Latest news with #HarmfulDigitalCommunicationsAct2015
The Spinoff
22-06-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Pornographic deepfakes are ruining lives. What are we doing about it?
They're made and spread quickly, cause intense harm and mostly target younger women and girls, but creating and sharing pornographic deepfakes is, in most cases, totally legal. Act MP Laura McClure's member's bill wants to change that. Content warning: This piece discusses suicide and sexual exploitation. The pictures were surprisingly easy to make. All she had to do was upload a photo of herself onto a website found through a quick search, and let it spew out AI-generated images of her naked in the bedroom, the bathroom, the kitchen – there was even a tool to make her appear more childlike. Her body may have been imagined, but for all intents and purposes, it was imagined to be her. It was a first for parliament when Act MP Laura McClure presented a doctored image of herself nude to the House in mid-May, but according to Netsafe, these pornographic deepfakes are now popping up and ruining lives almost daily. They're quick to make, cause incredible emotional damage and they mostly target younger women and girls, but they're not illegal, and there's no way of knowing exactly how many New Zealanders are being harmed by them. A member's bill drafted by McClure would criminalise the creation of these images by adding amendments to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 and Crimes Act 1961 to expand the definition of 'intimate visual recordings' to include those that have been synthesised. McClure told The Spinoff the bill was born from numerous discussions with parents, school teachers and advocates whose daughters and students had been impacted by pornographic deepfakes. The stories McClure heard were deeply upsetting – in one instance, a 13-year-old girl had attempted suicide on school grounds after being deepfaked in this way. At a school in North Canterbury, 15 girls had explicit deepfaked images of themselves shared on social media. In one Auckland school, a group of 50 girls in the year 10 cohort were targets of this. One teen girl of Muslim faith was deepfaked naked as a 'joke', McClure said. The experience was not only 'deeply offensive' for the girl, but it had a significant impact on her relationship with her family. 'It's something that schools are really struggling to tackle, because there is a grey area in our legislation,' McClure said. 'There is no real way that victims of this can get any justice and real support, because the support isn't there when it's not a crime.' With near-daily calls being made to Netsafe about these images, chief online safety officer Sean Lyons told The Spinoff the fear they instil in targets is 'huge', and can be 'emotionally and psychologically damaging in the very worst ways for many people'. The online safety organisation works with targets and perpetrators to remove this online content and impose civil sanctions (typically a fine) where possible, and while larger platforms such as Pornhub are typically responsive in these cases, others exist solely for the purpose of sharing these images. 'We know the amount of harm that these things cause is directly related to just how long it's up there – just how long people perceive that people can see this really does amplify the harm that individuals feel,' Lyons said. The homespun logic that if you don't take a risqué image of yourself, then you won't be a victim of being seen in a sexually compromising position without your consent is no longer true, Lyons said – now, anyone can be a victim of image-based abuse. In some ways, having a pornographic deepfake of yourself made and posted online can be far more damaging than if the image was real, lawyer Arran Hunt told The Spinoff. 'You have no choice as to that image being created in the first place,' he said. 'It's completely out of your hands.' Hunt has been long advocating for our laws to catch up with this technology because as it stands, no one has been successful in taking a deepfake case down a criminal legal pathway. It all comes down to the intention, Hunt said, and the creation of pornographic deepfakes is typically driven by desire for 'financial gain, a laugh, peer pressure, attention – to cause harm is often not actually the reason they're doing it'. When the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 was amended in 2022 to include unauthorised posting of an intimate visual recording, Hunt was one of many submitters in the select committee process who suggested the definition of this material should include synthesised images. The suggestion didn't make it past the submissions phase, and Hunt worries it will take the death of a 'blonde white female' for our laws to catch up. Hunt said the onus needs to be on the creator of the image, rather than the app or platform that generates it. 'If Little Johnny is creating deepfakes of somebody else and it's causing them harm, then Little Johnny should be facing the court,' Hunt said. 'Not just that we'll have a meeting with Little Johnny's parents and hopefully he stops doing it because he's a menace.' McClure's bill is a member's bill, so it's sitting in the biscuit tin, waiting for a chance to be plucked and introduced to parliament. After telling the Herald in May that he was not considering adopting it as a government bill, justice minister Paul Goldsmith will be meeting with McClure in July to discuss the bill. It's been 'frustrating' waiting for change, McClure said, but a meeting with the minister is a 'positive step forward'. 'What I do think the government needs to consider is, do we want to put these preventions in place now while the issue is just emerging and starting to grow, or are we going to be reactive when a young girl takes her life?'
NZ Herald
22-06-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Law & society: A proposed curb on deepfake AI is a necessary step
Act MP Laura McClure showing an AI generated deepfake nude photo of herself in Parliament. Photo / Supplied The rise of deepfake technology has sparked debate in New Zealand over whether existing legislation, particularly the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA), is sufficient to address the harms caused by AI-generated content. Act MP Laura McClure has introduced the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill, a private member's
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Major Changes To Proposed Anti-Stalking Law
Press Release – New Zealand Government This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith … Minister of Justice Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is welcoming changes to toughen up the proposed anti-stalking law, including being triggered after two specified acts within 24 months. 'This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period,' Mr Goldsmith says. 'We've said from day one victims are our priority. Returning them to the heart of our justice system underpins all our work to restore law and order. 'Stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. As I announced in November, the offence will have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. 'This builds on our work already underway to restore real consequences for crime, with our sentencing reforms coming into effect at the end of this month. 'I want to thank those who made submissions during the select committee process. Your input has identified some important ways we can combat this insidious behaviour. 'The Justice Committee has now put forward a raft of recommendations, which government parties have agreed to. 'This includes strengthening the pattern of behaviour definition to only require two specified acts, and within a two-year period.' Other changes made to the Bill by the Committee to enhance its effectiveness include: Addressing the publishing of any statement or other material relating to the other person, or purporting to originate from that person (also known as doxing). Adding new sections to enable the disposal of any intimate visual recordings possessed by a person convicted of the new stalking and harassment offence. Adding the new offence to the Firearms Prohibition Orders regime, allowing those orders to be made when a person is convicted of the new offence. Clarifying the new aggravating factor relating to stalking by more clearly linking the associated stalking and harassment-type behaviours to the offence the person is charged with. Making it clear that restraining orders under the Harassment Act 1997 and orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 can be made when a person is discharged without conviction in relation to the new offence.
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Major Changes To Proposed Anti-Stalking Law
Minister of Justice Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is welcoming changes to toughen up the proposed anti-stalking law, including being triggered after two specified acts within 24 months. 'This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period,' Mr Goldsmith says. 'We've said from day one victims are our priority. Returning them to the heart of our justice system underpins all our work to restore law and order. 'Stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. As I announced in November, the offence will have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. 'This builds on our work already underway to restore real consequences for crime, with our sentencing reforms coming into effect at the end of this month. 'I want to thank those who made submissions during the select committee process. Your input has identified some important ways we can combat this insidious behaviour. 'The Justice Committee has now put forward a raft of recommendations, which government parties have agreed to. 'This includes strengthening the pattern of behaviour definition to only require two specified acts, and within a two-year period.' Other changes made to the Bill by the Committee to enhance its effectiveness include: Addressing the publishing of any statement or other material relating to the other person, or purporting to originate from that person (also known as doxing). Adding new sections to enable the disposal of any intimate visual recordings possessed by a person convicted of the new stalking and harassment offence. Adding the new offence to the Firearms Prohibition Orders regime, allowing those orders to be made when a person is convicted of the new offence. Clarifying the new aggravating factor relating to stalking by more clearly linking the associated stalking and harassment-type behaviours to the offence the person is charged with. Making it clear that restraining orders under the Harassment Act 1997 and orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 can be made when a person is discharged without conviction in relation to the new offence.
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
