So the actual context of this is a long-standing feud between Meta and our elected representatives (and some prominent media figures) regarding social engineering scam ads.
You've probably seen some variant of it - a 1:1 copy of a reputable newsoutlet - in this case The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, RTÉ or Newstalk - with a purported video from our Prime Minister or similar which leads to a crypto-trading or forex-trading sales funnel. Simon Harris, our previous Head of State, was inundated with variants of the same script:
“In the nation’s best interests, we’ve carried out a full investigation to make sure it’s not a scam,” the AI-generated Harris appears to say in the scam ad shown on YouTube.
“This is your chance to change your life. All it takes is one small step: invest €250 and start earning today,” the deepfaked figure tells a press conference.
This is only going to change if prosecution is brought against Meta itself, which it looks like the "recklessly" clause is intended to imply. I look forward to Meta facing criminal charges for profiting from fraud.
What's the Irish equivalent of Hansard, by the way? Can we look up the debate?
There hasn't been a debate. The headline is not reflective of the facts. There hasn't been any agreement to fast track this bill, but the politician sponsoring it has said in a radio interview that (surprise!) he thinks it should be fast tracked.
The Dáil record can be found here, but there's nothing of interest in it:
HN: "Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse"
TFA: "Calls to fast track Bill to criminalise harmful misuse of someone’s voice or image"
Call to action. Not action. And the call is coming from the bill's proposer! He would say that, wouldn't he? But what matters is if the actual government takes that bill further. If they don't, we don't need to care about what this guy thinks.
HN headline (possibly an earlier headline of TFA) is fundamentally misrepresenting the situation.
What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police?
Granted, they might be able to crack down harder in some respects since unlike the police they don't have to worry about due process, but is that really "doing a better job" on balance?
These are public posts we're talking about, right? Or are we saying Meta should be cracking down on content in private communication too? (And if so, isn't that the same concern I just mentioned about due process, but for privacy instead?)
If we're talking about profiting from fraud, then we're talking ads. Which are semi-public, you only see them if you fall within the targeting bucket, which definitely wouldn't include "law enforcement officer".
>What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police?
Meta announce they will stop political/electoral advertising in EU, so this ios proof that Meta can do but we need to foce them to act, otherwise Meta makes money from all the scams in the ads that are published, in fact I remember Meta looked into the scam problem and decided to stop looking sicne solving the problem would reduce their profits.
Now in case all those well paid engineers at Meta can't find a solution here is an idea I had just by thinking at it for a few seconds, those geniuses shoudl be able to find better ones if they want.
1 when a scam ad is reported block that account and their ads
2 before the ad is published have an AI scan it, if it looks to be related to politics, crypto or other scam friendly domains have someone review it . do not allow fresh accounts to publish this kind of shit without a human review
3 for Facebook content when someone shares fake shiot, like a proven fake document, or scam or faked video block the account and then notify all the people that liked or shared the scam that they were scammed/tricked ... when your users will get 10 daily notifications "You are an idiot you shared this fake shit" you might realize you should do something about scams or users will stop engaging with your stuff.
I am talking here about proveable scams and fakes , so not about some gray area. I mean scams, faked videos/images/documents etc
As a common-law legal system, I would expect Ireland to have something similar to Canada's Criminal Code identity fraud.
403 (1) Everyone commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person;
(b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property;
(c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person; or
(d) with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution or to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
Marginal note:Clarification
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), personating a person includes pretending to be the person or using the person’s identity information — whether by itself or in combination with identity information pertaining to any person — as if it pertains to the person using it.
Marginal note:Punishment
(3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Except they don't - enforcement is circumvented by psuedo-anonymous users pushing illegal ad campaigns that revert back to inoffensive content or a similar cop-out by the time Meta/X responds to the report
This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm. Don't try to impose censorship or mass-surveillance on AI tools. I oppose all pornography, but censoring nudity from a model both compromises the model's quality (example: SD3) and stops legitimate artistic value.
Though the framing on Grok is highly duplicitous. It is against the ToS, and it's about a few abusers among millions of legitimate users. Meanwhile there are actual "nudification" services which advertise themselves entirely to enable this kind of abuse.
And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?
Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor".
More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?
The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.
Nudity, including artistic nudity, is in itself the complete opposite of pornography. One is human nature, with art depicting its beauty and purity, while the latter is about the gratification of lust.
As a Christian, pornography is clearly sinful and harmful. But if you wish to use your free will to partake in it, then you do you. Non-consensual pornography (which is what this is about) causes harm to another person, which is why it cannot be tolerated.
> This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm.
In same way as is done so successfully with guns, speeding automobiles, etc?
These things are capable of inferring photorealistic av deepfakes; with a well drafted law they're more than capable of inferring if what they are being asked to is illegal.
It makes zero sense to wait for the poop to hit the fan and then waste taxes investigating the illegality, punishing criminals, and dealing with impact on victims when it can stopped at source.
How does the law distinguish itself from anti-harassment laws?
I recall a old lawsuit (not sure which country) where a student had photoshopped a nude body onto a picture of their teacher and given it to other students. The main question in the case was if this qualified as sexual harassment, even if the teacher in question never received the image. I don't remember the outcome, through I think they were found guilty.
The cynic in me assumes its a way of establishing criminal liability on social media platforms for deepfakes impacting politicians credibility - striking while the Grok is still hot as it were.
I think YouTube and meta (Instagram and Facebook) will be hit as hard, or even harder, because of the numbers of scam ads using likeness. It will make them liable from publishing scam ads (which, to be clear, should already be in the DMA)
"Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse" - now that's some strange capitalis/zation in that headline. I'm Ok with title case, but randomly capitalising just one word in a title looks strange. Or is this something specifically Irish?
I can't speak for Ireland, but in the UK it is quite common to refer to a Bill (before it has passed) or an Act (when it is passed) with a capital letter, rightly or wrongly, because its name would be capitalised (in this case The Protection of Voice and Image Bill, with Bill replaced by Act once it has become law).
It is also a capitalised term within the text of the law itself.
I can't find a style guide for the Irish Times, but the Independent's style guide seems to agree with you: capitalize when used as part of the name of a bill or act, and use lowercase thereafter [0]. Perhaps because they are using Bill in the headline as a shorthand for the full-name of the bill (probably for space reasons), they saw fit to capitalize it? Regardless, this is one of those cases where it's not really a grammatical choice but one of style/convention.
> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person.
> [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with
the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other
person
This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress.
Without some exemption clauses added, this bill seems to basically ban using anyone's name/photograph/likeness in ANY context that criticises them; it will almost certainly conflict with ECHR's Article 10 on freedom of expression.
However(!!) with a few exemptions it can be made much better. Even tying it to AI generated photos/voice/etc would help - most _genuine_ criticism and reporting can go without the use of AI, but a lot of the intentional harm and sexual harassment did not occur before AI. If they don't want to do that, adding some form of "exemption if the information was used in a non-libellous context" could also work.
Your selective quoting is extremely misleading. The first section about publishing a name/photograph only applies in the context of "for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda." i.e. it's illegal to pretend someone is endorsing something they are not.
Sorry, the example I had in mind was a politician and I don't know why I forgot to add that to the comment, else I'd edit it in.
The point is that "to influence elections or referenda" is incredibly vague! Almost any reporting on a person involved in the election, or even related to it (reporting on someone who's group looking bad helps a party) can be construed as "influencing an election"
But the second paragraph doesn't have any of those specifics. It's just any algorithm (an actual ban on forbidden math), software, tool, technology, service, or device.
Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent.
It doesn’t constrain what you do in contexts other than where you use someone’s likeness to misrepresent their position.
"or to influence elections or referenda" has quite a wide scope and was what concerned me. Publishing a political in a negative light absolutely could influence an election! But yes I should have included that part, not good by me, sorry.
So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison?
What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison?
What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?
Having looked up the text, I can now answer my own questions.
1. As "the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness" is not Illustrator's "primary purpose or function", Adobe are off the hook. So is anyone else if they argue that the "primary purpose or function" is not the production of an individual's photograph, voice, or likeness. So if Grok can be prompted to produce any image, including porn of individuals, provided it's not the primary purpose of Grok, they're untouchable.
2. Even if the bill weren't worded that way, a legal person in Ireland allows for corporate personhood (https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-per...), so Adobe Corporation, as the legal person who "distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device" (Illustrator) would not be subject to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years", but it would be subject to "a fine" (maximum amount not specified)
3. Misrepresenting someone or not is irrelevant. The offense is when you either use the depicted person without their consent (regardless of how you represent them) or you intend to harm them (or recklessly don't consider the harm you might cause them), whether you have their consent or not. Harm specifically is {interfering "with the other person’s peace and privacy" or causing "alarm or distress" to them} _AND_ "a reasonable person would realise" that. It would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) to think misrepresenting a politician would cause them "alarm or distress" or interfere with their "peace and privacy", so you'd probably be fine producing images of politician XYZ saying they hate freedom, want to take your guns away, eat babies, etc., as they get that day-in, day-out and it hasn't stopped them yet.
> Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent.
This sounds like it would effectively ban photography in public places. Or at least ban the manufacture/sale of cameras or software that takes photos.
> A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress.
Cherrypicking your example:
Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing.
Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already
Otherwise I agree that it’s very ambitious wording
> Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already
Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the government have to publicize the names and identities of people they arrest so we know they're not doing so illegitimately?
Publishing a name and publishing a likeness is very different.
Especially if the person arrested is accused of immoral acts. In my country we have a very known story from 25 years ago where 18 persons were accused of being pedocriminals. Their faces blasted everywhere, on first page of most journals, on the TV... It turns out 13 of them weren't guilty at all. Issues with psychological pressure on the children and a lot of mistakes made life hell for the accused and ultimately innocent, people, most of them lost part of their life because of that.
It's definitely a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Lots of people have had their reputations ruined by accusations that turned out to be false but people made judgements based on the initial report and then moved on with their life carrying it as fact.
I think there's a difference between the government doing it and the newspaper.
The newspaper can cherry pick who they post about, and spin it however they want. The government should be posting all of them in the same way, with just the facts.
Publishing the name of someone arrested and then later released without charge could constitute harm to them, even if you make it theoretically illegal to discriminate against them on that basis.
Any time you are reading a law, especially one from another jurisdiction, you have to be very careful to consider that there may be terms with a legal or common law definition that you don't understand. In this case, "reckless" seems to be a well defined term with a fair amount of case law behind it. To my untrained eye it seems like a newspaper would be well within their rights to publish harmful information as long as they avoid "a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk".
A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress
If the suspected criminal isn't a public figure, it's a good thing, isn't it?
Interpretation
1. In this Act—
“broadcast” has the meaning assigned to it by the Broadcasting Act 2009;
“distribute” means distribute to the public or a section of the public;
“harm” includes psychological harm;
“Minister” means the Minister for Justice;
“publish” means publish, other than by way of broadcast, to the public or to a portion of the public.
Offences
2. (1) A person who—
(a) knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public an individual’s name, photograph, voice, or likeness in any medium for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda, or
(b) distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device, the primary purpose or function of which is the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness, is guilty of an offence where these actions are carried out—
(i) without the individual’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of such minor's parent or legal guardian, or in the case of a deceased individual, the consent of the executor or administrator, heirs, or devisees of such deceased individual,
(ii) with intent to cause harm to, or being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person causes harm to another person where—
(a) he or she, by his or her acts, intentionally or recklessly seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person, and
(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other person’s peace and privacy or cause alarm or distress to the other person.
(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both.
Review and operation of Act
3. The Minister shall, not later than one year after the commencement of this Act, carry out a review of the operation of this Act.
Short title and commencement
4. (1) This Act may be cited as the Protection of Voice and Image Act 2025.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister for Justice may by order or orders appoint either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.
The UK is considering an injunction to have Grok and potentially X banned until this issue is resolved.
I'm no huge fan of state intervention, particularly my state which is notoriously over zealous, prudish, and subtly authoritarian. The sweeping changes were seeing in the UK are somewhat reminiscent of the old "First they came for the trade unionists" poem, and there certainly has been many of us speaking out against the attacks on freedom to protest and expression here.
However, when you swap out trade unionists for "People comitting sexual harassment", "Paedophiles", and "Billionaires", Im somewhat more inclined to side with the government on this. Were already way down the slippery slope, at least some genuinely bad actors are catching some flak this time I guess.
Except that the UK is just laundering authoritarianism through a clause that selectively harms one organization and not all of those that have platforms with the same problem.
Given the UK’s already high authoritarian tendencies towards speech codes, it would be better to have the US sanction Kier Starmer, OFCOM, and other associated parties in the Commonwealth, narrowly specified.
Ireland is just a copy of the UK, except it's a tax haven and a trojan horse of the EU. They have the same age requirement regulation online as the UK.
• There is ongoing discussion in the Irish parliament and policy circles about setting a digital age of consent or minimum age (e.g. 16) for social media access. This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing, although no formal law has yet been enacted.
So the actual context of this is a long-standing feud between Meta and our elected representatives (and some prominent media figures) regarding social engineering scam ads.
You've probably seen some variant of it - a 1:1 copy of a reputable newsoutlet - in this case The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, RTÉ or Newstalk - with a purported video from our Prime Minister or similar which leads to a crypto-trading or forex-trading sales funnel. Simon Harris, our previous Head of State, was inundated with variants of the same script:
“In the nation’s best interests, we’ve carried out a full investigation to make sure it’s not a scam,” the AI-generated Harris appears to say in the scam ad shown on YouTube.
“This is your chance to change your life. All it takes is one small step: invest €250 and start earning today,” the deepfaked figure tells a press conference.
https://www.thejournal.ie/facetcheck-debunk-ai-scam-ad-deepf...
https://www.newstalk.com/news/social-media-platforms-see-sur...
The existing fraud and advertising laws cover these kind of scams. Because the bottleneck is enforcement, adding new laws won't make the world safer.
This is only going to change if prosecution is brought against Meta itself, which it looks like the "recklessly" clause is intended to imply. I look forward to Meta facing criminal charges for profiting from fraud.
What's the Irish equivalent of Hansard, by the way? Can we look up the debate?
There hasn't been a debate. The headline is not reflective of the facts. There hasn't been any agreement to fast track this bill, but the politician sponsoring it has said in a radio interview that (surprise!) he thinks it should be fast tracked.
The Dáil record can be found here, but there's nothing of interest in it:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/search/?searchType=debates&deba...
Oh for fuck's sake.
HN: "Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse"
TFA: "Calls to fast track Bill to criminalise harmful misuse of someone’s voice or image"
Call to action. Not action. And the call is coming from the bill's proposer! He would say that, wouldn't he? But what matters is if the actual government takes that bill further. If they don't, we don't need to care about what this guy thinks.
HN headline (possibly an earlier headline of TFA) is fundamentally misrepresenting the situation.
You can email the mod team with this explanation and get them to change the title.
What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police?
Granted, they might be able to crack down harder in some respects since unlike the police they don't have to worry about due process, but is that really "doing a better job" on balance?
Banning some fraudulent advertising is doing a better job than leaving it up, yes.
The police doesn't have access to all the data for starters. Meta does.
These are public posts we're talking about, right? Or are we saying Meta should be cracking down on content in private communication too? (And if so, isn't that the same concern I just mentioned about due process, but for privacy instead?)
If we're talking about profiting from fraud, then we're talking ads. Which are semi-public, you only see them if you fall within the targeting bucket, which definitely wouldn't include "law enforcement officer".
>What makes you think Meta will do a better job of policing this than the actual police?
Meta announce they will stop political/electoral advertising in EU, so this ios proof that Meta can do but we need to foce them to act, otherwise Meta makes money from all the scams in the ads that are published, in fact I remember Meta looked into the scam problem and decided to stop looking sicne solving the problem would reduce their profits.
Now in case all those well paid engineers at Meta can't find a solution here is an idea I had just by thinking at it for a few seconds, those geniuses shoudl be able to find better ones if they want.
1 when a scam ad is reported block that account and their ads
2 before the ad is published have an AI scan it, if it looks to be related to politics, crypto or other scam friendly domains have someone review it . do not allow fresh accounts to publish this kind of shit without a human review
3 for Facebook content when someone shares fake shiot, like a proven fake document, or scam or faked video block the account and then notify all the people that liked or shared the scam that they were scammed/tricked ... when your users will get 10 daily notifications "You are an idiot you shared this fake shit" you might realize you should do something about scams or users will stop engaging with your stuff.
I am talking here about proveable scams and fakes , so not about some gray area. I mean scams, faked videos/images/documents etc
> facing criminal charges for profiting from fraud
Amazon, too, but this seems to be "fraud that annoys pols," so I guess The Big A is going to be left alone...
Oh they won't. Vance will say a few mean words and threaten to bomb Dublin if anyone lifts a finger against Meta.
As a common-law legal system, I would expect Ireland to have something similar to Canada's Criminal Code identity fraud.
Except they don't - enforcement is circumvented by psuedo-anonymous users pushing illegal ad campaigns that revert back to inoffensive content or a similar cop-out by the time Meta/X responds to the report
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/despicable-simon-harri...
https://www.reddit.com/r/irishpolitics/comments/1i1shz3/anyo...
Does this require a belief that it isn't reasonable for meta to control or even be aware of ad content they are paid to show?
(Harris was our head of government (ie. PM or equivalent) rather than head of state (which would be the president).)
This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm. Don't try to impose censorship or mass-surveillance on AI tools. I oppose all pornography, but censoring nudity from a model both compromises the model's quality (example: SD3) and stops legitimate artistic value.
Though the framing on Grok is highly duplicitous. It is against the ToS, and it's about a few abusers among millions of legitimate users. Meanwhile there are actual "nudification" services which advertise themselves entirely to enable this kind of abuse.
who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.
The courts. Just like if you sue someone for anything else. Demonstrating harm is part of the process.
And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?
Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor".
More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?
The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.
Then we prosecute Musk.
Who defines what a crime is anyways right?
Nudity, including artistic nudity, is in itself the complete opposite of pornography. One is human nature, with art depicting its beauty and purity, while the latter is about the gratification of lust.
As a Christian, pornography is clearly sinful and harmful. But if you wish to use your free will to partake in it, then you do you. Non-consensual pornography (which is what this is about) causes harm to another person, which is why it cannot be tolerated.
This should be obvious IMO.
> This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm.
In same way as is done so successfully with guns, speeding automobiles, etc?
These things are capable of inferring photorealistic av deepfakes; with a well drafted law they're more than capable of inferring if what they are being asked to is illegal.
It makes zero sense to wait for the poop to hit the fan and then waste taxes investigating the illegality, punishing criminals, and dealing with impact on victims when it can stopped at source.
How does the law distinguish itself from anti-harassment laws?
I recall a old lawsuit (not sure which country) where a student had photoshopped a nude body onto a picture of their teacher and given it to other students. The main question in the case was if this qualified as sexual harassment, even if the teacher in question never received the image. I don't remember the outcome, through I think they were found guilty.
The cynic in me assumes its a way of establishing criminal liability on social media platforms for deepfakes impacting politicians credibility - striking while the Grok is still hot as it were.
I think YouTube and meta (Instagram and Facebook) will be hit as hard, or even harder, because of the numbers of scam ads using likeness. It will make them liable from publishing scam ads (which, to be clear, should already be in the DMA)
If they’re fine with targeting BlueSky for the same reasons, then by all means let the law be.
"Ireland fast tracks Bill to criminalise harmful voice or image misuse" - now that's some strange capitalis/zation in that headline. I'm Ok with title case, but randomly capitalising just one word in a title looks strange. Or is this something specifically Irish?
I can't speak for Ireland, but in the UK it is quite common to refer to a Bill (before it has passed) or an Act (when it is passed) with a capital letter, rightly or wrongly, because its name would be capitalised (in this case The Protection of Voice and Image Bill, with Bill replaced by Act once it has become law).
It is also a capitalised term within the text of the law itself.
It also helps that Bill is not a common name here at all (the only Bill I've ever met in my life was an American).
I can imagine how confusing it would be if all instances of the word Bill in articles such as these were replaced with Seán lol.
I can't find a style guide for the Irish Times, but the Independent's style guide seems to agree with you: capitalize when used as part of the name of a bill or act, and use lowercase thereafter [0]. Perhaps because they are using Bill in the headline as a shorthand for the full-name of the bill (probably for space reasons), they saw fit to capitalize it? Regardless, this is one of those cases where it's not really a grammatical choice but one of style/convention.
[0] https://www.independent.ie/editorial/pdfs/stylebook23.pdf
I suppose Bill is going to have a busy schedule in the following days.
> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person.
> [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person
This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress.
Without some exemption clauses added, this bill seems to basically ban using anyone's name/photograph/likeness in ANY context that criticises them; it will almost certainly conflict with ECHR's Article 10 on freedom of expression. However(!!) with a few exemptions it can be made much better. Even tying it to AI generated photos/voice/etc would help - most _genuine_ criticism and reporting can go without the use of AI, but a lot of the intentional harm and sexual harassment did not occur before AI. If they don't want to do that, adding some form of "exemption if the information was used in a non-libellous context" could also work.
AFAICT this is the actual bill: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/in...
Your selective quoting is extremely misleading. The first section about publishing a name/photograph only applies in the context of "for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda." i.e. it's illegal to pretend someone is endorsing something they are not.
Sorry, the example I had in mind was a politician and I don't know why I forgot to add that to the comment, else I'd edit it in.
The point is that "to influence elections or referenda" is incredibly vague! Almost any reporting on a person involved in the election, or even related to it (reporting on someone who's group looking bad helps a party) can be construed as "influencing an election"
But the second paragraph doesn't have any of those specifics. It's just any algorithm (an actual ban on forbidden math), software, tool, technology, service, or device.
Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent.
It doesn’t constrain what you do in contexts other than where you use someone’s likeness to misrepresent their position.
The harms are restricted to the scope above.
"or to influence elections or referenda" has quite a wide scope and was what concerned me. Publishing a political in a negative light absolutely could influence an election! But yes I should have included that part, not good by me, sorry.
So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison?
What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison?
What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?
Having looked up the text, I can now answer my own questions.
1. As "the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness" is not Illustrator's "primary purpose or function", Adobe are off the hook. So is anyone else if they argue that the "primary purpose or function" is not the production of an individual's photograph, voice, or likeness. So if Grok can be prompted to produce any image, including porn of individuals, provided it's not the primary purpose of Grok, they're untouchable.
2. Even if the bill weren't worded that way, a legal person in Ireland allows for corporate personhood (https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-per...), so Adobe Corporation, as the legal person who "distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device" (Illustrator) would not be subject to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years", but it would be subject to "a fine" (maximum amount not specified)
3. Misrepresenting someone or not is irrelevant. The offense is when you either use the depicted person without their consent (regardless of how you represent them) or you intend to harm them (or recklessly don't consider the harm you might cause them), whether you have their consent or not. Harm specifically is {interfering "with the other person’s peace and privacy" or causing "alarm or distress" to them} _AND_ "a reasonable person would realise" that. It would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) to think misrepresenting a politician would cause them "alarm or distress" or interfere with their "peace and privacy", so you'd probably be fine producing images of politician XYZ saying they hate freedom, want to take your guns away, eat babies, etc., as they get that day-in, day-out and it hasn't stopped them yet.
No, there is currently no method to imprison Adobe nor any other company.
Your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, and the substance of your post is only two sentences.
> Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent.
This sounds like it would effectively ban photography in public places. Or at least ban the manufacture/sale of cameras or software that takes photos.
> A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress.
Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already
Otherwise I agree that it’s very ambitious wording
> Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already
Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the government have to publicize the names and identities of people they arrest so we know they're not doing so illegitimately?
Publishing a name and publishing a likeness is very different.
Especially if the person arrested is accused of immoral acts. In my country we have a very known story from 25 years ago where 18 persons were accused of being pedocriminals. Their faces blasted everywhere, on first page of most journals, on the TV... It turns out 13 of them weren't guilty at all. Issues with psychological pressure on the children and a lot of mistakes made life hell for the accused and ultimately innocent, people, most of them lost part of their life because of that.
It's definitely a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Lots of people have had their reputations ruined by accusations that turned out to be false but people made judgements based on the initial report and then moved on with their life carrying it as fact.
I think there's a difference between the government doing it and the newspaper.
The newspaper can cherry pick who they post about, and spin it however they want. The government should be posting all of them in the same way, with just the facts.
Publishing the name of someone arrested and then later released without charge could constitute harm to them, even if you make it theoretically illegal to discriminate against them on that basis.
The US use of mugshots is exploitative.
It' specifically illegal in some jurisdictions.
Who's talking about governments? The post you responded to sure never brought it up.
Any time you are reading a law, especially one from another jurisdiction, you have to be very careful to consider that there may be terms with a legal or common law definition that you don't understand. In this case, "reckless" seems to be a well defined term with a fair amount of case law behind it. To my untrained eye it seems like a newspaper would be well within their rights to publish harmful information as long as they avoid "a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk".
https://www.studocu.com/en-ie/document/university-college-du...
A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress
If the suspected criminal isn't a public figure, it's a good thing, isn't it?
In some European countries it's against the law to publish details of people who are merely accused.
If you've published it in a newspaper, now they're a public figure!
What if they are not guilty?
> The deliberate misuse of someone’s image or voice without their consent for malign purposes should be a criminal offence.
So much vagueness in misuse yet so much impact with consequences. This bill is being speedlined. And it seems to hurt everyone at the same time.
Better to bring a bill with specific limitations and prohibitions that is complete with treatment, consequences, prosecutions, and appeals.
Then that bill can be extended to other prohibited actions as they become apparent
Have you read the bill or is the quote the only thing you're going on?
Except this is not the text of the bill. You are quoting a comment from a news articles, and commenting upon it as if you were reading a bill.
What is the succinct definition of "harmful"?
What do you think courts are for?
A tort
This is the entire proposed bill:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2025/11/
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/in...
AI is a god send to governments who have been trying to push through censorship laws under the guise of "protecting [people|children|women|etc]"
Hot take that 99% of the world agrees with: Cyberbullying is bad and it's ok to punish cyberbullies.
Nobody likes libertarians and you're beginning to understand why.
The UK is considering an injunction to have Grok and potentially X banned until this issue is resolved.
I'm no huge fan of state intervention, particularly my state which is notoriously over zealous, prudish, and subtly authoritarian. The sweeping changes were seeing in the UK are somewhat reminiscent of the old "First they came for the trade unionists" poem, and there certainly has been many of us speaking out against the attacks on freedom to protest and expression here.
However, when you swap out trade unionists for "People comitting sexual harassment", "Paedophiles", and "Billionaires", Im somewhat more inclined to side with the government on this. Were already way down the slippery slope, at least some genuinely bad actors are catching some flak this time I guess.
Except that the UK is just laundering authoritarianism through a clause that selectively harms one organization and not all of those that have platforms with the same problem.
Given the UK’s already high authoritarian tendencies towards speech codes, it would be better to have the US sanction Kier Starmer, OFCOM, and other associated parties in the Commonwealth, narrowly specified.
Sure, its a proposed law for citizens of this country.
So, how's that going to work out with Indian, Pakistani, North Korean, or similar locations using voice spoofing?
Thats right. None.
I imagine whoever publishes it to the jurisdiction would be liable
It seems to target the technology they'd be using - so the voice software might be liable, or the platform they use to convey the scam?
> Ireland fast tracks Bill
Poor Bill, what did he do to deserve this?
He got thoughted.
Ireland is just a copy of the UK, except it's a tax haven and a trojan horse of the EU. They have the same age requirement regulation online as the UK.
> Ireland is just a copy of the UK
That's certainly a geopolitically contentious take if I've ever seen one.
Nonsense.
• There is ongoing discussion in the Irish parliament and policy circles about setting a digital age of consent or minimum age (e.g. 16) for social media access. This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing, although no formal law has yet been enacted.
https://avpassociation.com/ireland/
>This debate is driven by concern over youth wellbeing
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you actually think thats what is motivating this