´ˇ±ôľ±ĚýMesbahianĚýis anĚýIPilogueĚýWriter and a 2L JD Candidate atĚýOsgoodeĚýHall Law School.Ěý

Ěý

Thanks to deepfakes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether a video is real or not. Deepfakes are machine learning processes that video and audio recordings using the images and sounds belonging to individuals not present in the original recordings in order to produce . As the technology behind deepfakes further develops, it becomes . What results is the widespread use of deepfakes for nefarious purposes, such as pornography ( of its use according to a 2019 inquiry), and influencing elections. The rapid development of deepfakes also threatens to influence our understanding of the world. What if we reach a point where it is impossible for a layperson to be certain of the veracity of a video in which someone is saying or doing something controversial? Politicians can then exploit the doubts that fill our perception to avoid accountability when real scandals arise. Danielle Citron and Bobby Chesney, law professors at the University of Virginia and the University of Texas respectively, call this the “liar’s dividend”. Because we are aware that deepfakes enable anyone to say or do anything in a video or audio recording, we lose trust in our eyes and ears, allowing accurate information to be veiled as “” in unprecedented ways.

Legal Responses to Deepfakes

Currently, that explicitly criminalizes abusing deepfakes. While remedies grounded in copyright infringement, defamation, and violations of privacy and impersonation in elections may cover deepfakes, we require a uniform and direct effort to combat their nefarious use. As Citron explains, a coordinated international response is necessary given how easily accessible falsified videos are from different parts of the world. We must also address this issue cautiously. As Chesney notes, granting the government regulatory authority to determine what is or isn’t true tends “”. In other words, the concern is that undue censorship may arise in the name of protecting the accuracy of information.

The recently proposed includes privacy provisions that may directly impact the regulation of deepfakes. Despite invoking the Charter, the Act “”. As Emily Laidlaw, law professor at the University of Calgary, explains, while the Act invokes human rights language, it is essentially framed as a , making corporations and tech platforms responsible for ensuring the privacy interest of their users and liable in case of a breach. Therefore, if the proposed framework is used to regulate deepfakes, we may return to the problem that I mentioned in my : outsourcing our fundamental rights to corporations and expanding corporate power as opposed to limiting it.

The post What to do when Anything is Possible: A Brief Note on the Problems Surrounding the Regulation of Deepfakes appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo credits: Amza Andrei (unspash.com)

Written by Tiffany Wang, IPilogue Contributing Writer and J.D. candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School (Class of 2023).

Ěý

Big Tech companies like Facebook and Google collect and store users’ personal and potentially sensitive information. Canadians are generally compelled to accept this practice; however, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has sparked new over surveillance practices, like tracking and recording individuals. In an , Samuel Woodhams, a digital rights activist, indicates that 25 percent of the 53 contact-tracing apps used globally lack privacy policies. Without privacy protection, the risks of personal data leakage are too high to ignore.

On November 17, 2020, the federal government introduced Bill C-11, the (DCIA). It proposes three major changes:

1. Repeal Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) governing personal information and privacy;
2. Enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA); and
3. Introduce a Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal (Tribunal) governed by PIPEDA.

These recommendations would strengthen the impact of Canada’s privacy laws on the private sector. They underscore the federal government’s attempt to balance individuals’ fundamental right to privacy and the crucial function of information in advancing business, innovation, and commerce.

Consumer data is subject to heightened protection pursuant to Bill C-11. If enacted, the DCIA would, barring consumer consent, shield sensitive medical, financial, and social information and data from private entities. In effect, individuals would have increased autonomy over their online identity, by allowing them to meaningfully consent to the sharing of their data.

The DCIA’s new transparency requirements also address algorithmic transparency concerns. For example, businesses must be transparent about how they deploy . These requirements will entitle consumers to request that businesses explain how they process and use personal information. In turn, businesses must comply with the DCIA to clarify how their algorithmic systems generate and analyze consumer data. Bill C-11 and will implicate a larger number of computer systems than those currently captured by PIPEDA.

It is important that the federal government balances privacy concerns with advancing Canada’s innovation and technology sector. Bill C-11 notes Canada’s ambition to keep pace with the European Union and the United States in simplifying privacy and e-protection laws for commerce and businesses. For example, Bill C-11 adds a new “business activities” exception for requiring consent. Businesses will not be required to obtain consumer consent for every transaction in the process of delivering products or services.

Additionally, Bill C-11 promotes the sharing of data between private and public spheres to leverage data pools. Under Bill C-11, the federal government possesses increased oversight and enforcement powers over private parties. If the CPPA were successfully implemented, the Privacy Commissioner will reside above business entities, enabling the Government to stop organizations from collecting certain data. In addition, the Privacy Commissioner may, through the Tribunal, impose administrative fines up to three percent of a business entity’s global revenue, or $10 million for breaches.

Bill C-11 is attractive from both consumer and business standpoints. Not only do its recommendations strengthen individual autonomy and information transparency, but they also simplify business transactions by making it easier to obtain consent and foster increased dialogue between governmental agencies and private companies in sharing de-identified data.

Perhaps there is a silver lining to the pandemic to pave way for more robust privacy laws. As Canadian technology and commercial innovation increasingly depend upon data collection, it is prudent to bolster privacy.

The post An Antidote to Privacy Infringements: Will Bill C-11 Unite Consumers and Big Tech? appeared first on IPOsgoode.