The fine line between deepfake legislation and deeply fake legislation

There’s a fine line between legislation addressing deepfakes and legislation that is itself a deep fake. Nate Jones reports on the only federal legislation addressing the deepfake problem so far. I claim that it is well short of a serious regulatory effort – and pretty close to a fake itself.

In contrast, India seems serious about imposing liability on companies whose unbreakable end-to-end crypto causes harm, at least to judge from the howls of the usual defenders of such products. David Kris explains how the law will work. I ask why Silicon Valley gets to impose the externalities of encryption-facilitated crime on society when we’d never let Big Tech leave us with the tab for water or air pollution just because their products are so cool. In related news, the FBI may be turning the Pensacola military terrorism attack into a slow-motion replay of its San Bernardino fight with Apple, this time with more top cover (and probably better lawyering).

Poor Nate seems to draw all the fake legislation in this episode. He explains a 2020 appropriations rider requiring the State Department to report on how it issues export licenses for cyber espionage capabilities; this is a follow-up to investigative reporting on the way such capabilities ended up being used against human rights activists in the UAE. As we agree, it’s an interesting and likely unsolvable policy problem, so the legislation opts for the most meaningless of remedies, requiring the Directorate of Defense Trade Control to report “on cybertools and capabilities licensing, including licensing screening and approval procedures as well as compliance and enforcement mechanisms” within 90 days.

Nate also gets to cover some decidedly un-fake requirements in the 2019 NDAA limiting how defense contractors can use Chinese technology. The other shoe is about to drop, and if the first one was a baby shoe, the second is a Clydesdale’s horseshoe.

It’s hard to call it fake, but the latest export control rule restricting sales of AI could hardly be narrower. Maury Shenk and I speculate that this is because a long-term

You can read the rest of this article at: