed by digital impersonations through artificial intelligence. Supporters argue that the bill is essential for protecting individual rights and addressing emerging challenges in the digital landscape. However, there may also be concerns and debates regarding the balance between regulation and freedom of expression, particularly in the context of artistic and political speech. Some fear that laws pertaining to AI impersonations could inadvertently stifle legitimate uses of technology.
Contention
While the bill's intent is to protect individuals from fraudulent activities, there are points of contention regarding definitions and the enforcement of the law. Critics may argue that the language surrounding what constitutes an 'artificially generated impersonation' could be too vague, raising concerns about potential overreach in enforcement. Additionally, exemptions for law enforcement activities necessitate further clarification to prevent ambiguity in interpretation. As technology evolves, lawmakers and stakeholders will likely continue to discuss the best ways to navigate the intersection of artificial intelligence, privacy, and individual rights.
In sexual offenses, further providing for the offense of unlawful dissemination of intimate image; in minors, further providing for the offense of sexual abuse of children and for the offense of transmission of sexually explicit images by minor; and making editorial changes to replace references to the term "child pornography" with references to the term "child sexual abuse material."
In sexual offenses, providing for the offense of unlawful dissemination of artificially generated depiction; and, in minors, further providing for the offense of sexual abuse of children and for the offense of transmission of sexually explicit images by minor.
Further providing for definitions and for unlawful acts or practices and exclusions; and providing for child sexual abuse material generated by artificial intelligence.