WEBVTT - Deepfake porn and covert recordings - is NZ law keeping up with technology? 

0:00:05.120 --> 0:00:08.320
<v Speaker 1>Hilda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page,

0:00:08.600 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 1>a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Is

0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:20.240
<v Speaker 1>New Zealand's legal system moving fast enough to adapt to

0:00:20.360 --> 0:00:23.759
<v Speaker 1>new technologies. It's a question being asked by some of

0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:28.560
<v Speaker 1>our top academics and MPs. The conversation around covert recordings

0:00:28.600 --> 0:00:31.920
<v Speaker 1>has made headlines again this week, as well as raising

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:36.080
<v Speaker 1>questions around whether it's actually illegal and act. MP Laura

0:00:36.159 --> 0:00:39.400
<v Speaker 1>McClure made global headlines after holding up a photo of

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:43.680
<v Speaker 1>herself naked in Parliament. It was an AI generated deep fake,

0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:48.040
<v Speaker 1>which McClure said took her only moments to create. So

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:52.160
<v Speaker 1>do our existing laws protect victims from being abused through

0:00:52.280 --> 0:00:56.600
<v Speaker 1>rapidly developing technology. We discuss that later with the University

0:00:56.600 --> 0:01:00.600
<v Speaker 1>of Canterbury Professor of Law, doctor Cassandra Mudgway, but first

0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:04.080
<v Speaker 1>on the Front Page we discuss that viral deep fake

0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 1>moment with AX Laura McClure. So, Laura, what motivated you

0:01:12.400 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 1>to create this nude deep fake of yourself?

0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:19.920
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I wanted to highlight the growing or emerging trend

0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:24.319
<v Speaker 2>that is deep fake pornography and realistically it's now starting

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:27.480
<v Speaker 2>to happen for a youth in particular, and it's becoming

0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:31.600
<v Speaker 2>a huge problem at schools. I'm our party's education spokesperson,

0:01:31.720 --> 0:01:35.120
<v Speaker 2>so I'm out there talking to principles teachers parents alike,

0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:38.280
<v Speaker 2>and I'm also a parent myself. So I've noticed this

0:01:38.400 --> 0:01:41.120
<v Speaker 2>concerning trend over the last few years, and I thought

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:43.080
<v Speaker 2>that I would create a members bill in order to

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 2>attack the loophole that we have and see if we

0:01:46.520 --> 0:01:47.400
<v Speaker 2>can do something about this.

0:01:47.600 --> 0:01:50.960
<v Speaker 1>Are you surprised by the international reaction to this. I've

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:53.720
<v Speaker 1>seen it picked up by a lot of international news outlets.

0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:56.880
<v Speaker 2>No, look, I'm actually not and I think this is

0:01:56.960 --> 0:02:00.320
<v Speaker 2>a worldwide trend. When we see the increase in technology

0:02:00.520 --> 0:02:04.080
<v Speaker 2>like AI, we often find that it is used sometimes

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:06.720
<v Speaker 2>by bad actors the time it's used for good, as

0:02:06.720 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 2>we know. But I think that this is a growing

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:11.760
<v Speaker 2>trend worldwide, so I'm not surprised to see us picked

0:02:11.800 --> 0:02:12.519
<v Speaker 2>up internationally.

0:02:12.760 --> 0:02:16.120
<v Speaker 1>I saw that while Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said they're

0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:19.400
<v Speaker 1>not currently considering adopting the bill, he'll meet with you

0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:22.880
<v Speaker 1>to discuss it. Has that meeting taken place, not just yet.

0:02:22.720 --> 0:02:24.880
<v Speaker 2>But I do believe I am meeting with him next month,

0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:27.280
<v Speaker 2>which I think is a positive step. I understand the

0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:30.640
<v Speaker 2>government has a very busy workload that this is a

0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:33.440
<v Speaker 2>really big problem in the story that I've been hearing

0:02:33.520 --> 0:02:36.239
<v Speaker 2>are like harrowing, to be honest, and it's as this

0:02:36.320 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 2>government going to wait until somebody actually commits suicide over this,

0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:41.280
<v Speaker 2>or if are we going to actually do something there

0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 2>about it?

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:44.079
<v Speaker 1>Well, I know that you need to convince sixty MP's

0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 1>from across the House to support it so it can

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:49.280
<v Speaker 1>skip that member's bill ballot process. How's that all going?

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.480
<v Speaker 2>Look, I think it's going really well. These positive signs

0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:55.480
<v Speaker 2>from all of the parties in government that if this

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:57.799
<v Speaker 2>bill was pulled they would definitely support it as far

0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 2>as bypassing the Tin. I've got great support from the Greens,

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.080
<v Speaker 2>which is sometimes a bit unusual coming from Act but

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 2>they also have these share the same concerns labor and

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:10.600
<v Speaker 2>definitely New Zealand first, and I'm talking with Hannah Rafferty

0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:13.320
<v Speaker 2>to discuss if she's on board too. So I've written

0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:16.120
<v Speaker 2>to their party whips or all the party whips saying, look,

0:03:16.120 --> 0:03:18.080
<v Speaker 2>I think this is something a bit more serious and

0:03:18.120 --> 0:03:20.600
<v Speaker 2>requires a lot more urgency. Can we get this out

0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:22.280
<v Speaker 2>of the tin and see if we can get some

0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:22.880
<v Speaker 2>action on it.

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 3>This image is a naked image of me, but it

0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:31.560
<v Speaker 3>is not real.

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:35.120
<v Speaker 1>This image is what we call a deep faith.

0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 3>It took me less than five minutes to make a

0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 3>series of deep fakes of myself. Scaringly, it was a

0:03:44.400 --> 0:03:48.080
<v Speaker 3>quick Google search for the technology of what's available. In fact,

0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:50.320
<v Speaker 3>I didn't need to enter an email address. I just

0:03:50.360 --> 0:03:51.960
<v Speaker 3>had to tack a box A so I was eighteen

0:03:52.000 --> 0:03:53.760
<v Speaker 3>and that it was my image and I could use it.

0:03:57.280 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 1>Do you think we're moving fast enough as a country

0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>to adapt to new technologies? If we wait for your

0:04:02.280 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 1>bill to go through the biscuit ten, get drawn, get debated,

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:07.920
<v Speaker 1>go through three readings, there could be a brand new

0:04:08.040 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>tech or ways of doing things by then.

0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:13.040
<v Speaker 2>Hey, well absolutely there could be. But I believe ye

0:04:13.320 --> 0:04:16.279
<v Speaker 2>my bill would protect from any sensor sized images. So

0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:18.839
<v Speaker 2>whether it's done via the current tech or future tech,

0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:21.040
<v Speaker 2>I think it would cover us into the future. And

0:04:21.120 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 2>I do believe it's something that we absolutely need to do.

0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:25.680
<v Speaker 2>And this tech is moving really fast, like day by

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 2>day there are new sites, new apps that can do

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:30.600
<v Speaker 2>all of this kind of thing. And I think, you know,

0:04:30.760 --> 0:04:33.520
<v Speaker 2>as law makers, we really need to consider one. How

0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:35.480
<v Speaker 2>can we adopt AI for good. I think that's a

0:04:35.560 --> 0:04:37.799
<v Speaker 2>real positive thing, but what can we do when people

0:04:37.880 --> 0:04:40.080
<v Speaker 2>use it for malicious purposes?

0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:42.159
<v Speaker 1>What are some of the horror stories you've heard from

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:43.920
<v Speaker 1>parents and students and teachers.

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:46.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I've heard quite a lot of heroin stories that

0:04:46.480 --> 0:04:49.680
<v Speaker 2>are really motivating me to push on with us and

0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 2>actually show how urgent it is. One of the main stories,

0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:54.880
<v Speaker 2>or the key stories that I've been saying, is about

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:56.960
<v Speaker 2>a stirtying year old girl and I've got a twelve

0:04:57.040 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 2>year old boy, so still feels very awfully young for thirty.

0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 2>She was deep faked and it was shared amongst her

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:07.200
<v Speaker 2>peers at school just year nine, and she attempted suicide

0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:10.960
<v Speaker 2>on school site. It was absolutely terrifying and traumatizing, not

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 2>for just for the individual, but for her peers in

0:05:13.600 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 2>the school, and the lack of support and resource around

0:05:16.720 --> 0:05:19.679
<v Speaker 2>this is really terrifying. It would be on the extreme

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 2>side of things, but other than that case, I've heard

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:25.920
<v Speaker 2>of many, many other young predominantly females where this is

0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:29.480
<v Speaker 2>happening to her, whether it's at school, university for example,

0:05:29.600 --> 0:05:30.599
<v Speaker 2>or within the workplace.

0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:46.599
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for joining us, Laura, Thank you. Last week, Michael Forbes,

0:05:46.680 --> 0:05:51.000
<v Speaker 1>a former Deputy Press Secretary in Christopher Lucksen's office was

0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:55.320
<v Speaker 1>exposed in a staff investigation for having allegedly made audio

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:58.839
<v Speaker 1>recordings of sex workers and photographed women on the street

0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:02.680
<v Speaker 1>without their consent. And this case, alongside the calls for

0:06:02.760 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 1>a crackdown on deep fake porn, have highlighted the issues

0:06:06.440 --> 0:06:10.120
<v Speaker 1>facing our legal system and keeping up with new technology.

0:06:10.320 --> 0:06:13.280
<v Speaker 1>To discuss further, we're joined now on the front page

0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:21.920
<v Speaker 1>by doctor Cassandra Mudgway from the University of Canterbury. First off, Cassandra,

0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:25.560
<v Speaker 1>what are some of the current laws in place around

0:06:25.600 --> 0:06:29.200
<v Speaker 1>covert audio recordings? I imagine they must be illegal in

0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:29.840
<v Speaker 1>some way.

0:06:30.200 --> 0:06:34.000
<v Speaker 4>So there are some crimes under the Crimes Act around

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:39.760
<v Speaker 4>covert audio recordings, but they only cover audio conversations where

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:44.480
<v Speaker 4>the person who's intercepting, which is what it's called interception,

0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:47.839
<v Speaker 4>is not party to the conversation itself.

0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>Right, So if I was to covertly record someone just

0:06:51.839 --> 0:06:54.560
<v Speaker 1>in a conversation between us two, that's okay.

0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:58.680
<v Speaker 4>Yes, yes, So if one party consents to that then

0:06:58.720 --> 0:06:59.960
<v Speaker 4>that would be lead.

0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:03.520
<v Speaker 1>What about in the case where I don't know, say

0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 1>it was a covert recording of a session with a

0:07:07.120 --> 0:07:07.800
<v Speaker 1>sex worker.

0:07:08.240 --> 0:07:11.360
<v Speaker 4>So that is a sort of an intimate sort of

0:07:11.400 --> 0:07:15.800
<v Speaker 4>audio recording, and that is lawful, so it's not illegal

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:20.280
<v Speaker 4>under the Crimes Act. The Crime fact only covers intimate

0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:21.360
<v Speaker 4>video recordings.

0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:26.000
<v Speaker 1>What about recording or filming in public places, things like

0:07:26.000 --> 0:07:28.520
<v Speaker 1>a woman walking down a street at the gem, extreme

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:29.920
<v Speaker 1>close ups, that kind of thing.

0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:35.320
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, so intimate visual recordings that are prohibited under the

0:07:35.360 --> 0:07:38.920
<v Speaker 4>Crimes Act, which is the non consensual creation, possession, or

0:07:38.920 --> 0:07:43.320
<v Speaker 4>distribution of those. That definition requires that the person that

0:07:43.360 --> 0:07:46.800
<v Speaker 4>you're covertly recording is in a place where they have

0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:51.040
<v Speaker 4>a reasonable expectation of privacy. And secondly, that person is

0:07:51.080 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 4>in a state of undress or engaged in sexual activity,

0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:59.080
<v Speaker 4>or otherwise maybe showering or going to the bathroom. If

0:07:59.120 --> 0:08:01.640
<v Speaker 4>you have COVID taking of photographs or videos of women

0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:04.920
<v Speaker 4>in public places, the obvious fish hook that I see

0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:07.720
<v Speaker 4>is that the place where the women are being captured,

0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:11.559
<v Speaker 4>generally when you're out using public spaces are so walking

0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:15.400
<v Speaker 4>down the road or in a supermarket or even using

0:08:15.560 --> 0:08:18.680
<v Speaker 4>a public gym, you have a lesser expectation of privacy

0:08:18.720 --> 0:08:21.600
<v Speaker 4>than you do in your own private home. And even

0:08:21.640 --> 0:08:24.640
<v Speaker 4>where you could argue that perhaps zooming in on certain

0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:28.160
<v Speaker 4>body parts where that becomes like the subject of the

0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:31.160
<v Speaker 4>image or video, perhaps that could be recognized that you

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:34.680
<v Speaker 4>have a higher expectation of privacy there. The image itself,

0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:37.920
<v Speaker 4>according to the definition, must be of those body parts

0:08:37.960 --> 0:08:41.960
<v Speaker 4>being exposed in some way, so naked or in your underwear,

0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:45.560
<v Speaker 4>so it's not easily captured under these sort of criminal

0:08:45.640 --> 0:08:47.400
<v Speaker 4>or that slate of criminal offenses.

0:08:47.720 --> 0:08:51.079
<v Speaker 1>Does any of this counter's harassment Potentially?

0:08:51.440 --> 0:08:55.160
<v Speaker 4>It really depends on the circumstances. So under the Harassment Act,

0:08:55.280 --> 0:09:00.600
<v Speaker 4>harassment involves a pattern of behavior, so at least two instances,

0:09:00.800 --> 0:09:04.760
<v Speaker 4>and that includes specified acts, which does include following or

0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:08.480
<v Speaker 4>watching well otherwise behavior that causes a person to fear

0:09:08.520 --> 0:09:12.920
<v Speaker 4>for their safety. So covert filming could meet this definition

0:09:13.000 --> 0:09:17.520
<v Speaker 4>if it's repeated and or if it causes fear or distress. However,

0:09:17.720 --> 0:09:21.520
<v Speaker 4>proving intent or knowledge regarding that fear can be a

0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:24.800
<v Speaker 4>legal hurdle, I think, especially when the conduct is framed

0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:28.760
<v Speaker 4>as more like your voyeuristic rather than threatening. It's probably

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:32.960
<v Speaker 4>also difficult to prosecute if the women are being followed

0:09:33.040 --> 0:09:36.559
<v Speaker 4>or watched, they've never become aware of that. I can

0:09:36.600 --> 0:09:38.720
<v Speaker 4>see that as being difficult to prosecute.

0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:41.319
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, does it seem like the laws are a bit

0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 1>outdated here.

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:45.600
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I think that this situation has really exposed some

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:48.559
<v Speaker 4>gaps in the law, particularly when it comes to those

0:09:48.720 --> 0:09:53.360
<v Speaker 4>intimate audio recordings, which as the women who brought this forward,

0:09:53.640 --> 0:09:57.960
<v Speaker 4>where we're shocked that wasn't a criminal offense, and generally

0:09:58.040 --> 0:10:00.240
<v Speaker 4>this is a really good opportunity I think to really

0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:02.960
<v Speaker 4>step back and have a look at our current laws

0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:06.880
<v Speaker 4>and while they address some forms of non consensual recording,

0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:10.480
<v Speaker 4>as we've discussed, they were designed with specific technologies and

0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:13.920
<v Speaker 4>behaviors in mind. So that's slate of criminal offenses I'm

0:10:13.920 --> 0:10:16.440
<v Speaker 4>talking about that was created in two thousand and six.

0:10:16.600 --> 0:10:20.400
<v Speaker 4>We're talking about the influx of digital cameras. It's not

0:10:20.559 --> 0:10:24.920
<v Speaker 4>created with everyone having high powered sort of cameras just

0:10:25.040 --> 0:10:27.480
<v Speaker 4>on your phones like we do now with smartphones. So

0:10:27.520 --> 0:10:29.920
<v Speaker 4>as a result, the criminal offenses that we have fail

0:10:30.320 --> 0:10:35.439
<v Speaker 4>to capture newer, equally harmful conduct like the covert intimate

0:10:35.440 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 4>audio recordings, but also other things like synthetic media abuse,

0:10:39.280 --> 0:10:42.800
<v Speaker 4>like non consensual sexualized depth fakes. So I think that

0:10:42.840 --> 0:10:44.920
<v Speaker 4>we need to really look at law reform in a

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:47.480
<v Speaker 4>sort of in a different way, something that is more

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:51.720
<v Speaker 4>technology neutral and perhaps look at what kind of harm

0:10:51.760 --> 0:10:55.720
<v Speaker 4>we want to sort of protect people from. So what

0:10:55.800 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 4>do we want to protect. We want to protect sexual autonomy,

0:10:59.559 --> 0:11:04.880
<v Speaker 4>bodily antegrity, privacy, and a real focus on that lack

0:11:04.960 --> 0:11:06.479
<v Speaker 4>of consent. I think.

0:11:08.440 --> 0:11:11.280
<v Speaker 5>Initially we figured that there was a gap in the law.

0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:14.400
<v Speaker 5>It's something that was raised as far back as twenty eleven.

0:11:15.240 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 6>Is it's not a criminal harestler. I feel this case

0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:25.679
<v Speaker 6>is so extreme. It's the most extreme end of cyber

0:11:26.000 --> 0:11:31.520
<v Speaker 6>ar wrestler. But it could be used to shake Okay,

0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:32.880
<v Speaker 6>this probably doesn't have any.

0:11:32.640 --> 0:11:35.640
<v Speaker 5>Day and has been a constant query from the victims

0:11:35.679 --> 0:11:36.360
<v Speaker 5>I've spoken to.

0:11:37.080 --> 0:11:40.520
<v Speaker 7>Why why can the government not step in and put

0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.800
<v Speaker 7>protocols in place to protect people? Surely there must be

0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:48.320
<v Speaker 7>something out there that you know the government can can done.

0:11:48.880 --> 0:11:52.440
<v Speaker 5>Well, Sorry, it turns out our laws are pretty good.

0:11:55.640 --> 0:11:59.560
<v Speaker 1>Last year the Herald released Chasing Ghosts the Papper Tier,

0:11:59.679 --> 0:12:02.959
<v Speaker 1>and that looked at the case of Catfish and Natalia Burgers.

0:12:03.080 --> 0:12:05.720
<v Speaker 1>They looked at the legal side of trying to stop

0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:08.760
<v Speaker 1>her and found there were laws that could target her,

0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:13.960
<v Speaker 1>but not a specific anti catfishing law or anything like that.

0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:17.080
<v Speaker 1>Despite a lot of the victims wanting something like that

0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:19.480
<v Speaker 1>put forward. Do you think we trend towards being I

0:12:19.480 --> 0:12:23.559
<v Speaker 1>suppose too specific in some of our laws in issues like.

0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:27.640
<v Speaker 4>This, Yeah, because catfishing is a kind of impersonation scam,

0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:31.439
<v Speaker 4>so it was sort of like a romance scam colloquially,

0:12:31.440 --> 0:12:34.280
<v Speaker 4>that's kind of how we refer to it. And if

0:12:34.320 --> 0:12:37.920
<v Speaker 4>you are too specific to tech specific, it could create

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:42.040
<v Speaker 4>gaps later on. I would assume that would be something

0:12:42.080 --> 0:12:46.040
<v Speaker 4>around fraud or blackmail. But part of the purpose of

0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:51.120
<v Speaker 4>criminal law, I think, is to signal public condemnation of

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:56.280
<v Speaker 4>certain harmful behavior. There is a purpose to explicitly criminalize

0:12:56.280 --> 0:12:59.400
<v Speaker 4>a specific behavior. You are making it very clear that

0:12:59.480 --> 0:13:02.960
<v Speaker 4>this particular behavior as criminal behavior, and if you are

0:13:03.080 --> 0:13:06.880
<v Speaker 4>convicted of that offense, that it carries the stigma of

0:13:06.960 --> 0:13:10.720
<v Speaker 4>committing that particular behavior, And that's what we call fear labeling.

0:13:10.760 --> 0:13:13.680
<v Speaker 4>So I can see how that could be a really

0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:17.520
<v Speaker 4>good argument to making a specific catfishing offense or a

0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:20.480
<v Speaker 4>specific deep fake offense. You know, I can see that

0:13:20.600 --> 0:13:23.760
<v Speaker 4>being very useful, But again, it runs that risk of

0:13:23.800 --> 0:13:26.800
<v Speaker 4>being two tech specific, and you know, you can find

0:13:26.840 --> 0:13:29.960
<v Speaker 4>gaps in the law later when new tech is developed

0:13:29.960 --> 0:13:32.520
<v Speaker 4>and there are new ways to commit this kind of

0:13:32.640 --> 0:13:33.960
<v Speaker 4>harm in the future.

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:36.760
<v Speaker 1>What kind of laws would you put forward to kind

0:13:36.800 --> 0:13:39.440
<v Speaker 1>of capture all of the things that we've been talking

0:13:39.480 --> 0:13:42.679
<v Speaker 1>about and to make sure that it's kind of future proofed.

0:13:42.720 --> 0:13:43.560
<v Speaker 1>I guess yeah.

0:13:43.600 --> 0:13:46.480
<v Speaker 4>I think it is just going back and thinking about,

0:13:47.120 --> 0:13:49.640
<v Speaker 4>as I said before, thinking about law reform in a

0:13:50.080 --> 0:13:53.400
<v Speaker 4>principled kind of way, focusing on what we want to

0:13:53.440 --> 0:13:57.120
<v Speaker 4>protect and what is the harmful conduct that we want

0:13:57.160 --> 0:14:00.560
<v Speaker 4>to criminalize, and that focus on a lack of consent.

0:14:00.679 --> 0:14:04.080
<v Speaker 4>I think that's a whole of society sort of conversation

0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:05.040
<v Speaker 4>to be had.

0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:07.400
<v Speaker 1>It's interesting as well because these things happen all the time.

0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:09.760
<v Speaker 1>Look at the stalking laws that have just come through

0:14:10.320 --> 0:14:12.840
<v Speaker 1>or been passed. I mean, we do have the ability

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.560
<v Speaker 1>to look at these kind of consent issues and create

0:14:15.640 --> 0:14:18.600
<v Speaker 1>legislation to cover it, and which covers things like covert

0:14:18.679 --> 0:14:23.680
<v Speaker 1>recordings and taking photos of someone in the street. Hey, yep, yep, the.

0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:26.360
<v Speaker 4>New stalking or although we don't know what the final

0:14:26.440 --> 0:14:28.920
<v Speaker 4>form is going to be, probably would have been helpful

0:14:29.000 --> 0:14:33.200
<v Speaker 4>in this situation and get sort of an earlier police

0:14:33.200 --> 0:14:34.360
<v Speaker 4>intervention as well.

0:14:34.720 --> 0:14:42.160
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for joining us, Cassandra, no worries. Thank you. That's

0:14:42.200 --> 0:14:45.200
<v Speaker 1>it for this episode of the Front Page. You can

0:14:45.240 --> 0:14:49.080
<v Speaker 1>read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at

0:14:49.160 --> 0:14:52.920
<v Speaker 1>enzad Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page is

0:14:52.960 --> 0:14:56.640
<v Speaker 1>produced by Ethan Sells and Richard Martin, who is also

0:14:56.880 --> 0:15:01.520
<v Speaker 1>our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front

0:15:01.520 --> 0:15:05.120
<v Speaker 1>Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and

0:15:05.240 --> 0:15:08.840
<v Speaker 1>tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.