Latest news with #HarmfulDigitalCommunicationsAct2015
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Conservative Party Of New Zealand To Advocate For Steve Howley
Conservative Party Law & Justice Spokesman Stephen Taylor says the party is supporting Steve Howley, the West Auckland lawn mowing contractor who was publicly accused by Maori Party President John Tamihere of defacing the Maori Party Tamaki Makaurau candidate's by-election signs in a Facebook post that went viral. Stephen is also the director of Litigation Support Services, an agency that supports Self-Represented Litigants to navigate the New Zealand judicial system, and will lead this advocacy in support of Mr Howley. 'Having met with Mr Howley, and after hearing his story, it is appalling to me that a private individual can be going about his business, only to be falsely accused of doing something that he hasn't done, and become the victim of a viral "dog-whistle" attack against himself, his business, and his family, as has happened to Mr Howley' says Mr Taylor. 'Having reviewed the relevant legislation, it is very clear to me that Mr Tamihere's reported action against Mr Howley, would meet the various criminal thresholds for a posting of a harmful digital communication causing serious emotional distress under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015'. "I will be approaching the Waitemata Police on behalf of Mr Howley regarding this matter, and walking them through these criminal thresholds, which themselves meet both police prosecutorial evidential and public interest guidelines for Police to be able to consider progressing with a prosecution against Mr Tamihere for posting a digital communication causing harm to Mr Howley'. 'Mr Howley reports that he did nothing wrong - in the process of cleaning his own defaced company signs, Mr Howley was photographed by a passerby in the vicinity of a Maori Party Election sign which had been similarly defaced. This person jumped to the erroneous conclusion that Mr Howley was defacing a the Maori Party sign, and somehow their photo and the corresponding post reached Mr Tamihere's Facebook page, and was allegedly shared at least 140 times, and attracted hundreds of comments. A number of these comments were allegedly threatening to Mr Howley to such an extent that Mr Howley feared for his safety, and declined to go back to work for several days, costing Mr Howley a significant loss of income, introducing service delays for Mr Howley's clients, and resulting in negative physical and psychological health effects upon Mr Howley, owing to the stress and trauma resulting from the alleged action of Mr Tamihere against Mr Howley'. 'In addition, Mr Howley allegedly had photos of his children lifted from his personal Facebook page and reposted onto Mr Tamihere's Facebook page'. 'In the material I have seen, I believe that the veracity of the available evidence in this matter can be reasonably sustained, and the Police should have no problem advancing this matter to a criminal prosecution'. 'However, if the Waitemata Police Prosecution Service decline to prosecute this matter, despite the overwhelming evidence that criminal thresholds for posting a digital communication causing harm against Mr Howley have been met, then the Conservative Party of New Zealand will assist Mr Howley in filing a private prosecution in this matter, under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015,' says Mr Taylor.
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.
