    [Senate Hearing 118-738]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-738

                        PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM ARTIFICIAL
                         INTELLIGENCE ENABLED FRAUD AND SCAMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
                         PRODUCT SAFETY, AND DATA SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 19, 2024

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-951 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  TED BUDD, North Carolina
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri
    JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          J. D. VANCE, Ohio
    RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                     Virginia
                                         CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                       Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
                         Jonathan Hale, General Counsel
                     Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
               Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                         Liam McKenna, General Counsel
                                     ------

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY,
                               AND DATA SECURITY

    JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado, Chair   MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee,
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota                 Ranking
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            TED BUDD, North Carolina
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on November 19, 2024................................     1
    Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................     1
        Letter dated November 18, 2024 to Hon. Mike Johnson, Hon.
          Chuck Schumer, Hon. Hakeem Jeffries and Hon. Mitch
          McConnell from Frederick S. Humphries, Jr., Corporate Vice
          President, U.S. Government Affairs, Microsoft; Michelle
          DeLaune, President & CEO, National Center for Missing &
          Exploited Children (NCMEC); and Mary Anne Franks, JD,
          DPhil, President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director,
          CCRI.......................................................    59
        Letter dated November 19, 2024 to Chairman John Hickenlooper
          and Ranking Member Marsha Blackburn from Merve Hickok,
          CAIDP President; Marc Rotenberg, CAIDP Executive Director;
          Christabel Randolph, Associate Director; and Janhvi Patel,
          Law Fellow.................................................    62
    Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................     4
    Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    42
    Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    47
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    52
    Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    55
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    57

                                   Witnesses

    Hany Farid, Ph.D., Professor, University of California Berkeley,
      Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, School of
      Information....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Justin Brookman, Director, Technology Policy, Consumer Reports...    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Mounir Ibrahim, Chief Communications Officer and Head of Public
      Affairs, Truepic...............................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Dorota Mani, Mother of Deepfake Pornography Victim...............    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    38

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Hany Farid by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    67
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    67
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    68
    Response to written questions submitted to Justin Brookman by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    68
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    70
        Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................    72
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    72
    Response to written questions submitted to Mounir Ibrahim by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    73
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    74
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    76

      PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENABLED FRAUD AND
                                     SCAMS

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

                                   U.S. Senate,
          Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product
                             Safety, and Data Security,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John
    Hickenlooper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Hickenlooper [presiding], Klobuchar,
    Schatz, Baldwin, Lujan, Markey, Blackburn, and Sullivan.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Hickenlooper. Now, this meeting is called to order.
        Welcome to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product
    Safety, and Data Security. We are now in order.
        We stand today--I think everyone agrees that we are at a
    crossroads where American leadership in AI is going to depend
    on which of many courses Congress takes, going forward.
        This has been, can, and should remain a nonpartisan or let
    us say a bipartisan effort that focuses on certain core issues:
    promoting transparency in how developers build new models,
    adopting evidence-based standards to deliver solutions to
    problems that we are aware of that we know of that exist in AI,
    and third, building Americans' trust in what could be a and has
    been on occasion a very disruptive technology.
        I think our constituents in our home states but across the
    country and really around the world are waiting for us to take
    the reins and strengthen America's leadership but at the same
    time not compromising our commitment to innovation and
    transparency in AI.
        I believe in my heart and soul--I think most of us on this
    committee believe that American leadership is essential for AI
    for a whole variety of reasons. I think we will go through a
    lot today.
        We already know that the capabilities in the field of
    artificial intelligence, those capabilities are evolving,
    changing rapidly.
        Generative AI tools allow almost anyone to create
    realistic, synthetic video--well, synthetic text, image, audio,
    video, you name it. Whatever content you can imagine we can now
    create.
        And while AI will have enormous benefits--and I truly
    believe that--benefits in our daily lives in sectors like clean
    energy, medicine, workplace productivity, workplace safety--for
    all those benefits we have to mitigate and anticipate the
    concurrent risks that this technology brings along with it.
        Just one example, this image behind me. Is there a poster--
    oh, there we are. This was created using AI tools depicting a
    young girl holding a dog in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
    We had a label to clearly show that the image is AI generated.
        While not a real image, it appears to be extremely
    realistic at first glance, although I grilled my staff on
    exactly what were the details--how could they, the trained
    observer, recognize this as synthetic.
        But I think without a clear label it really does take
    experience and training, a much closer look, to see the flaws
    in the image--the young girl's left hand somewhat misshapen--
    from a natural photograph. I will not go into it. I was so
    proud of myself I could follow the argument.
        But I think we recognize and should all own up to the fact
    that scammers are already using this new technology to prey on
    innocent consumers.
        There are a number of bad actors out there that see this as
    a vehicle for sudden and dramatic enrichment. One example--
    scammers have cloned the voices of loved ones saying they have
    been kidnapped, they have been abducted, and the--this familiar
    voice is begging for ransom payments.
        Other deepfake videos show celebrities endorsing products
    or candidates who they had never endorsed and really had no
    intention of endorsing.
        Many troubling examples exhibit that include children,
    teens, women depicted in nonconsensual intimate--nonconsensual,
    intimate and violent images or videos that in many occasions
    cause deep emotional harm.
        These AI-enabled scams do not just cost consumers
    financially, but they damage reputations and relationships and,
    equally important, they cast doubt about what we see and what
    we hear online.
        As AI-generated content gets more elaborate, more
    realistic, almost anyone can fall for one of these fakes. I
    think we have to--we have a responsibility to raise the alarm
    for these scams and these frauds and begin to be a little more
    aggressive in what can be done to avoid them.
        During our hearing today we will, you know, begin to
    understand and look at some of the tools and techniques
    companies and consumers can use to recognize malicious
    deepfakes to be able to discuss which public and private
    efforts are needed to educate the public with the experiences
    and the skills necessary to avoid AI-enabled scams, and then,
    third, to highlight enforcement authorities that we can
    establish to deter bad actors and prevent further harm coming
    to consumers.
        This committee is already at work on this, has already
    drafted, amended, passed several bipartisan bills focused on AI
    issues. I will just run through these.
        The Future of AI Innovation Act fosters partnerships
    between government, private sector, and academia to promote AI
    innovation. Validation and Evaluation for Trustworthy AI Act
    creates a voluntary framework which will enable third party
    audits of AI systems.
        AI Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act increases
    R&D into content authenticity, requires consumer AI
    transparency, and creates a framework to hold AI developers
    accountable.
        And then, last, the COPIED Act--C-O-P-I-E-D--COPIED Act has
    not yet been considered by the Committee but increases Federal
    R&D in synthetic contact detection and creates enforceable
    rules to prevent bad actors from manipulating labels on
    content.
        Last, the Take It Down Act makes it a criminal offense to
    create or distribute nonconsensual intimate images--NCII--of
    individuals.
        These are each bipartisan bills. They lay the groundwork
    for responsible innovation to address real problems with
    thoughtful solutions. They are not perfect and I trust will
    come out of information where we will get improvements from
    your sage wisdom.
        We look forward to working hard together to get these
    across the finish line and passed into law in the coming weeks,
    but we know that the bad actors, unfortunately, still continue
    to try and use this technology for fraudulent purposes.
        To combat fraud the Federal Trade Commission--the FTC--
    recently adopted rules to prohibit the impersonation of
    government agencies and businesses including through the use of
    AI.
        The FTC is also considering extending this protection to
    individuals including through visual or audio--visual or audio
    deepfakes. This is one very good example of a Federal agency
    taking decisive action to address a specific harm. But we need
    to all encourage further targeted, specific efforts with this
    basic common sense rule.
        States across the country have begun to enact legislation--
    states being the laboratories of democracy--to try and address
    the creation and distribution of deepfake media. Again, the map
    behind me here shows states taking action.
        The yellow states have enacted legislation related to AI
    use in election contexts. States in purple have enacted
    legislation related to nonconsensual intimate imagery, and
    states in red have enacted legislation related to both of these
    and instead--or instead to address other AI-generated media
    concerns. [Map is shown]
        And as we can see this is right now a patchwork of
    protections which is defying the need for predictability, which
    pretty much any industry needs to prosper.
        A consistent Federal approach would be tremendously
    beneficial to fill in these gaps and make sure we are
    protecting all Americans.
        Promoting responsible AI also rely on our partners in the
    private sector. A number of companies--Anthropic, Google,
    Microsoft, OpenAI, a number of others--have made voluntary
    commitments to responsible AI practices. These include
    commitments to help Americans understand whether types of
    content they see is AI generated. It could also be done through
    watermarks or similar technology that identifies the origin,
    ownership, or permitted uses of a piece of AI-generated
    content.
        Today, we are going to hear from leading experts, all of
    you, in artificial intelligence and AI-generated media about
    what--from your perception what is already happening but more
    importantly what else needs to be done, where we should be
    focusing.
        Hopefully, working together we can do a better job of
    protecting Americans from these potential risks and the scams
    and frauds but at the same time make sure that we unleash the
    innovation that this country is known for, especially in this
    emerging technology.
        I do not have to go into the importance of the competition
    around AI, that this is a competition that some of our global
    rivals take very seriously, and if we are any less focused on
    that that will be to our own detriment.
        I want to welcome each of our witnesses who are joining us
    today. Dr. Hany Farid, Professor of the University of
    California at Berkeley School of Information; Justin Brookman,
    Director of Privacy and Technology Policy at Consumer Reports;
    Mr. Mounir Ibrahim, Chief Communications Officer and Head of
    Public Affairs at Truepic; and Ms. Dorota Mani--you guys are
    running me ragged. With a name like Hickenlooper I usually get
    granted a certain latitude. Ms. Mani is an entrepreneur, mother
    of a victim of nonconsensual intimate imagery.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Blackburn for
    her opening remarks.

                    STATEMENT OF MARSHA BLACKBURN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am absolutely delighted that we are having this hearing
    today and focusing on scams and fraud.
        Now, in Tennessee I say we have got the good, bad, and ugly
    relationship with AI. A lot of our manufacturers, people that
    are working in healthcare, predictive diagnosis, disease
    analysis, logistics, they are utilizing AI every day to achieve
    efficiencies.
        Our songwriters and our entertainers are saying, hey, wait
    a minute, we got to have some help with this, and you reference
    the COPIED Act, the No Fakes Act that some of my colleagues and
    I have done on a bipartisan basis.
        And then the ugly is really what is happening to people
    with these scams and with these frauds, and especially when it
    comes to senior citizens and what we are seeing happen there.
        Now, I thought it was very interesting that the FTC with
    the Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book they listed that scams
    increased a billion dollars over the last 12 months to $10
    billion.
        This is what it is costing, and from a year prior it was up
    a billion dollars. When you think about the rise in this you
    have to look at what this is doing and, of course, we know AI
    is what is driving a lot of this.
        It is a technology that is advancing so incredibly fast
    and, of course, legislation never keeps pace with technology.
        So we know that it is catching a lot of people that are
    really quite savvy when it comes to conducting a lot of their
    transactional life online and we know that older Americans are
    the ones who have been hit most frequently with this as an
    emerging threat.
        Now, the fraudsters that are utilizing AI to deceive
    consumers are--have gotten crafty when it comes to creating
    these highly personalized and convincing attacks and I think
    what is surprising to a lot of people is the fact that they are
    doing this at scale, and the replication of these attacks and
    the tailored e-mails, the text messages, the images--as the
    Chairman showed the altered images--and those are used to trick
    people to click that link, and then once they have clicked that
    link they are then downloading malware.
        They are divulging personal information and the fraudsters
    feel like that they have got them. But they have become--these
    attacks have become very realistic. The spear phishing e-mails
    that really use a lot of this make it appear that it is coming
    from a trusted source and the--adding to this the chat box,
    which make it appear that you are having an actual real-time
    conversation with someone, is very disarming.
        So we know that these are becoming--the use of these tools
    by the scammers are becoming more prevalent. They are becoming
    more precise, more widespread, and harder to attack.
        And when we get to what do you do about this and how do you
    combat this we know that it does require an encompassing
    approach.
        It has got to be comprehensive and, of course, consumers
    need to be armed with knowledge about what is happening here
    and also looking to improve their digital hygiene and their
    digital literacy so that they know more about what they need to
    look for with those red flags.
        And we know that it is also going to require that we move
    forward with having an actual online privacy standard, which we
    have never passed.
        In this committee and when I was in the House, we continued
    to look at this so that individuals have the ability to
    actually protect their virtual you, which is their presence in
    the virtual space, and it is going to require that we take
    those actions.
        We are really thrilled to have you all before us today. It
    helps to inform not only our Committee, our Subcommittee,
    informs our colleagues and builds into the record for the need
    to move forward on legislation that will enhance the privacy
    and help to protect our citizens in the virtual space.
        So welcome to each of you. We look forward to hearing your
    statements.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
        Now we will ask for each of your statements, one after the
    other.
        First, let me introduce--reintroduce again Dr. Hany Farid,
    Professor of--at the University of California Berkeley School
    of Information. He is also a member of the Berkeley Artificial
    Intelligence Lab, Senior Faculty Advisor for the Center for
    Long-Term Cybersecurity.
        I have a son who is finishing. He is a senior doing
    engineering and computer science at Stanford and he tells me
    that Berkeley is an inferior institution.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hickenlooper. I have heard there is a lot of
    contention there.
        Dr. Farid.

       STATEMENT OF HANY FARID, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
       CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER
                     SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF INFORMATION

        Mr. Farid. I will not hold it against you, Senator.
        Thank you and thanks for having me. I am by training an
    applied mathematician and computer scientist, and for the past
    25 years as an academic, I have been working to create and
    deploy technologies that combat the spread of child sexual
    abuse material, combat online extremism and dangerous
    disinformation campaigns, and most recently combating the ugly
    world of deepfake imagery.
        I would like to start with a quick overview of today's
    world of AI in which there are two main branches, predictive AI
    and generative AI, and when I know we will talk a lot about
    generative AI we should look at the entire ecosystem here
    because I think there are issues on both sides.
        Predictive AI is tasked with predicting, anything from the
    movies you want to watch on Netflix to who will default on a
    loan, who will be a high-performing employee, who will
    recidivate if given bail, to what neighborhood should be
    patrolled by law enforcement.
        Generative AI is tasked with creating content from texts to
    images to audio to video. For text this can mean answering
    simple questions, summarizing a brief, helping a student with
    their math homework.
        But there are also troubling applications where we have
    seen interactive AI bots give instructions on how to create
    dangerous weaponry and encouraging someone to harm themselves
    or someone else.
        For images, audio, and video while there are also many
    creative applications we are seeing some deeply troubling
    applications, from the creation of nonconsensual intimate
    imagery, child sexual abuse, to imposters in audio and video
    used to perpetrate small- to large-scale fraud, everything you
    enumerated in your opening remarks.
        Although not fundamentally new, new advances in machine
    learning have over the past few years fueled rapid developments
    in both of these areas with, not surprisingly, very exciting
    applications but also some worrisome applications.
        So as we consider how to embrace and, yet, protect
    ourselves from this latest wave of technology I would like to
    offer a few thoughts.
        When it comes to predictive AI it is useful to consider a
    risk or harms-based approach. Predictive algorithms that make
    movie recommendations should be considered in a different
    category from algorithms that make decisions regarding our
    civil liberties, our finances, our employment.
        For the latter, we have seen troubling failures of so-
    called black box algorithms that are not well understood or
    auditable. Most notably, predictive algorithms being used today
    in policing and criminal justice have been found to be biased
    against people of color and algorithms being used in H.R.
    departments have been found to be biased against women.
        Fundamentally, the limitation of today's predictive AI is
    that they are neither artificial nor are they intelligent.
        They are pattern matching solutions that look at historical
    data and recreate historical patterns. So if the historical
    data is biased then your AI-powered future will be equally
    biased.
        Today's predictive AI is not much more than a sophisticated
    parrot. When it comes to generative AI the harms I enumerated
    earlier were completely predictable. Before the more polite
    term generative AI was coined we referred to this content as
    deepfakes which has its very roots in the moniker of a Reddit
    user who used the then nascent AI technology to create the
    earliest examples of nonconsensual intimate imagery.
        The harms we are seeing today from deepfakes are neither
    unintended nor unexpected. They are baked into the very DNA of
    this technology, and as Senator Blackburn mentioned in her
    opening remarks, the theft of the intellectual property that is
    driving all of this should also worry everybody greatly.
        So when considering mitigation strategies we need to
    consider not only the underlying AI technology but the entire
    technology ecosystem. So with respect to NCII and CSAM, for
    example, there are many players that fuel the harms.
        So there is, of course, the person creating the content.
    There is the tool used to create the content. But then there is
    the service used to distribute the content, mostly social
    media, but also the financial institutions that enable the
    monetization of the content--web services from search engines
    that gleefully surface this content to cloud computing and
    domain name services that provide the infrastructure for bad
    actors.
        Importantly, because AI is not the first nor will it be the
    last example of technology weaponized, we should not become
    overly focused on just AI but we have to seek broader thinking
    about the technology when we are looking at mitigation
    strategies.
        Last, you will hear many loud voices--many of them from
    Stanford, by the way--that claim that reasonable guardrails to
    make products and technology safer will destroy innovation.
        I reject these claims as nothing more than self-serving and
    blind or indifferent to the actual harms that are facing
    individuals, organizations, and societies. We fell for these
    same lies, by the way, from the same voices for the past 25
    years and failed to rein in the worst abuses of social media.
        We need not make those same mistakes in this latest AI
    revolution.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Farid follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hany Farid, Ph.D., Professor,
    University of California Berkeley, Electrical Engineering and Computer
                         Science, School of Information
    Biography
        Hany Farid is a Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
    with a joint appointment in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
    and the School of Information. His research focuses on digital
    forensics, image analysis, and human perception. He received his
    undergraduate degree in Computer Science and Applied Mathematics from
    the University of Rochester in 1989, and his Ph.D. in Computer Science
    from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. Following a two-year post-
    doctoral fellowship in Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, he joined
    the faculty at Dartmouth College in 1999 where he remained until 2019.
    He is the recipient of an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, a John Simon
    Guggenheim Fellowship, and is a Fellow of the National Academy of
    Inventors.
    Testimony
    Overview
        Synthetic media--so-called deepfakes--have captured the imagination
    of some and struck fear in others. Although they vary in their form and
    creation, deep-fakes refer to text, image, audio, or video that has
    been automatically synthesized by a AI-powered system. While not
    fundamentally new, today's enhanced ability to easily create,
    distribute, and amplify manipulated media comes with heightened risks.
    Reasonable and proportional interventions can and should be adopted
    that would allow for the creative uses of these powerful new
    technologies while mitigating the risk they pose to individuals,
    organizations, and democracies.

        Figure 1: Half of these faces are real and half are AI generated.
    Can you tell which is which? See footnote at bottom of page for correct
    answers.
    Deepfakes: Creation
    Image
        A generative adversarial network (GAN) is a common computational
    technique for synthesizing images of people, cats, planes, or any other
    category: generative because these systems are tasked with generating
    an image; adversarial because these systems pit two separate components
    (a generator and a discriminator) against each other; and network,
    because the computational machinery underlying the generator and
    discriminator are deep neural networks (hence the term deepfake).
        StyleGAN is one of the earliest and most successful systems for
    generating realistic human faces, Figure 1. When tasked with generating
    a face, the generator starts by laying down a random array of pixels
    and feeding this first guess to the discriminator. If the
    discriminator, equipped with a large database of real faces, can
    distinguish the generated image from real faces, the discriminator
    provides this feedback to the generator. The generator then updates its
    initial guess and feeds this update to the discriminator in a second
    round. This process continues with the generator and discriminator
    adversarially competing until an equilibrium is reached when the
    generator produces an image that the discriminator cannot distinguish
    from real faces.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The faces in panels Figure 1(a), (b), (g), (h), and (j) are
    real; the faces in panels (c), (d), (e), (f), and (i) are AI generated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although highly realistic, GANs generally do not afford much
    control over the appearance or surroundings of the synthesized face. By
    comparison, more recent text-to-image (or diffusion-based) synthesis
    affords more rendering control. Trained on billions of images with an
    accompanying descriptive caption, each training image is progressively
    corrupted until only visual noise remains. The model then learns to
    denoise each image by reversing this corruption. This model can then be
    conditioned to generate an image that is semantically consistent with
    any text prompt like ``an experienced word carver at work,'' Figure 2.

        Figure 2: An AI-generated image created with the prompt ``an
    experienced word carver at work.''
    Video
        Video deepfakes fall into two broad categories: text-to-video and
    impersonation.
        Text-to-video deepfakes are the natural extension of text-to-image
    where a model is trained to generate a video to be semantically
    consistent with a text prompt. A year ago, these systems tasked with
    creating short video clips from a text prompt like ``Will Smith eating
    spaghetti'' yielded videos of which nightmares are made.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQr4Xklqzw8
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A typical video consists of 24 to 30 still images per second.
    Generating many realistic still images, however, is not enough to
    create a coherent video. These earlier systems struggled to create
    temporally coherent and physically plausible videos in which the inter-
    frame motion was convincing. Just a year later, however, these systems
    have improved tremendously. While not perfect, the resulting videos are
    stunning in their realism and temporal consistency, and quickly
    becoming difficult to distinguish from reality.

        Figure 3: Selected frames of an avatar deepfake in which from a
    single photo of a person (bottom left), they are animated based on the
    movement of another person (bottom right).

        Although there are several different incarnations of impersonation
    deepfakes, two of the most popular are lip-sync and face-swap
    deepfakes.
        Given a source video of a person talking and a new audio track
    (either AI-generated or impersonated), a lip-sync deepfake generates a
    new video track in which the person's mouth is automatically modified
    to be consistent with the new audio track. And, because it is
    relatively easy to clone a person's voice from as little as 30 seconds
    of their voice, lip-sync deepfakes are a common tool used to co-opt the
    identity of celebrities or politicians to push various scams and
    disinformation campaigns.
        A face-swap deepfake is a modified video in which one person's
    identity, from eyebrows to chin and cheek to cheek, is replaced with
    another identity. This type of deepfake is most common in the creation
    of non-consensual intimate imagery. Face-swap deepfakes can also be
    created in real time, meaning that you will soon not know for sure if
    the person at the other end of a video call is real or not.
        And, the latest incarnation of impersonation deepfakes are puppet-
    master or avatar deepfakes in which a single image of a person is
    animated based on the movement and speech of another person,
    Figurefig:avatar.
        The trend of the past few years has been that all forms of image,
    video, and audio deepfakes continue their ballistic trajectory in terms
    of realism, ease of use, and accessibility.
    Deepfakes: Passing Through the Uncanny Valley
        First coined by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in the 1970s, the
    term un-canny valley describes a phenomenon that occurs when a humanoid
    robot, or an image or video of a computer-generated human, becomes more
    human-like. There is a point at which the humanoid depiction becomes
    eerily similar to humans but is still distinguishable from real humans,
    causing a significant drop in our emotional comfort and acceptance.
    This transition is known as the uncanny valley. A humanoid depiction is
    said to exit the uncanny valley when it becomes so realistic that it is
    indistinguishable from a real person. Generative AI is well on its way
    to passing through the uncanny valley.
        Half of the faces in Figure 1 are real and half are AI generated.
    Can you tell which is which? If you are like most others, your
    performance on this task was at near chance. A recent perceptual study
    found that when asked to distinguish between a real and AI-generated
    face, participants performed no better than guessing. In a second study
    in which participants were provided with training prior to completing
    the task, their performance improved only slightly. AI-generated faces
    are highly realistic and extremely difficult to perceptually
    distinguish from reality.
        Performance is only slightly better for videos of people talking.
    For AI-cloned voices, a recent study found that participants mistook
    the identity of an AI-generated voice for its real counterpart 80
    percent of the time, and correctly identified a voice as AI-generated
    only 60 percent of the time.
        While not all forms of AI-generated content have passed through the
    uncanny valley, what remains will almost certainly follow in the near
    future. We are quickly entering an era where it is increasingly more
    difficult for the average person to distinguish between fact and
    fiction.
    Deepfakes: The Good
        Hardly a day goes by when I don't use some form of generative AI in
    my work. From using large language models (LLMs) to write or debug code
    to using image synthesis to create visuals for a lecture. I cannot
    recall any other technology that has so dramatically and so quickly
    altered the way I work (and in some cases, think). My colleagues and
    students report a similar impact in their work and studies.
        Beyond personal uses cases, a particularly empowering example of
    the use of generative AI was by Representative Wexton of Virginia who
    used an AI-generated version of her voice to address lawmakers on the
    House floor: ``My battle with progressive supranuclear palsy, or PSP,
    has robbed me of my ability to use my full voice and move around in the
    ways that I used.'' Because today's generative AI can clone a person's
    voice from as little as a 30 second recording, Rep. Wexton was able to
    speak in her own voice as opposed to the tinny and slightly creepy
    computer-generated voices of just a few years ago.
        I have little doubt that generative AI is and will continue to
    offer positive and exciting use cases, and be an intellectual and
    creative accelerant, but with a few caveats. All forms of generative AI
    have been trained on decades of user-generated content, in many cases
    without permission and in many cases in direct violation of copyright
    laws. Trying to justify their indiscriminate scraping of online
    content, OpenAI--one of the leaders in the generative-AI space--
    admitted it would be ``impossible to train today's leading AI models
    without using copyrighted materials.'' This is a bit of a hard pill to
    swallow for a company that in less than 10 years has grown to a
    valuation of $150 billion.
    Deepfakes: The Bad and The Ugly
    Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery
        Before the less-objectionable term ``Generative-AI'' took root, AI-
    generated content was referred to as ``deepfakes'', a term derived from
    the moniker of a Reddit user who in 2017 used this nascent technology
    to create non-consensual intimate imagery, NCII (often referred to by
    the misnomer ``revenge porn,'' suggesting somehow that the women
    depicted inflicted a harm deserving of revenge). Seemingly unable to
    shake off; its roots, generative AI continues to be widely used to
    insert a person's likeness (primarily women and also children) into
    sexually explicit material which is then publicly shared by its
    creators as a form of humiliation or extortion.
        While it used to take thousands of images of a person to digitally
    insert them into NCII, today only a single image is needed. This means
    that the threat of NCII has moved from the likes of Scarlett Johansson,
    with a large digital footprint, to anyone with a single photo of
    themselves online.
        Shown in Figure 4, for example, is an image that I generated using
    a free service (that doesn't allow the generation of explicit material)
    in which I inserted my face into an image of an inmate in an orange
    jumpsuit.
        A recent study surveyed 16,000 respondents in 10 countries and
    found that 2.2 percent of respondents reported being a victim of NCII,
    and 1.8 percent reported creating NCII. Given that many people may not
    know they are victims and many may be unwilling to admit creating NCII,
    this is surely a lower bound. The threats of NCII are not hypothetical
    nor are they relegated to the dark recesses of the internet. Finding
    NCII content and creation tools is no further than a Google search
    away.
    Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
        The Cyber Tipline at the U.S.-based National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a national reporting system for reporting
    all forms of child sexual exploitation including apparent child sexual
    abuse material (CSAM). The majority of reports come from electronic
    service provides including the largest social media platforms like
    Facebook and Instagram. In 2010, NCMEC received 132,000 reports. By
    2015, the number of reports grew to over 4 million, and then 21 million
    in 2020 and 36 million in 2023. The average age of a child depicted in
    this content is 12 and sometimes as young as just a few months.

        Figure 4: A deepfake in which I inserted my face (source in upper
    left) into an image of an inmate in an orange jumpsuit.

        Starting in 2023, NCEMC has received a small but steadily
    increasing number of reports that appears to be AI generated or AI
    manipulated. Given the escalating volume of CSAM reports over the past
    two decades it was, sadly, predictable that this nascent technology
    would quickly be weaponized in this horrific way.
        18 U.S. Code Sec. 2252A uses a standard prohibiting any visual
    depiction of CSAM that is ``virtually indistinguishable'' from a minor
    engaging in sexual conduct. That is, creation or possession of CSAM can
    extend beyond material depicting an actual child to material that is
    computer generated. Beyond the legal standing of AI-generated CSAM, the
    large-scale creation of abusive content holds the potential to both
    normalize the sexual abuse of children for offenders and overwhelm an
    already strained CyberTipline.
        While some generative-AI systems placed reasonable guardrails to
    prevent the creation of CSAM, others did not. Stability AI's first
    version of their image generator--Stable Diffusion--was open-sourced
    with no guardrails. In response to concerns of potential abuse, the
    company's founder, Emad Mostaque, said ``Ultimately, it's peoples'
    responsibility as to whether they are ethical, moral and legal in how
    they operate this technology.'' Depending on your viewpoint, this is
    spectacularly naive, cynical, or simply indifferent.
    Fraud
        First it was Instagram ads of Tom Hanks promoting dental plans.
    Then it was TV personality Gayle King hawking a sketchy weight-loss
    plan. Next, Elon Musk was shilling for the latest crypto scam, and
    Taylor Swift was announcing a giveaway of Le Creuset cookware. More
    recently it has been Brad Pitt and Cristiano Ronaldo promoting phony
    medicines to treat serious diseases like cancer. All, of course, were
    deepfake scams.
        AI-powered scams are not just impacting individuals, they are also
    impacting small- to large-scale organizations. Earlier this year, a
    finance worker in Hong Kong was tricked into paying out $25 million to
    fraudsters using deepfake technology to pose as the company's chief
    financial officer in a video conference call.
        This was not the first such example. In 2019, a United Kingdom
    based company suffered the same fate when an imposter used an AI-
    synthesized voice to steal $243,000 in a similar type of scam. And, in
    early 2020, a United Arab Emirates' bank was swindled out of $35
    million when the bank teller was convinced to transfer the funds after
    receiving a phone call from the purported director of a company whom
    the bank manager knew and with whom he had previously done business. It
    was later revealed that the voice was that of an AI-synthesized voice
    made to sound like the director. These incidents are almost certainly
    the canaries in the coal mine.
        Similar types of fraud are also being carried out at the individual
    level. In early 2023, the mother of a teenager received a phone call
    from what sounded like her distressed daughter claiming that the
    teenager had been kidnapped and feared for her life. The scammer
    demanded $50,000 to spare the child's life. After calling her husband
    in a panic, she learned that the daughter was safe at home.
        Generative AI is a powerful new weapon in the arsenal of cyber
    criminals. As synthesized audio and video continue to improve in
    quality and accessibility, it is reasonable to predict that these
    technologies will continue to be used to commit a range of small- to
    large-scale frauds.
    Disinformation
        By mid-May of 2020, in the midst of the global pandemic, 28 percent
    of Americans believed Bill Gates planned to use COVID-19 to implement a
    mandatory vaccine program with tracking microchips. Belief in this
    conspiracy is not unique to Americans. In global surveys across Central
    and South America, the Middle East, Northern Africa, the United States,
    and Western Europe, 20 percent of the public believes this bizarre
    claim.
        As of this year, 22 percent of Americans do not believe in climate
    change with only 54 percent believing that climate change is human-
    driven. Understanding of climate change is highly partisan with 93
    percent of Democrats and only 62 percent of Republicans believing in
    climate change.
        The far-reaching, far-right QAnon conspiracy alleges a cabal of
    Satan-worshipping cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child
    sex-trafficking ring that was plotting against Donald Trump. A recent
    poll finds 37 percent of Americans are unsure whether QAnon is true or
    false, and 17 percent believe it to be true.
        Our global health, our planet's health, and our democratic
    institutions are all under attack due to rampant disinformation,
    conspiracies, and lies. It seems likely that deepfakes will be an
    accelerant to disinformation campaigns that until today managed to take
    significant hold without accompanying visual ``evidence.''
    Liar's Dividend
        While the harms from deepfakes are real and already with us,
    perhaps the most pernicious result of deepfakes and general digital
    trickery is that when we enter a world where anything we see or hear
    can be fake, then nothing has to be real. In the era of deepfakes, a
    liar is equipped with a double-fisted weapon of both spreading lies and
    using the specter of deepfakes to cast doubt on the veracity of any
    inconvenient truths--the so-called liar's dividend.
        In 2016, for example, Musk was recorded saying ``a Model S and
    Model X at this point can drive autonomously with greater safety than a
    person. Right now.'' After a young man died when his self-driving Tesla
    crashed, his family sued claiming that Musk holds some responsibility
    because of his claims of safety. In attempting to counter this claim,
    Musk's attorneys told the court that Musk ``like many public figures,
    is the subject of many 'deepfake' videos and audio recordings that
    purport to show him saying and doing things he never actually said or
    did.'' Fortunately, the judge was not persuaded, ``Their position is
    that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep
    fakes, his public statements are immune,'' wrote Judge Evette
    Pennypacker. She added, ``In other words, Mr. Musk, and others in his
    position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then
    hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep
    fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.
    The Court is unwilling to set such a precedent by condoning Tesla's
    approach here.''
        As deepfakes continue to improve in realism and sophistication it
    will become increasingly easier to wield the liar's dividend.
    Deepfakes: Mitigations
        Generative AI continues its ballistic trajectory in terms of its
    ability to create content that is--or soon will be--nearly
    indistinguishable from reality. While there are many exciting and
    creative applications, this technology is also being weaponized against
    individuals, societies, and democracies.
        If we have learned anything from the past two decades of the
    technology revolution and the disastrous outcomes in terms of invasions
    of privacy and toxic social media, it is that things will not end well
    if we ignore, or downplay as the cost of innovation, the malicious uses
    of generative AI.
        I contend that reasonable and proportional interventions from
    creation through distribution, and across academia, government, and the
    private sector are both necessary and in the long-term interests of
    everyone. I will enumerate a range of interventions that are both
    practical and when deployed properly can keep us safe and allow for
    innovation to flourish.
    Academe
        In criticizing the reckless use of scientific advancements without
    considering the ethical implications, Jeff Goldblum's character, Dr.
    Ian Malcolm in the 1993 blockbuster movie Jurassic Park, said: ``Your
    scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't
    stop to think if they should.''
        I am, of course, not equating advances in AI with the fictional
    resurrection of dinosaurs some 66 million years after extinction. The
    spirit of Goldblum's sentiment, however, is one all scientists should
    absorb.
        Many of today's generative-AI systems used to create NCII and CSAM
    are derived from academic research. For example, pix2pix developed by
    University of California, Berkeley researchers uses a GAN to transform
    the appearance or features of an image (e.g., transforming a day-time
    scene into a night-time scene). Shortly after its release, this open-
    source software was used to create DeepNude, a software that transforms
    an image of a clothed woman into an image of her unclothed. The
    creators of pix2pix could and should have foreseen this weaponization
    of their technology and developed and deployed their software with more
    care.
        This was not the first such abuse nor will it be the last. From
    inception to creation and deployment, researchers need to give more
    thought on how to develop technologies safely and, in some cases, if
    the technology should be created in the first place.

      1.  During the peer-review process, reviewers should assess if any
            ethical or safety concerns should be considered and/or
            addressed by the authors prior to publication.

      2.  While open-source deployments are of great benefit to the larger
            research community, this benefit should be counter-balanced by
            the potential risks (as we saw in the above example).

      3.  At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, mandatory
            curricular additions are needed to expose math and engineering
            students to more ethics, history, philosophy, political
            science, and a broader swath of the liberal arts than most
            typically see. Our future innovators need the proper
            scaffolding to think about the broader issues of how technology
            is intersecting with society and the world beyond Silicon
            Valley.
    Creation
        When text-to-image image generators first splashed onto the scene,
    Google initially declined to release its technology while OpenAI took a
    more open, and yet still cautious, approach, initially releasing its
    technology to only a few thousand users. They also placed guardrails on
    allowable text prompts, including no nudity, hate, violence or
    identifiable persons. Over time, OpenAI has expanded access, lowered
    some guardrails and added more features. Stability AI took yet a
    different approach, opting for a full release of their Stable Diffusion
    with no guardrails. And most recently Elon Musk's image generator,
    Grok, followed a similar course leading to all sorts of ridiculous
    content from Kamala Harris romantically embracing Donald Trump to
    Mickey Mouse wielding an AR-15, to the more offensive and dangerous.
        Regardless of what you think of Google's or OpenAI's approach,
    Stability AI and Grok made their decisions largely irrelevant: when it
    comes to this type of shared technology, society is at the mercy of the
    lowest common denominator. Nevertheless, generative-AI systems should
    follow several simple rules to mitigate the harm that comes from their
    services, and the remaining bad actors will have to be dealt with
    through legislation and litigation (see below).

      1.  The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authentication (https://
            c2pa.org) is a multi-stake holder, open-source initiative aimed
            at establishing trust in digital audio, image, and video. The
            focus of the C2PA is creating standards to ensure the
            authenticity and provenance of digital content. This standard
            includes the addition of metadata and embedding an
            imperceptible watermark into content, and extracting a distinct
            digital signature from content that can identify content even
            if the attached content credentials are stripped out. Any AI-
            generated service should implement this standard to make it
            easier to identify content as AI-generated.

      2.  Because text-to-image and text-to-video systems are capable of
            producing content limited only by the imagination of the
            creator, some reasonable semantic guardrails should be
            implemented on both the input and output. On the input side, a
            large language model (LLM) can flag prompts that includes
            requests for NCII, CSAM, or other violative or illegal content.
            On the output side a multimodal LLM can similarly flag
            violative content that managed to slip through the input
            guardrails.

      3.  Although content credentials and semantic guardrails are
            important steps in mitigating harms, they are not infallible.
            Generative-AI services should adopt a know your customer (KYC)
            approach common in all financial institutions. This will both
            put creators on notice that their content creation is not
            anonymous, and allow platforms to aid investigations into
            illegal uses of their services.
    Distribution
        There are three main phases in the life cycle of online content:
    creation, distribution, and consumption. I have addressed creation in
    the previous section and will address consumption next. On the
    distribution side, social media needs to take more responsibility for
    everything from the unlawful to the lawful-but-awful content that is
    both shared on their platforms and amplified by their own
    recommendation algorithms.
        While it is easy to single out social media platforms for their
    failure to rein in the worst abuses on their platforms from CSAM, to
    NCII, fraud, violence, and dangerous disinformation campaigns, these
    platforms are not uniquely culpable. Social media operates within a
    larger online ecosystem powered by advertisers, financial services, and
    hosting/network services.
        Each of these--often hidden--institutions must also take
    responsibility for how their services are enabling a plethora of online
    harms.

      1.  In addition to improving on their content moderation policies and
            enforcement, social media can create a global shared database
            of identified NCII as they have previously done for CSAM and
            terror-related content. Once NCII is identified, such a shared
            database would prevent NCII from being re-uploaded thus
            reducing the continued harm to victims.

      2.  Pressure to effect change on platforms rarely comes from users
            because we are not the customer, we are the product. The real
            customers are advertisers who should wield their power to
            effect change by insisting, for example, that their products
            and services not be advertised along side CSAM, NCII, and
            violent content. This isn't just the right thing to do, it is
            the smart thing to do for brand protection.

      3.  The largest financial services (Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, etc.)
            should not be in business with services that primarily host or
            produce NCII or other illegal and harmful content. There are at
            least two examples of where financial services were able to
            effect change when they withheld service from PornHub (for
            hosting CSAM and NCII) and Backpage (for enabling sex
            trafficking).

      4.  While more fraught, computing infrastructure services from GitHub
            to Amazon/Google/Microsoft cloud, to network services like
            Cloudflare can also act as better stewards. For example, at a
            hate-filled neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia in
            2017, violence erupted between marchers and counter protesters
            leading to the horrific murder of a counter-protester. In the
            aftermath, companies like Cloudflare came under heavy criticism
            for providing services to neo-Nazi groups like Daily Stormer,
            and for giving them personal information on people who complain
            about their content. Despite initially refusing to act,
            Cloudflare eventually terminated the account of Daily Stormer.
            While these groups will eventually find another home, that
            doesn't mean that we should not continually make the inter-
            net--where they can amplify their hate and violence--an
            increasingly unwelcome place.
    Consumption
        When discussing deepfakes, the most common question I'm asked is
    ``how can the average consumer distinguish the real from the fake?'' My
    answer is always the same: ``nothing.'' After which I explain that
    artifacts in today's deepfakes--seven fingers, incoherent text,
    mismatched earrings, etc.--will be gone tomorrow, and my instructions
    will have provided the consumer with a false sense of security. The
    space of generative AI is moving too fast and the forensic examination
    of an image is too complex (see next section) to empower the average
    consumer to be an armchair forensic detective.
        There are, however, things that consumers can do to protect
    themselves from the being defrauded or fooled by deepfakes.

      1.  Protecting against fraudulent phone calls from scammers claiming
            to be a family member can be as simple as having an agreed upon
            family code word that would have to be produced when an
            unexpected or emergency call is received.

      2.  Protecting against disinformation is, of course, more challenging
            as more and more people get the majority of their news from
            increasingly louder echo chambers. Here, I propose the
            development of a national K-12 effort to educate students on
            how to strike a balance between skepticism and vigilance, how
            to spot signs of disinformation, how to fact check, and how to
            generally be better digital citizens than the previous
            generation.

      3.  Protecting against being a victim of NCII effectively requires
            being completely invisible online, which in today's world is
            nearly impossible. If you are a victim of NCII, several
            organizations may be able to provide assistance or advice,
            including the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (https://
            cybercivilrights.org).
    Legislation
        Existing legislation should be sufficient to combat child sexual
    abuse material (CSAM) and fraud, weather AI-powered or not. Here
    interventions to protect the public and prosecute perpetrators are
    primarily limited by law enforcement resources and the inaction of the
    largest social media platforms. With tens of millions of CSAM reports
    each year to NCMEC, for example, law enforcement is simply overwhelmed.
    With billions of uploads each day to social media, these platforms are
    incapable--and too often unwilling--to combat illegal activity on their
    services.
        Most agree that bans or restrictions should be placed on the
    creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII),
    but the law has not fully caught up with the latest technology that now
    makes it too easy to create and distribute this type of content.
        In recent years, however, there has been a patchwork of national
    and international legislation enacted. In 2019, the U.S. state of
    Virginia expanded its 2014 ``revenge porn'' laws to include synthesized
    or manipulated content, making it illegal to share nude photos or
    videos of anyone--real or fake--without their permission. California,
    Hawaii, New York, and Texas have similar restrictions, but as of yet
    there is no Federal legislation. In 2021, Australia amended its laws to
    include synthesized or manipulated content; violations can incur both
    criminal charges and monetary fines.
        Because the Internet is borderless, nations should now band
    together to move from a patchwork of legislation to a consistent set of
    rules and regulations to combat NCII. It remains unclear, however,
    whether legislation can fully rein in these abuses. Hollywood actress
    Scarlett Johansson--a frequent target of NCII--told the Washington
    Post,  ``I think it's a useless pursuit, legally, mostly because the
    Internet is a vast wormhole of darkness that eats itself.''
        With some exceptions including speech designed to interfere with
    elections or the peaceful transfer of power, mitigating the harms from
    various forms of political speech is complex, and legally fraught. It
    is not, after all, illegal for a politician to lie or for anyone to
    believe those lies.
        Nevertheless, several states have recently passed legislation
    designed to protect the integrity of elections from misleading
    deepfakes. In 2024, in the lead up to a contentious national election
    in which deepfakes have already played a roll, both the states of
    Minnesota and California passed legislation to impose varying civil and
    criminal penalties to those creating, distributing, and in some cases,
    hosting, AI-powered election misinformation. These laws are not without
    controversy and they will soon be challenged on First Amendment
    grounds.
        Nevertheless, practical and proportional responses to existing and
    emerging threats are within reach.

      1.  Despite Scarlett Johansson's perfectly reasonable assessment of
            the state of the internet, a combination of updating of
            existing legislation and crafting new legislation to combat
            emerging threats is necessary, if not sufficient. To date, only
            a handful of nations and a handful of U.S. states have moved to
            mitigate the harms from deepfakes. While I applaud individual
            U.S. states for their efforts, Internet regulation cannot be
            effective with a patchwork of state laws. A national and
            coordinated international effort is required. In this regard,
            the European Union's Digital Safety Act, the United Kingdom's
            Online Safety Act, and Australia's Online Safety Act provide a
            road map for the U.S. While regulation at a global scale will
            not be easy, some common ground can surely be found among the
            U.S. and it allies, thus serving as a template for other
            nations to customize and adopt.

      2.  In the absence of sweeping legislation, liability can be a
            powerful motivating factor for the technology sector to make
            sure their products and services are not harmful. But,
            penetrating the powerful liability shield of Section 230 of the
            Communications Decency Act, has proven challenging. Written in
            1996, Section 230 provides broad immunity to online platforms
            (including social media) from being held liable for user-
            generated content, and it allows platforms to moderate content
            in ``good faith'' without being treated as the publisher or
            speaker of the content. The U.S. Congress has repeatedly tried
            (and failed) to modernize this outdated law that could not of
            and does not work in today's modern technology landscape. The
            U.S. Congress needs to revisit the issue by modernizing Section
            230 to create some liability to motivate a mindset of safety by
            design, not safety as (at best) an afterthought.

      3.  On the specific issues of CSAM and NCII, more resources and
            training should be provided to law enforcement to provide
            resources for victims and support for investigations and, where
            appropriate, prosecutions.
    Summary
        There is much to be excited about in this latest wave of the
    technology revolution. But, if the past few technology waves have
    taught us anything, it is that left unchecked, technology will begin to
    work against us and not for or with us. We need not make the mistakes
    of the past. We are nearing a fork in the road for the type of future
    we want and what role technology will play.
        Famed actor and filmmaker Jordan Peele's 2018 public service
    announcement on the dangers of fake news and the then-nascent field of
    deepfakes\3\ offers words of advice and caution. The PSA concludes with
    a Peele-controlled President Obama saying ``how we move forward in the
    age of information is gonna be the difference between whether we
    survive or whether we become some kind of f****d up dystopia.'' I
    couldn't agree more.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Deepfake Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Dr. Farid.
        Mr. Brookman, you are next, the technology--Director of
    Technology Policy for Consumer Reports--and the first
    subscription I ever made to a magazine was Consumer Reports
    just because I thought that the consumers needed someone to
    stick up for them, and someone told me recently that there are
    now 93,000 trade associations. As far as I know, I think there
    is only one Consumer Reports. So----

      STATEMENT OF JUSTIN BROOKMAN, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY POLICY,
                            CONSUMER REPORTS

        Mr. Brookman. Thank you very much for that intro, Senator,
    and thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here
    today.
        As you say, I am here from Consumer Reports where I head up
    our work on tech policy advocacy. We are the world's largest
    independent testing organization. We use our ratings, our
    journalism, our survey, and our advocacy to try to argue for a
    better, fairer marketplace for consumers.
        This hearing is about AI-enabled fraud but I do want to say
    a couple words about the very real consumer benefits from AI.
    Certainly, there have been a number of tremendous scientific
    advances.
        We are seeing every day tangible real-world benefits to
    it--autonomous taxis in San Francisco, real-time language
    translation. These are amazing advances that do make consumers'
    lives better.
        However, the widespread availability of AI tools does lead
    to some very real harms. Companies can now collect, process,
    share more information about us, giving them more power over us
    including the power to do personalized pricing based on how
    much we are willing to pay.
        It can rip off content creators who see the products of
    their labor turned into AI slop of dubious value and it can let
    people create nonconsensual intimate images of acquaintances,
    celebrities, or classmates.
        Another harm is that it makes--AI makes it a lot easier for
    scammers to rip people off and take their money. It makes
    targeted spear phishing attacks a lot more efficient.
        Spammers can spin up hundreds, thousands, of personalized
    solicitations using generative AI tools. This is the scale that
    Senator Blackburn was talking about.
        It lets companies generate dozens of fake reviews with just
    a few keystrokes. Review fraud is already a massive, terrible
    problem online. AI just makes it easier to scale and flood the
    zone.
        One of the most dangerous tools is the one that you talked
    about, Senator Hickenlooper--realistic voice impersonation.
    Scammers get a clip of someone's voice, take it to a company
    like ElevenLabs, and then get it to follow a script.
        There have been numerous examples of people calling family
    members with some degree of urgency saying, ``I have been in an
    accident'' or calling a co-worker and said, ``I need you to
    wire money to us.''
        We have heard from dozens of Consumer Reports members who
    say they got these calls and it sounded--you know, from family
    members, sounded incredibly convincing. Some actually lost
    money and even though they felt like they were savvy, smart
    people.
        These tools are really easy to find online. You can search
    Google for voice impersonation tools to get lots of options
    including sponsored results who pay Google to get higher up in
    those results.
        Consumer Reports is in the middle of evaluating some of
    these companies and a lot just do not have any or very few
    protections in place to stop fraudulent uses like requiring
    someone to read a script so you know this person is consenting
    to have their voice used. A lot of them do not have that.
        So what should be done? In my written testimony I lay out
    five areas where I think we need to see some improvements. One,
    stronger enforcers. The Federal Trade Commission did the
    impersonation rule that was talked about. They did bring five
    important cases. That is part of Operation AI Comply in
    September.
        Those are great but they just do not have the capacity
    today to deal with this wave of AI-enabled fraud. The FTC is
    understaffed. They cannot give statutory penalties for the last
    several years. They often cannot even get scammers to give up
    the money they have stolen. These are problems that need to be
    addressed.
        Tool and platform responsibilities--some of these AI-
    powered tools are designed such that they are mostly going to
    be used for illegitimate purposes, whether it is through the
    creation of deepfake intimate images or voice impersonation.
        These companies should have heightened obligations to try
    to forestall harmful uses. If they cannot do that maybe they
    should not be publicly or so easily available.
        General purpose AI can be harmful, too, but it is going to
    be harder for those companies to think about every possible
    negative use case and more expensive and may forestall good
    uses.
        But it does seem like in many cases they should be doing
    more. You can go to ChatGPT today and say, hey, create 20 fake
    reviews for my restaurant and ChatGPT will say, sure, here are
    20 fake reviews and here are my favorite dishes and here is
    what great service I had, which, again, can help companies
    flood the zone with fake reviews.
        Transparency--people deserve to know when they are
    interacting with a real person or when they are seeing fake
    content. I know there has been a lot of bills introduced in
    this Congress including--and legislation passed in California--
    A.B. 982--that would require some advances there.
        Fourth, stronger privacy and security laws. The United
    States in general has very weak protections, as Senator
    Blackburn talked about. We have seen a lot of progress at the
    state level in recent years. These laws still are not strong
    enough.
        And then five, user education and better tools. I do not
    want to put all the burden on consumers but this is the reality
    of the world we live in. We need to educate people about what
    to expect.
        We are part of a campaign called ``Take Nine'' that tries
    to teach people when you get some sort of urgent call to
    action, pause, take 9 seconds, think about it--that is real or
    a scam.
        And over time the tools need to improve, too. I look
    forward to hearing from some of the other witnesses about tools
    that are advancing and, hopefully, these can be built into the
    platforms that we use to access the internet.
        Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement by Mr. Brookman follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Justin Brookman, Director, Technology Policy,
                                Consumer Reports
        On behalf of Consumer Reports, I want to sincerely thank you for
    the opportunity to testify here today. We appreciate the leadership of
    Chairman Hickenlooper and Ranking Member Blackburn not only for holding
    this important hearing, but also for working in a constructive,
    bipartisan fashion to develop smart and effective policy solutions to
    protect American consumers from increasingly sophisticated fraud and
    scams powered by artificial intelligence.
        Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports (CR) is an independent,
    nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization that works with consumers to
    create a fair and just marketplace. Known for its rigorous testing and
    ratings of products, CR advocates for laws and company practices that
    put consumers first. CR is dedicated to amplifying the voices of
    consumers to promote safety, digital rights, financial fairness, and
    sustainability. The organization surveys millions of Americans every
    year, reports extensively on the challenges and opportunities for
    today's consumers, and provides ad-free content and tools to our six
    million members across the United States.
        I have been head of Technology Policy for Consumer Reports for
    seven years, and during all that time we have been active on AI
    policy.\1\ We have called for stronger privacy protections for
    consumers' data even before the widespread advent of AI, back when the
    buzzword was ``Big Data'' instead.\2\ We have supported federal\3\ and
    state\4\ legislation and rulemaking\5\ to require developers of
    automated decisionmaking systems to provide consumers information about
    how those systems work and to account for potential bias.\6\ We have
    written about the importance of independent testing of AI systems,
    calling on policymakers to make changes to existing laws that often
    impede good faith research.\7\ And of course, Consumer Reports has long
    been active on scams as well, offering tools to educate consumers on
    how to protect themselves,\8\ and petitioning Congress to give the
    Federal Trade Commission the tools it needs to more aggressively pursue
    wrongdoers.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Katie McInnis, Pre-Hearing Comments on Consumer Privacy for the
    Federal Trade Commission's Hearings on Competition and Consumer
    Protection in the 21st Century on February 12-13, 2019, FTC-2018-0098,
    Consumer Reports Advocacy, (Dec. 21, 2018), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Consumer-
    Reports-comments-FTC-2018-0098-2.pdf.
        \2\ Press Release, Consumer Reports Launches Digital Standard to
    Safeguard Consumers' Security and Privacy in Complex Marketplace,
    Consumer Reports, (Mar. 6, 2017), https://www
    .consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2017/03/
    consumer_reports_launches_digital_
    standard_to_safeguard_consumers_security_and_privacy_
    in_complex_marketplace/.
        \3\ Press Release, Senator Markey Introduces AI Civil Rights Act to
    Eliminate AI Bias, Enact Guardrails on Use of Algorithms in Decisions
    Impacting People's Rights, Civil Liberties, Livelihoods, Ed Markey
    United States Senator for Massachusetts, (Sep. 24, 2024), https://
    www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-introduces-ai-
    civil-rights-act-to-eliminate-ai-bias-enact-guardrails-on-use-of-
    algorithms-in-decisions-impacting-peoples-rights-civil-liberties-live
    lihoods.
        \4\ Grace Gedye, Consumer Reports backs signing of high-risk AI
    bill, calls on Colorado General Assembly to strengthen it before it
    goes into effect, Consumer Reports, (May 18, 2024), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-backs-
    signing-of-high-risk-ai-bill-calls-on-colorado-general-assembly-to-
    strengthen-it-before-it-goes-into-effect/. Gedye currently serves on
    the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Impact Task Force set up to make
    recommendations to the Colorado legislature to revise the law before it
    goes into effect in 2026. See Artificial Intelligence Impact Task
    Force, Colorado General Assembly, https://leg.colorado.gov/committees/
    artificial-intelligence-impact-task-force/2024-regular-session.
        \5\ Matt Schwartz and Justin Brookman, Consumer Reports Submits
    Comments on the California Privacy Protection Agency's Preliminary
    Rulemaking on Cybersecurity Audits, Risk Assessments, and Automated
    Decisionmaking, Consumer Reports Advocacy, (Mar. 27, 2023), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/consumer-reports-submits-
    comments-on-the-california-privacy-protection-agencys-preliminary-
    rulemaking-on-cybersecurity-audits-risk-assessments-and-automate d-
    decisionmaking; Justin Brookman et al., Consumer Reports submits
    comments on FTC privacy and security rulemaking, Consumer Reports
    Advocacy, (Nov. 21, 2022), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/
    research/consumer-reports-submits-comments-on-ftc-privacy-and-security-
    rulemaking/.
        \6\ Grace Gedye and Matt Scherer, Opinion | Are These States About
    to Make a Big Mistake on AI?, Politico, (Apr. 30, 2024), https://
    www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/30/ai-legislation-states-
    mistake-00155006.
        \7\ Nandita Sampath, New Paper: Opening Black Boxes: Addressing
    Legal Barriers to Public Interest Algorithmic Auditing, Consumer
    Reports Innovation Blog, (Oct. 13, 2022), https://
    innovation.consumerreports.org/new-paper-opening-black-boxes-
    addressing-legal-barriers-to-public-interest-algorithmic-auditing/.
        \8\ Security Planner, Consumer Reports, https://
    securityplanner.consumerreports.org/.
        \9\ Letter from Consumer Reports to Chairwoman Rosa L. DeLauro et
    al., (May 25, 2021), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2021/05/CR-letter-on-FTC-appropriations-052521.pdf (petitioning
    for an increase in funding for the FTC); Testimony of Anna Laitin,
    Director, Financial Fairness and Legislative Strategy, Consumer Reports
    Before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy & Commerce
    Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce on ``The Consumer
    Protection and Recovery Act: Returning Money to Defrauded Consumers,''
    (Apr. 27, 2021), https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/112501/
    witnesses/HHRG-117-IF17-Wstate-LaitinA-20210427.pdf (petitioning for
    the restoration of the FTC's 13(b) injunctive authority).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my testimony today, I will discuss the benefits and risks to
    consumers from the widespread use of artificial intelligence, including
    detailing how AI is fuelling increasingly sophisticated scams that cost
    consumers billions of dollars a year. I will then discuss existing
    legal protections and consumer education efforts that have advanced
    significantly in recent years but which have still proved insufficient
    to the scope of the problem. Finally, I will discuss potential
    solutions including:

       Stronger enforcement bodies,

       Clearer platform accountability rules,

       Transparency obligations,

       Stronger privacy and security laws, and

       Citizen education and better tools
    I. The Very Substantial Benefits and Risks of AI
        As an initial matter, we must recognize the massive societal
    benefits from the advent of artificial intelligence, which can
    accomplish a broad variety of important tasks far more efficiently than
    traditional methods. Earlier this month, an MIT professor published a
    paper detailing the benefits to materials research from the use of AI,
    leading to a 44 percent increase in materials, a 39 percent increase in
    patent filings, and a 17 percent rise in downstream innovation.\10\
    Even when it comes to scams, AI does and will continue to play an
    important defensive role, improving spam filters and search engine
    ranking, identifying bad actors, and alerting consumers to potentially
    fraudulent solicitations.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Aidan Toner-Rodgers, Artificial Intelligence, Scientific
    Discovery, and Product Innovation, GitHub, (Nov. 6, 2024), https://
    aidantr.github.io/files/AI_innovation.pdf.
        \11\ Fredrik Heiding et al., Devising and Detecting Phishing E-
    mails Using Large Language Models, IEEE Explore, (Mar. 11, 2024),
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10466545.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We use artificial intelligence at Consumer Reports in a variety of
    ways to make us more effective in our mission to deliver a fairer,
    safer marketplace for consumers. In our testing on privacy and
    security, we use AI to automate document collection and policy review
    to speed up product evaluations. We have used machine learning to
    analyze large data sets to find evidence of racial discrimination in
    auto insurance prices.\12\ We are looking to use AI semantic tools to
    expand our early warning system to monitor publicly available product
    reviews to detect potentially dangerous or defective products. And
    earlier this year we rolled out ``AskCR''--a generative-AI system
    designed to more effectively draw upon CR's extensive data troves to
    provide answers to our members' questions about various products.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Jeff Larson et al., How We Examined Racial Discrimination in
    Auto Insurance Prices, ProPublica and Consumer Reports, (Apr. 5, 2017),
    https://www.propublica.org/article/minority-neighborhoods-higher-car-
    insurance-premiums-methodology.
        \13\ AskCR, Consumer Reports, https://
    innovation.consumerreports.org/initiatives/askcr/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, artificial intelligence, like any tool, can be used for
    harm as well. And artificial intelligence is a very powerful tool. It
    can scrape and steal content from publicly available sources, depriving
    content creators of the value of their work and substituting it with
    AI-generated slop of dubious provenance.\14\ AI can exacerbate privacy
    invasions, giving companies more data and power over us and the ability
    to personalize prices to extract greater proportions of consumer
    surplus from any transaction.\15\ AI makes it easy to generate
    nonconsensual sexual images just by uploading a picture of an
    acquaintance or celebrity.\16\ AI could also lead to increased
    corporate consolidation and perversely less innovation if only the
    companies with the most existing resources can take advantage of
    technological advances.\17\ These are very real harms not solved by the
    existing marketplace and they need serious policy solutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Benjamin Hoffman, First Came `Spam.' Now, With A.I., We've Got
    `Slop', New York Times, (Jun. 11, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/
    06/11/style/ai-search-slop.html.
        \15\ Brian Pearson, Personalizing Price With AI: How Walmart,
    Kroger Do It, Forbes, (Sep. 7, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/
    bryanpearson/2021/09/07/personalizing-price-with-ai-how-walmart-kroger-
    d o-it/. Another way AI can lead to higher consumer prices is when
    multiple sellers use the same algorithm to help set prices. Using the
    nonpublic data from all its customers together, the AI vendor can
    recommend to all its customers universally higher prices, especially in
    markets where a greater number of market participants use its systems.
    See Hannah Garden-Monheit and Ken Merber, Price fixing by algorithm is
    still price fixing, Federal Trade Commission Business Blog, (Mar. 1,
    2024), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-
    algorithm-still-price-fixing. Indeed, some academics have suggested
    that even different algorithms based on different data may implicitly
    collude if both are independently setting prices, leading to higher
    costs from consumers. See Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice Strucke,
    Sustainable and Unchallenged Algorithmic Tacit Collusion, 17
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 217
    (2020).
        \16\ Matteo Wong, High School Is Becoming a Cesspool of Sexually
    Explicit Deepfakes, The Atlantic, (Sep. 26, 2024), https://
    www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/09/ai-generated-csam-
    crisis/680034/.
        \17\ Jai Vipra and Anton Korinek, Market concentration implications
    of foundation models: The Invisible Hand of ChatGPT, Brookings, (Sep.
    7, 2023), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/market-concentration-
    implications-of-foundation-models-the-invisible-hand-of-chatgpt/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The use of AI to power fraud and scams
        Artificial intelligence is also a useful tool for fraud and scams,
    automating previously laborious tasks and sometimes enabling new
    capabilities entirely. Recent research suggests that generative AI can
    be used to scale ``spear phishing''--the personalization of phishing
    messages based on personal data to make them more convincing. By using
    freely available generative AI services, researchers found the cost of
    creating individualized spear phishing solicitations fell from $4.60 to
    just 12 cents per message.\18\ AI allows fraudsters to spin up fake
    websites with just a few clicks that look like legitimate services.\19\
    AI could also help bad actors supercharge search engine optimization
    efforts to fool search engines into displaying fake customer service
    numbers for popular companies. (The Washington Post recently reported
    that scammers were easily able to get Google to provide fake phone
    numbers for companies such as Delta and Coinbase).\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Fredrik Heiding et al., Devising and Detecting Phishing E-
    mails Using Large Language Models, IEEE Explore, (Mar. 11, 2024),
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10466545.
        \19\ Chris Smith, Mind-blowing AI instantly makes artificial web
    pages from anything you type, Boy Genius Report, (Jun. 26, 2024),
    https://bgr.com/tech/mind-blowing-ai-instantly-makes-artificial-web-
    pages-from-anything-you-type/.
        \20\ Shira Ovide, Don't trust Google for customer service numbers.
    It might be a scam., Washington Post, (Aug. 20, 2024, https://
    www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/20/google-search-scams-
    customer-service-phone-numbers/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One area where Consumer Reports has focused its research is on the
    use of AI for voice cloning. AI voice cloning tools have the potential
    to supercharge impersonation scams, including a phone scam sometimes
    known as the `Grandparent scam', in which a consumer is contacted and
    is told that a loved one is in trouble: they wrecked their car or they
    landed in jail and need money fast.\21\ In the past, scammers might try
    to achieve a rough approximation of a young relative's voice. Now, if
    scammers have access to audio of a family member speaking, from, say,
    social media videos, they can create a potentially compelling AI clone
    of their voice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Consumer Alert, Scammers use AI to enhance their family
    emergency schemes, Federal Trade Commission, (Mar. 20, 2023), https://
    consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/03/scammers-use-ai-enhance-their-
    family-emergency-sch emes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is already happening. The Washington Post has covered
    consumers who sent thousands of dollars to scammers after thinking
    they've heard their family member on the phone in need of help.\22\ The
    New Yorker highlighted the stories of several parents sent into a state
    of terror after thinking they heard their panicked child's voice,
    followed by dark threats.\23\ Scammers have targeted companies as well,
    using AI voice tools to convince employees they are getting a call from
    a higher up who needs them to transfer funds. In one case, the managing
    director of a British energy company wired $240,000 to Hungary,
    thinking he was speaking to his boss.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Pranshu Verma, They thought loved ones were calling for help.
    It was an AI scam., Washington Post, (Mar. 5, 2023), https://
    www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/05/ai-voice-scam/.
        \23\ Charles Bethea, The Terrifying A.I. Scam That Uses Your Loved
    One's Voice, New Yorker, (Mar. 7, 2024), https://www.newyorker.com/
    science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/the-terrifying-ai-scam-that-
    uses-your-loved-ones-voice.
        \24\ Drew Harwell, An artificial-intelligence first: Voice-
    mimicking software reportedly used in a major theft, Washington Post,
    (Sep. 4, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/04/
    an-artificial-intelligence-first-voice-mimicking-software-reportedly-
    used-major-theft/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CR reached out to consumers across the country in February, asking
    if they had received a phone call from a scammer mimicking the voice of
    someone they knew, or someone well-known. We heard from consumers who
    said the experience left them feeling ``vulnerable,'' ``shaken by the
    experience,'' and ``really weirded out'':\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Member Stories, Have you received a phone call that
    impersonated someone?, Consumer Reports, https://
    www.consumerreports.org/stories?questionnaireId=307.

       ``My Grandpa got a call from someone claiming to be me.
            Supposably, I was traveling, and my car broke down and I needed
            to have him send money so I could complete my travels. Grandpa
            said there was no doubt in his mind that I was the caller and
            was preparing to do as asked. Luckily, before he went through
            with the transaction, he reasoned that if I was in trouble and
            honestly needed money, he would have heard from my mom.  . . .
            Scary that the tools they use could imitate my voice that
            closely as to fool a close relative. . .''--member from
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Minnesota

       ``The initial caller's voice sounded very much like my
            nephew's. He knew family details, pleaded with me not to call
            his father and promised to pay me back as soon as he got home--
            all very convincing. I should add that I spent more than 60
            years in law-enforcement and intelligence work. This scam was
            so carefully arranged and executed that I fell for it
            nevertheless.''--member from Massachusetts

       ``I received a phone call from my grandson explaining that
            he was in a car accident at college and needed $5,000. He
            sounded scared and upset and asked that I not tell his parents.
            So, I went to my bank to get the money and the bank teller told
            me it was a scam. I did not believe her as I was sure it was my
            grandson's voice.''--member New York

       ``The voice on the other end sounded just like my grandson
            and it said `Gramie, I've been in an accident.' ''--member from
            Florida

       ``I was skeptical, and told him I had heard of scams such as
            this. So he said, `I'll let Nate say a few words to you.' It
            sounded exactly like my Nate!! He has a rather unusual voice,
            so I was then almost convinced.''--member in Indiana

       ``The phone rang and a voice said, `Hi Gramma, this is Mac.
            I'm in New Jersey with my friend Chris. We had an accident. I
            broke my nose.' I immediately knew it wasn't my grandson. He
            calls me Gramma Beth . . . and he'd have no reason to be in New
            Jersey. He's New York, born and bred . . . The voice did sound
            exactly like him, however, and I could easily have been
            duped.''--member from New York

       ``I received a call and heard my daughter crying
            hysterically! She wasn't making sense so an `officer' took over
            the call. He stated I needed to come right away but would not
            answer my questions. Thankfully I have Life360 and looked to
            see where my daughter was at and it showed her at home. . . .
            To hear my daughter's crying voice shook me for a long
            time!''--member from Minnesota

        Imposter scams are common. In 2023, 853,935 imposter scams were
    reported to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel Network.\26\ Twenty one percent
    of those scam reports included monetary losses, which totalled $2.7
    billion in 2023.\27\ Imposter scams were the second most frequently
    reported category of fraud reported to the Consumer Sentinel Network in
    2023, out of the 29 categories that the network tracks.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2023, Federal Trade
    Commission, (Feb. 2024), at 4, 7, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
    ftc_gov/pdf/CSN-Annual-Data-Book-2023.pdf.
        \27\ Id. at 4.
        \28\ Id. at 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consumer Reports recently conducted a nationally representative
    survey of consumers and asked about scams. Nearly nine percent of
    respondents said they had lost money due to a cyberattack or digital
    scam.\29\ The numbers were even more stark for Black and Hispanic
    consumers; for those consumers who had encountered a scam attempt, 33
    percent of Black consumers and 30 percent of Hispanic consumers had
    lost money as result.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Yael Grauer, New Report: 2024 Consumer Cyber Readiness,
    Consumer Reports Innovation Blog, (Oct. 1, 2024), at 4 https://
    innovation.consumerreports.org/new-report-2024-consumer-cyber-
    readiness/.
        \30\ Id. at 4; see also Report to Congress, Combating Fraud in
    African American & Latino Communities The FTC's Comprehensive Strategic
    Plan, Federal Trade Commission, (Jun. 15, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/
    system/files/documents/reports/combating-fraud-african-american-latino-
    communities-ftcs-comprehensive-strategic-plan-federal-trade/
    160615fraudreport.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increasing use of payment apps such as Zelle and the rise of
    cryptocurrency also have fuelled scams. These payment methods lack the
    statutory protections of traditional banking and credit card payments,
    so consumers who find themselves defrauded may lack any practical
    recourse to get their money back.\31\ Many consumers may not know that
    these newer payment methods lack legal protections: A 2022 Consumer
    Reports evaluation of four leading peer-to-peer payment apps showed
    that all four lacked clear, accessible disclosures about the
    availability of FDIC insurance for user balances and the full scope of
    their fraud and error resolution policies.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Testimony of Delicia Reynolds Hand, Senior Director, Digital
    Marketplace, Consumer Reports, Before the United States Senate
    Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on ``Fraud Alert!: Shedding
    Light on Zelle,'' (May 21, 2024), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Fraud-Alert_-Shedding-Light-on-
    Zelle.Delicia-Hand.May-2024.pdf.
        \32\ Delicia Hand, Peer-to-Peer Payment Apps: A Case Study for a
    Digital Finance Standard, Consumer Reports Advocacy, (Jan. 24, 2023),
    https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/peer-to-peer-payment-
    apps-a-case-study-for-a-digital-finance-standard/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AI voice cloning tools can also be used for deception with
    different ends--including harming someone's reputation. A Maryland high
    school athletic director reportedly used AI voice cloning tools to
    mimic the voice of a school principal.\33\ The recording came after the
    athletic director and the principal had discussed the athletic
    director's poor work performance. The manufactured audio clip
    reportedly contained racist remarks about Black students' test taking
    abilities, as well as antisemitic comments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Ben Finley, Athletic director used AI to frame principal with
    racist remarks in fake audio clip, police say, AP News, (Apr. 25,
    2024), https://apnews.com/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-principal-
    audio-maryland-baltimore-county-pikesville-
    853ed171369bcbb888eb54f55195cb9c.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fake endorsements and reviews
        AI voice and likeness cloning tools have unlocked scammers'
    abilities to generate deepfake videos falsely depicting celebrities and
    political figures endorsing products, suggesting investments, and
    urging citizens to take action. Recent research suggests that consumers
    struggle to recognize deepfake videos as false, and also overestimate
    their own ability to detect deepfakes.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Nils C Kobis et al., Fooled twice: People cannot detect
    deepfakes but think they can, National Library of Medicine National
    Center for Biotechnology Information, (2021), https://pubmed
    .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34820608/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AI-powered celeb-bait has proliferated on social media. An
    investigation by ProPublica identified videos on Meta seemingly
    depicting President-elect Trump and President Biden--each with their
    distinctive tone and cadence--offering cash handouts if people filled
    out an online form.\35\ 404 Media has reported on the spread of low-
    rent AI clones of Joe Rogan, Taylor Swift, Ice Cube, Andrew Tate,
    Oprah, and The Rock pushing Medicare and Medicaid-related scams on
    YouTube.\36\ Scammers have used an AI clone of Taylor Swift's to hawk
    Le Creuset dishware.\37\ Elon Musk's likeness and voice has been
    frequently repurposed by scammers using AI video and voice tools to
    push fraudulent ``investment'' schemes. One consumer was reportedly
    scammed out of $690,000 after seeing a deepfaked Elon Musk endorse an
    investment opportunity.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ Craig Silverman and Priyanjana Bengani, Exploiting Meta's
    Weaknesses, Deceptive Political Ads Thrived on Facebook and Instagram
    in Run-Up to Election, ProPublica, (Oct. 31, 2024), https://
    www.propublica.org/article/facebook-instagram-meta-deceptive-political-
    ads-election.
        \36\ Jason Koelber, Deepfaked Celebrity Ads Promoting Medicare
    Scams Run Rampant on YouTube, 404 Media, (Jan. 9, 2024), https://
    www.404media.co/joe-rogan-taylor-swift-andrew-tate-ai-deepfake-youtube-
    medicare-ads/.
        \37\ Tiffany Hsu and Yiwen Lu, No, That's Not Taylor Swift Peddling
    Le Creuset Cookware, New York Times, (Jan. 9, 2024), https://
    www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/technology/taylor-swift-le-creuset-ai-
    deepfake.html.
        \38\ Stuart Thompson, How `Deepfake Elon Musk' Became the
    Internet's Biggest Scammer, New York Times, (Aug. 14, 2024), https://
    www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/14/technology/elon-musk-ai-
    deepfake-scam.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AI can also make it easier to illegally promote products through
    the creation of mass fake reviews. Biased and downright fraudulent
    reviews are rampant online. Popular sites are riddled with thousands of
    dubious reviews, polluting the information available to consumers to
    make an informed choice.\39\ One study finds that nearly half of
    reviews for clothes and apparel are faked--and, on average across all
    product lines, 39 percent of the reviews are false.\40\ Another study
    put the number at closer to 30 percent.\41\ And another found that
    online reviews are, overall, untrustworthy through a variety of
    metrics, including convergence with Consumer Reports ratings and resale
    value.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Simon Hill, Inside the Market for Fake Amazon Reviews, Wired,
    (Nov. 2, 2022), https://www.wired.com/story/fake-amazon-reviews-
    underground-market/; Joe Enoch, Can You Trust Online Reviews? Here's
    How to Find the Fakes, NBC News (Feb. 27, 2019), www.nbcnews.com/
    business/consumer/can-you-trust-online-reviews-here-s-how-find-fakes-
    n976756.
        \40\ Eric Griffith, 39 Percent of Online Reviews Are Totally
    Unreliable, PCMag.com (Nov. 7, 2019), https://www.pcmag.com/news/
    371796/39-percent-of-online-reviews-are-totally-unreliable.
        \41\ Bettie Cross, Up to 30 percent of online reviews are fake and
    most consumers can't tell the difference, CBS Austin, (Nov. 1, 2022),
    https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/up-to-30-of-online-reviews-are-fake-
    and-most-consumers-cant-tell-the-difference.
        \42\ Bart de Langhe et al, Navigating by the Stars: Investigating
    the Actual and Perceived Validity of Online User Ratings, Journal of
    Consumer Research, Volume 42, Issue 6 at 818-19 (April 2016) https://
    www.colorado.edu/business/sites/default/files/attached-files/
    jcr_2016_de
    _langhe_fernbach_lichtenstein_0.pdf; see also Jake Swearingen, Hijacked
    Reviews on Amazon Can Trick Shoppers, Consumer Reports (Aug. 26, 2019),
    https://www.consumerreports.org/customer-reviews-ratings/hijacked-
    reviews-on-amazon-can-trick-shoppers/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Using generative AI, a fraudster can generate dozens of realistic
    sounding fake reviews in seconds. Inputting into ChatGPT for example
    the prompt ``generate ten fake five star reviews of varying length and
    tone for the Ukrainian DC restaurant Ruta'' results in ChatGPT's
    response: ``Here are ten fake five-star reviews for the Ukrainian
    restaurant Ruta, showcasing a variety of tones and lengths:'' followed
    by ten detailed reviews praising particular dishes, the decor, and the
    service. Earlier this year, the FTC brought a case against the
    generative AI service Rytr for offering a product that would generate
    unlimited reviews for a product or service with limited user input--
    Rytr would then create detailed reviews with invented details and
    anecdotes.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ In the Matter of Rytr, LLC, Fed. Trade Comm'n, File No. 232-
    3052, Complaint, (Sep. 25, 2024), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CR-Endorsement-Guides-comments-September-
    2022-3.pdf; Consumer Reports filed a comment on the Rytr proceeding in
    support of the settlement, arguing it was in the public interest and
    that Rytr's product could only be reasonably used for fraudulent
    purposes. See Justin Brookman et al., Consumer Reports files comment in
    support of FTC's settlement with Rytr, (Nov. 4, 2024), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/consumer-reports-files-comment-
    in-support-of-ftcs-settlement-with-rytr/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The role of tools and platforms
        In the vast majority of cases, scammers and fraudsters do not
    create AI tools themselves--instead they take advantage of commercially
    available resources (many of which are free or at least very low cost).
    Sometimes these are general purpose tools, such as ChatGPT. In other
    cases, they are specialized products, including products like Rytr that
    are overwhelmingly likely to be used predominantly for illegitimate
    purposes--such as pornographic deepfake generation and voice
    impersonation. Many of the purveyors of these high-risk applications
    fail to take basic precautions to try to deter bad actors from using
    their products for illegitimate purposes.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ Janus Rose, AI Tools Make It Easy to Clone Someone's Voice
    Without Consent, Proof, (Jun. 25, 2024), https://www.proofnews.org/ai-
    tools-make-it-easy-to-clone-someones-voice-without-consent/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Once created, scammers use other general purpose platforms to host
    their solicitations. Amazon is rife with fake reviews, and social media
    sites like YouTube and Facebook host the deepfake endorsement scams
    described in the previous section. Using Google to search for ``voice
    impersonation tools'' yields several different options for people to
    impersonate others' voices, including several sponsored results.
        Nearly all online tools and platforms engage in some degree of
    content moderation to root out illegal activity, but in general they
    are underincentivized to expend sufficient resources to protect
    consumers.\45\ Platforms that host illegal content are often explicitly
    immunized from responsibility by Section 230 of the Communications
    Decency Act.\46\ In many cases, they benefit directly from the fraud,
    whether because they are paid by fraudsters who use their tools, they
    derive advertising revenue from hosting fraudulent content, they derive
    commissions from fraudulently endorsed products, or they benefit
    indirectly through artificially augmented engagement metrics which
    drive investors.\47\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Testimony of Laurel Lehman, Policy Analyst, Consumer Reports
    Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy &
    Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce on ``Holding
    Big Tech Accountable: Legislation To Protect Online Users,'' (Mar. 1,
    2022), https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114439/witnesses/
    HHRG-117-IF17-Wstate-LehmanL-20220301.pdf.
        \46\ 47 U.S. Code Sec. 230, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
    text/47/230.
        \47\ Mark Scott, Report: Social Media Networks Fail to Root Out
    Fake Accounts, Politico (Dec. 6, 2019), https://www.politico.com/news/
    2019/12/06/social-media-networks-fake-accounts-report-076939; Nicholas
    Confessore et al., The Follower Factory, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2018),
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-
    bots.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    II. Existing Protections
        Scams and fraud are already illegal under a variety of Federal and
    state civil and criminal laws. The Federal Trade Commission along with
    other regulators and prosecutors around the country bring numerous
    enforcement actions every year.\48\ In September of this year, the FTC
    announced a law enforcement sweep entitled ``Operation AI Comply'' to
    take action against companies that have used AI to perpetrate
    fraud.\49\ The Rytr enforcement action discussed earlier was part of
    that sweep, as well as a case against a company that overstated the
    capabilities of their AI tool, and cases against companies that
    promoted fraudulent AI-powered business opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ E.g., Press Release, FTC Takes Action to Stop Online Business
    Opportunity Scam That Has Cost Consumers Millions, Federal Trade
    Commission, (Oct. 28, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/
    press-releases/2024/10/ftc-takes-action-stop-online-business-
    opportunity-scam-has-cost-consumers-millions.
        \49\ Press Release, FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims
    and Schemes, Federal Trade Commission, (Sep. 25, 2024), https://
    www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-
    crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are also seeing policymakers around the country enacting new
    laws to try to address potential abuses of AI. More than half the
    states have enacted laws prohibiting the use of AI to generate
    nonconsensual pornographic images.\50\ Some states have expanded
    existing right-of-publicity laws to forbid the creation of digital
    replicas of real persons without their permission (or in the case of
    the deceased, their estates).\51\ Twenty states have enacted
    comprehensive privacy laws since 2018,\52\ and California passed the
    DELETE Act last year to make it easier for consumers to erase data
    broker records which could be used for targeted scams.\53\ Colorado
    passed the first comprehensive bill designed to address potential bias
    in AI systems used in high-stakes decisions; the bill also requires
    consumer-facing AI systems to be labeled.\54\ The state of California
    has initiated rulemaking proceedings under its privacy statute to enact
    similar protections for decision-making AI.\55\ California also enacted
    an AI transparency law designed to address deceptive deepfakes: it
    requires generative AI products to offer deepfake detection tools and
    to embed invisible latent identifiers in artificial content to reflect
    the provenance of the image.\56\ In general, after decades of failure
    to update the law to address the threats posed by new technologies such
    as the Internet and social media, state legislatures have been quicker
    to respond to some of the threats posed by artificial intelligence. The
    2025 state legislative season is likely to see additional new laws
    related to AI enacted.\57\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Vittoria Elliott, The U.S. Needs Deepfake Porn Laws. These
    States Are Leading the Way, Wired, (Sep. 5, 2024), https://
    www.wired.com/story/deepfake-ai-porn-laws/; Most States Have Enacted
    Sexual Deepfake Laws, multistate.ai, (Jun. 28, 2024), https://
    www.multistate.ai/updates/vol-32.
        \51\ CA AB-2602 Contracts against public policy: personal or
    professional services: digital replicas (2024),https://
    leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB26
    02; CA AB-1836 Use of likeness: digital replica (2024), https://
    leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1836; TN HB2091 ``Ensuring
    Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of 2024,'' https://
    legiscan.com/TN/text/HB2091/id/2900923.
        \52\ Which States Have Consumer Data Privacy Laws?, Bloomberg Law,
    (Sep. 10, 2024), https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/privacy/state-
    privacy-legislation-tracker/.
        \53\ SB-362 Data broker registration: accessible deletion mechanism
    (2023), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB362.
        \54\ CO Senate Bill 24-205, The Colorado AI Act (2024), https://
    leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_205_signed.pdf.
        \55\ Press Release, CPPA Adopts New Regulations for Data Brokers
    and Advances ADMT Rulemaking Package, California Privacy Protection
    Agency, (Nov. 8, 2024), https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2024/
    20241108_2.html.
        \56\ CA SB-942 California AI Transparency Act (2024), https://
    leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942.
        \57\ Jacob Rubenstein, CR AI Fellow: Building a State Level AI
    Policy Tracker, Consumer Reports Innovation Blog, (Sep. 12, 2024),
    https://innovation.consumerreports.org/cr-ai-fellow-building-a-state-
    level-ai-policy-tracker/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, regulators and others are ramping up user education
    efforts to warn consumers about the potential of AI scams and other AI-
    enabled fraud. Consumer Reports offers a free product called ``Security
    Planner'' to give people custom advice on the threats they are most
    concerned about;\58\ Security Planner includes resources, for example,
    on how to spot phishing attempts and malicious websites posing as
    legitimate businesses.\59\ We also publish and regularly update ``The
    Consumer Reports Scam Protection Guide'' that contains the latest
    information about evolving tactics.\60\ Others like the FTC,\61\ New
    York City,\62\ and the Electronic Frontier Foundation\63\ offer similar
    materials. The Public Interest Research Group offers helpful advice on
    how consumers can spot potential fake reviews.\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ Security Planner, Consumer Reports, https://
    securityplanner.consumerreports.org/.
        \59\ Spot Malicious Sites and Phishing Attempts, Consumer Reports
    Security Planner, https://securityplanner.consumerreports.org/tool/
    protect-yourself-from-phishing.
        \60\ Janet Siroti, The Consumer Reports Scam Protection Guide,
    Consumer Reports, (Jul. 6, 2023), https://www.consumerreports.org/
    money/scams-fraud/how-to-protect-yourself-from-scams-and-fraud-
    a6839928990/.
        \61\ Scams, Federal Trade Commission, https://consumer.ftc.gov/
    scams.
        \62\ Tips on AI-Related Scams, NYC.gov, https://www.nyc.gov/site/
    dca/consumers/artificial-intelligence-scam-tips.page.
        \63\ How to: Avoid Phishing Attacks, Electronic Frontier Foundation
    Surveillance Self-Defense, (Jun. 24, 2024), https://ssd.eff.org/module/
    how-avoid-phishing-attacks.
        \64\ How to recognize fake online reviews of products and services,
    U.S. PIRG Education Fund, (Mar. 10, 2022), https://pirg.org/edfund/
    resources/how-to-recognize-fake-online-reviews-of-products-and-
    services/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consumer Reports is also part of a broader consumer awareness
    campaign called ``Take 9'' designed to train American consumers to
    pause and ``take nine'' seconds to consider calls to action that may be
    scams.\65\ The campaign was launched earlier this fall and to date has
    generated 214 million impressions, 152,000 engagements, and a 14
    percent engagement rate. Sentiment analysis of online mentions about
    the campaign highlights a clear trend: neutral and positive sentiments
    are growing at a significantly higher rate. In contrast, negative
    sentiment remains low, showcasing the campaign's initial resonance and
    positive impact.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ Nine Seconds for a Safer World, Take9, https://
    pausetake9.org/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, developers are working on new tools--often themselves
    powered by AI--to identify artificial content. Mozilla offers a browser
    extension called ``Fakespot'' designed to identify potential fraudulent
    reviews when consumers are shopping online.\66\ Polyguard offers a
    voice communication app for wealth managers (likely targets for voice
    impersonation schemes) to identify potential calls from AI generated
    voice clones.\67\ TrueMedia.org is a nonprofit organization dedicated
    to helping identify synthetic deepfake content.\68\ As discussed above,
    recently enacted California legislation will also mandate that
    generative AI platforms create and offer AI deepfake detection tools
    which will hopefully increase the sophistication and adoption of such
    tools.\69\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ Use AI to detect fake reviews and scams, Fakespot, https://
    www.fakespot.com/.
        \67\ Trusted relationships demand trusted communications.,
    Polyguard, https://www.poly
    guard.ai/.
        \68\ Identifying Political Deepfakes in Social Media using AI,
    TrueMedia.org, https://www.truemedia.org/; see also Cade Metz and
    Tiffany Hsu, An A.I. Researcher Takes On Election Deepfakes, New York
    Times, (Apr. 2, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/technology/
    an-ai-researcher-takes-on-election-deepfakes.html.
        \69\ CA SB-942 California AI Transparency Act (2024), https://
    leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    III. Solutions
        Responding to the new waves of fraud and scams powered by
    increasingly sophisticated AI is going to take a combination of
    legislation, enforcement, education, and cooperation from industry.
    Stronger enforcement bodies
        Fraud and scams are already illegal. However, because of
    insufficient enforcement--or consequences when caught--there is not
    enough deterrence against potential scammers. The FTC recently brought
    a handful of AI enforcement cases but those five actions are unlikely
    to meaningfully stem the already powerful wave of AI-power fraud.\70\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ Press Release, FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims
    and Schemes, Federal Trade Commission, (Sep. 25, 2024), https://
    www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-
    crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, the FTC only has 1,292 FTEs total to pursue both its
    competition and consumer protection missions.\71\ This number has been
    roughly flat over the past fourteen years, and actually represents a
    decrease from 1,746 FTEs in 1979. Put another way, since that time, the
    economy has grown nearly three times while the FTC's capacity has
    decreased by more than a quarter. The FTC is expected to hold giant
    sophisticated tech giants accountable for their transgressions, but
    they are severely hamstrung by unjustifiable resource constraints.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \71\ FTC Appropriation and Full-TIme Equivalent (FTE) History,
    Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-
    offices/office-executive-director/financial-management-office/ftc-
    appropriation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even when the FTC does manage to bring a case, they often cannot
    get meaningful relief from the wrongdoer. For most violations of
    Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC cannot get statutory penalties from
    offenders. Historically, the FTC was at least able to obtain
    restitution--to get back the money that consumers lost to fraudsters.
    However, in 2021, the Supreme Court held that the FTC's enabling
    statute doesn't even give them that limited authority in many
    instances.\72\ Despite bipartisan agreement that the FTC should be
    empowered to, at the very least, obtain the disgorgement of fraudulent
    gains from wrongdoers, Congress has failed to enact legislation to
    restore that power.\73\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \72\ AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission,141 S.
    Ct. 1341 (2021), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-
    508_l6gn.pdf.
        \73\ Testimony of Anna Laitin, Director, Financial Fairness and
    Legislative Strategy, Consumer Reports Before the House of
    Representatives Committee on Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer
    Protection and Commerce on ``The Consumer Protection and Recovery Act:
    Returning Money to Defrauded Consumers,'' (Apr. 27, 2021), https://
    www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/112501/witnesses/HHRG-117-IF17-
    Wstate-LaitinA-20210427.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should grant the FTC additional resources to hire
    attorneys and technologists, and expand legal powers in order to allow
    the agency to keep pace with the threats that plague the modern
    economy.
    Clearer platform accountability rules
        Companies that offer AI tools and online platforms need clearer
    responsibility about how they respond to bad actors' use of those
    services. This could potentially be done using existing law. Section 5
    of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits business practices that
    lead to significant consumer injury when that injury is not avoidable
    by consumers and the injury is not offset by countervailing benefits to
    consumers or competition.\74\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \74\ 15 U.S. Code Sec. 45, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/
    15/45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The FTC has long held that companies' failure to take action to
    identify and remediate harmful uses by bad actors of their products
    will in many cases be an unfair business practice. One analogous line
    of cases is the FTC's enforcement actions on data security. In nearly a
    hundred cases since 2005, the FTC has said that companies have a legal
    obligation to anticipate and respond to ways that attackers could
    misuse their systems to gain access to consumers' personal
    information.\75\ In these cases, the FTC has said that companies'
    failure to take steps to remediate likely abuses by third parties
    caused a substantial likelihood of injury that was unavoidable by
    consumers and not offset by countervailing benefits to consumers or
    competition. As just one example, earlier this year, the FTC brought an
    action against the security camera company Verkada for failure to take
    steps to prevent attackers from accessing video feeds from consumers'
    cameras.\76\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ See Press Release, BJ's Wholesale Club Settles FTC Charges,
    Federal Trade Commission, (Jun. 16, 2005), https://www.ftc.gov/news-
    events/news/press-releases/2005/06/bjs-wholesale-club-settles-ftc-
    charges; Press Release, DSW Inc. Settles FTC Charges, Federal Trade
    Commission, (Dec. 1, 2005), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-
    releases/2005/12/dsw-inc-settles-ftc-charges; Press Release, FTC
    Releases 2023 Privacy and Data Security Update, Federal Trade
    Commission, (Mar. 28, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/
    press-releases/2024/03/ftc-releases-2023-privacy-data-security-up date;
    Staff Report, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Federal Trade
    Commission (Jul. 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/
    plain-language/pdf0205-startwithsecurity.pdf.
        \76\ See Press Release, FTC Takes Action Against Security Camera
    Firm Verkada over Charges it Failed to Secure Videos, Other Personal
    Data and Violated CAN-SPAM Act, Federal Trade Commission, (Aug. 30,
    2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/ftc-
    takes-action-against-security-camera-firm-verkada-over-charges-it-
    failed-secure-videos-other.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond data security, the FTC has held companies responsible for
    how others use their products to cause harm to consumers.\77\ For
    example, the FTC successfully sued QChex for violating Section 5 for
    allowing any customer to create checks for any bank account number
    without implementing reasonable safeguards to ensure that fraudsters
    were not creating checks for accounts they did not control. In that
    case, QChex's failure to take steps to prevent foreseeable harmful and
    illegal uses constituted an unfair business practice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \77\ See, e.g., Press Release, FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating
    Money Transfer Fraud That Fleeced Customers Out of Hundreds of
    Millions, Federal Trade Commission, (Jun. 28, 2022), https://
    www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-sues-walmart-
    facilitating-
    money-transfer-fraud-fleeced-customers-out-hundreds-millions; Press
    Release, U.S. Circuit Court Finds Operator of Affiliate Marketing
    Network Responsible for Deceptive Third-Party Claims Made for LeanSpa
    Weight-loss Supplement, Federal Trade Commission, (Oct. 4, 2016),
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/10/us-circuit-
    court-finds-operator-affiliate-
    marketing-network-responsible-deceptive-third-party-claims; Press
    Release, Court Orders Permanent Halt to Illegal Qchex Check Processing
    Operation Court Finds Qchex Unfair Practices Created a Dinner Bell for
    Fraudsters Operators to Give Up All Their Ill-Gotten Gains, Federal
    Trade Commission, (Feb. 9, 2009), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/
    press-releases/2009/02/court-orders-permanent-halt-illegal-qchex-check-
    processing-operation-court-finds-qchex-unfair.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to note that an obligation to identify and
    remediate likely harmful behaviors does not amount to strict liability
    for any harm caused by another bad actor using a company's product.
    Section 5's requirement that any harm not be offset by countervailing
    benefits to consumers or competition means that companies are not
    expected to spend unlimited resources to try to chase down potential
    offenders. Instead, the FTC only intervenes when companies fail to take
    cost-effective measures whose implementation would have prevented an
    even greater risk of injury.
        Product design is also an important consideration in assessing the
    extent to which a company must take steps to remediate potential harm
    from bad faith actors. If the potential harms from a platform are
    especially significant, or the platform's design makes it likely that
    it will be used for harmful purposes, then companies should have a
    greater obligation to expend resources to remediate those uses. QChex,
    for example, allowed attackers to generate checks on consumers' bank
    accounts; given the high risk of substantial financial harm, the
    company had an obligation to ensure that the check writers in fact
    controlled those accounts and to monitor and respond to complaints of
    fraud. If a company creates a product that has a high likelihood of
    being used for illegitimate purposes, it should have a greater
    obligation to take steps to account for those harms to ensure the harms
    do not outweigh any potential benefits to consumers from the
    product.\78\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \78\ Press Release, U.S. Circuit Court Finds Operator of Affiliate
    Marketing Network Responsible for Deceptive Third-Party Claims Made for
    LeanSpa Weight-loss Supplement, Federal Trade Commission, (Oct. 4,
    2016), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/10/us-
    circuit-court-finds-operator-affiliate-marketing-network-responsible-
    deceptive-third-party-claims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As such, generative AI products that are likely to be predominantly
    used for harm--such as Rytr's review generation service or voice
    impersonation companies--should have heightened obligations to address
    uses for illegal purposes (if they should be made commercially
    available at all). Those products are very likely to lead to
    significant consumer injury and consumers are unable to reasonably
    avoid them--to the contrary, the services are designed to create
    content that is indistinguishable from authentic content. There are
    limited positive use cases for these tools, so the harms caused by
    making these platforms generally available without reasonable
    safeguards in place is unlikely to be outweighed by countervailing
    benefits.
        For more general purpose tools, the calculus is significantly more
    complicated. ChatGPT, for example, is a multipurpose system designed to
    respond to any number of constantly changing prompts--the cost of
    anticipating and responding to every potential abuse of the system is
    substantially higher. In fact, the developers of ChatGPT do consider
    potential misuse by bad actors and do put some limits on how the
    platform can be used. For example, ChatGPT regularly updates and
    publishes a system card identifying ``Key Areas of Risk Evaluation &
    Mitigation,'' including ``unauthorized voice generation'' and
    ``generating erotic and violent speech.'' \79\ Further, making changes
    to account for harmful uses could also potentially constrain known or
    unknown positive uses of ChatGPT--another potential countervailing
    benefit that is less likely for narrower tools designed for specific
    tasks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \79\ GPT-4o System Card, OpenAI, (Aug. 8, 2024), https://
    openai.com/index/gpt-4o-system-card/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nevertheless, there is a strong case that the developers of general
    purpose generative AI products should take more aggressive measures to
    prevent or deter obvious abuses (as discussed above, general purpose
    services comply with requests to generate multiple ``fake reviews'').
    The extent to which such a multipurpose platform should take steps to
    respond to different threats is a complex question, balancing the costs
    of potential harm with the costs of remediation and potential
    limitations of beneficial uses. The same goes for platforms that host
    fraudulent content; if their services are causing significant harm and
    there are cost-effective measures they could employ to remediate that
    harm, they should do so.
        Clarifying tool and platform responsibility for customer abuse
    could be done through enforcement under Section 5 and comparable state
    consumer protection laws. Or new legal protections could be enacted to
    specify what steps these companies should take and under what
    circumstances when their products are used to defraud consumers.
    Transparency obligations
        As a general matter, consumers deserve to know whether the content
    they're interacting with is real or AI-generated. Content creators and
    companies should be labeling AI-generated content and chatbots as such.
    The fact that content is AI-generated should be communicated
    prominently and contextually in such a way that an ordinary consumers
    is likely to notice, through visual labeling (or in the case of AI-
    generated phone calls, through an introductory statement, as the FCC
    recently proposed in a rulemaking on AI-generated robocalls).\80\ It
    should also be communicated latently through standardized metadata,
    watermarks, or other technology to allow platforms and agents to
    automatically identify content as synthetic--this approach was recently
    mandated in California in legislation enacted in September of this
    year.\81\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ Comments of Consumer Reports on Implications on Artificial
    Intelligence Technologies on Protecting Consumers From Unwanted
    Robocalls and Robotexts, CG Docket No. 23-362, (Oct. 10, 2024), https:/
    /advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CR-Comment-on-
    FCC-AI-Robocall-Rulemaking-.pdf. 50,000 consumers signed onto our
    petition in support of our comments calling for transparency in AI-
    generated robocalls. See Grace Gedye, 50,000 consumers support FCC AI
    robocall rulemaking, Consumer Reports Advocacy, (Oct. 10, 2024),
    https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/50000-consumers-support-
    fcc-ai-robocall-rulemaking/.
        \81\ CA SB-942 California AI Transparency Act (2024),  https://
    leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, mandated transparency has limitations too, as bad actors
    will simply fail to provide prominent disclosures, and will endeavor to
    strip our latent identifiers imposed by generative platforms--or they
    will turn to smaller, malicious, or open-source platforms that are not
    covered by or otherwise do not comply with transparency obligations.
    For this reason, some advocates have argued against transparency
    obligations, noting that adversarial transparency obligations have
    historically been ineffective.\82\ Nevertheless, we think there is a
    benefit in requiring transparency from actors who may be deterred from
    breaking the law, and over time content identification (including
    reliably authenticating when content is organic and legitimate) may
    improve.\83\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \82\ Jacob Hoffman-Andrews, AI Watermarking Won't Curb
    Disinformation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, (Jan. 5, 2024), https:/
    /www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/ai-watermarking-wont-curb-
    disinformation.
        \83\ Grace Gedye, CR submits testimony AI and consumer protection
    to New York Assembly, Consumer Reports Advocacy, (Sep. 25, 2024),
    https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/cr-submits-testimony-ai-
    and-consumer-protection-to-new-york-assembly/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stronger privacy and security laws
        Scams are much more effective when attackers have access to
    personal information in order to customize a solicitation. However, the
    United States's privacy laws are weak, and hundreds of unregulated data
    brokers are able to amass detailed dossiers about all of us which are
    then sold to anyone willing to pay for them.\84\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \84\ This Committee has published a detailed investigation into
    data brokers, though at this point the report is over ten years old.
    See Office of Oversight and Investigations Majority Staff, A Review of
    the Data Broker Industry: Collection, Use, and Sale of Consumer Data
    for Marketing Purposes, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation, (Dec. 18, 2013), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/
    services/files/0d2b3642-6221-4888-a631-08f2f255b577. The situation has
    not materially improved in the meantime.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Federal government has no comprehensive privacy law, and
    instead only has a handful of laws of varying strength covering
    sensitive categories of personal information such as medical,
    financial, and kids' data. Over the past six years, twenty states have
    passed their own general privacy laws, though most of those laws are
    too weak to meaningfully stem the flow of personal information to data
    brokers and advertisers.\85\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \85\ The State of Privacy: How state ``privacy'' laws fail to
    protect privacy and what they can do better, Electronic Privacy
    Information Center and U.S. PIRG Education Fund, (Feb. 2024), https://
    publicinterestnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/State-of-Privacy-
    Feb.-2024.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Policymakers should enact stronger privacy rules based on the
    principle of data minimization--meaning companies should only be
    collecting, processing, sharing, and retaining data as is reasonably
    necessary to deliver the goods or services requested by consumers.\86\
    Such a model would protect personal data by default rather than subject
    consumers to relentless requests for ``opt-in'' consent for superfluous
    data usage or forcing consumers to navigate innumerable ``opt-out''
    mechanisms.\87\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \86\ How the FTC Can Mandate Data Minimization Through a Section 5
    Unfairness Rulemaking, Consumer Reports and the Electronic Privacy
    Information Center, (Jan. 26, 2022), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/
    CR_Epic_FTCDataMinimization_012522_VF_.pdf.
        \87\ In 2021, Consumer Reports published model privacy legislation
    based on the concept of data minimization. See Model State Privacy Act,
    Consumer Reports Advocacy, (Feb. 2021), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CR_Model-State-
    Privacy-Act_022321_vf.pdf. Earlier this year, Consumer Reports and the
    Electonic Privacy Information Center published a compromise approach
    based on the Connecticut privacy legislation that has served as a model
    for several other states. See Press Release, Consumer Reports and the
    Electronic Privacy Information Center unveil new model legislation to
    protect the privacy of American consumers, Consumer Reports Advocacy,
    (Sep. 24, 2024), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/
    consumer-reports-and-the-electronic-privacy-information-center-unveil-
    new-model-legislation-to-protect-the-privacy-of-american-consumers/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Citizen education and better tools
        Finally, consumers have a role to play too, and digital citizens
    will have to become more savvy and discriminating in a world where even
    very realistic looking and sounding content may be entirely AI-
    generated. For the last three years, Consumer Reports has published a
    ``Cyber Readiness Report'' which draws on nationally representative
    surveys to track the adoption of cybersecurity best practices over
    time.\88\ While a majority of respondents did exhibit awareness of the
    importance of unique passwords, software updates, and multifactor
    authentication, adoption of more sophisticated techniques (such as use
    of password managers and tracker blockers) is lagging; moreover,
    adoption of cybersecurity best practices in general has remained fairly
    flat over the past three years. Institutions will need to adapt to find
    ways to encourage consumers to adopt more sophisticated protections
    over time, including protections designed to protect consumers from AI-
    generated deepfake scams. At the same time, researchers in industry,
    academia, civil society, and government will have to continue to
    develop new tools to help consumers identify inauthentic content. Over
    time, these tools need to become seamlessly embedded into browsers,
    mobile phone operating systems, and other platforms that consumers use
    to access online content.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \88\ Yael Grauer, New Report: 2024 Consumer Cyber Readiness,
    Consumer Reports Innovation Blog, (Oct. 1, 2024), at 4 https://
    innovation.consumerreports.org/new-report-2024-consumer-cyber-
    readiness/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Brookman.
        Next, Mr. Mounir Ibrahim, who is the Chief Communications
    Officer and Head of Public Affairs at Truepic, also a former
    State Department official, I think, so brings a broad wealth of
    kind of more international, more global experience perspective
    to this.

     STATEMENT OF MOUNIR IBRAHIM, CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER AND
                    HEAD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TRUEPIC

        Mr. Ibrahim. Thank you, Chairman Hickenlooper, Ranking
    Member Blackburn and members of this committee.
        My name is Mounir Ibrahim. I am with Truepic, a technology
    company that is focused on digital content, authenticity, and
    transparency online today.
        As you noted, Senator, I was a former Foreign Service
    Officer with the U.S. Department of State and it was there I
    saw firsthand the importance and critical need for transparency
    and authenticity in digital content from conflict zones around
    the world including on the ground in Damascus, Syria.
        I fundamentally believe that deciphering what is human
    generated from AI is one of the most pressing challenges we
    have today. I applaud this committee for its leadership on this
    issue.
        I would like to address the threat very briefly, echoing my
    colleagues here, to local communities and everyday individuals.
    This dynamic is most clearly seen in the prevalent and alarming
    rise of nonconsensual pornography as we heard, often targeting
    young women and even minors.
        Meanwhile, catfishing and sextortion scams are on the rise,
    often powered by AI. I fear we are witnessing the early stages
    of AI being weaponized against local communities and
    individuals who do not have the resilience or resources to
    defend themselves.
        We know that businesses face the same challenges, too. It
    is reported that deepfake phishing scams on businesses grew by
    3,000 percent in the last year alone, 700 percent in the
    FinTech sector.
        These trends harm consumers and jeopardize America's
    economic competitiveness in the AIH. The reality is there is no
    single solution to stop this problem. However, there are
    effective strategies to mitigate the threat and one key
    approach I would like to talk about is digital content
    provenance.
        Content provenance is cryptographically and securely
    attaching information metadata to digital content, images,
    videos, audio that we see online every day. It can help you
    tell if something is AI generated or if it was camera captured
    and what edits might have been made along the way.
        Today, content credentials are being used to protect
    businesses and people alike. It is being led by the Coalition
    for Content Provenance and Authenticity, the C2PA, of which
    Truepic is a proud steering committee member. Very briefly, I
    would like to share how Truepic is leveraging content
    credentials with its partners in business and for consumer
    benefit.
        Business credentialing and recredentialing is one of the
    fastest growing industries that is adopting content provenance.
    We work with partners like Equifax, TransUnion, Dunn &
    Bradstreet, all of which to securely transform their digital
    verification process backed by provenance.
        This protects consumers by enabling our partners to verify
    the authenticity of those people buying credit reports, thereby
    helping safeguard data.
        Other industries like insurance, product recalls, and
    others are all embracing the same approach. Moving on to more
    consumer-facing benefits, OpenAI's ChatGPT strengthen
    safeguards for misuse.
        We are honored that our technology helps back that with a
    certificate authority that allows these images that come from
    ChatGPT to be read and deciphered by adoptive social media
    platforms like LinkedIn, et cetera.
        Last month we produced the world's first authenticated
    video with content credentials on YouTube and thereby you can
    see the content credentials, seeing that it is in fact captured
    with a camera.
        We are working with partners like Qualcomm to deliver these
    benefits directly on chip sets so that the future smart phones
    we all own and operate that will both create AI and capture
    authentic content can add these content credentials if chosen
    so.
        While these are all highly encouraging points, there are
    challenges and I would like to be transparent about those
    challenges. The first challenge is adoption for content
    provenance to truly transform and create the--make the Internet
    a more authentic and transparent place. We need adoption. We
    expect the C2PA standard to become a global standard under the
    ISO next year but more must be done.
        Education--even if all our digital content has content
    credentials it is imperative that content consumers and
    businesses and those interacting with it know what they mean
    and what they do not mean. These are not blind stamps of trust
    and that is a critical piece.
        Moving forward, I think Congress can help create this--help
    make this a reality. First and foremost, education and funding.
    There are countless academic institutions and research
    institutions that are looking at how content provenance can
    scale and can improve the health of the internet, and Congress
    can help support them.
        Engagement--hearings like this to help emphasize that
    content provenance is not just a safeguard but it also is an
    unlocker for innovation and efficiency across government and
    the private sector.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ibrahim follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Mounir Ibrahim, Chief Communications Officer and
                        Head of Public Affairs, Truepic
        Thank you, Chairman Hickenlooper, Ranking Member Blackburn, and
    esteemed members of this subcommittee. My name is Mounir Ibrahim, and I
    represent Truepic--a technology company dedicated to providing
    essential transparency and authenticity tools for the digital content
    we encounter daily.
        The importance of understanding the origins and authenticity of
    digital content was deeply impressed upon me during my time as a
    Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State, where I
    worked on various global conflicts, including serving on the ground at
    our Embassy in Damascus, Syria. My experiences as a diplomat exposed me
    to the urgency of verifying the authenticity of digital content at the
    highest levels of national and global security decision-making.
        I fundamentally believe deciphering what is human-created from AI
    will become one of the most pressing challenges across all aspects of
    life.
        At Truepic, we recognize that our increasingly digitized lives rely
    on digital content for decisions--personal, business, and governmental.
    From insurance claims and banking audits to social media feeds, online
    profiles, and even images from conflict zones--digital content shapes
    the decisions we make every day.
        I applaud the subcommittee's focus on the impact of digital content
    on people and consumers in today's AI age. I also thank you for your
    continued leadership in supporting transparency online.
    Threat Landscape
        You are undoubtedly aware of the rapid growth of AI platforms, many
    of which are publicly available, open-sourced, and easy to access.
    While much attention has rightly been given to how synthetic media and
    deepfakes could impact elections, mischaracterize leaders, and
    manipulate markets, I would like to briefly address the threat to local
    communities and everyday individuals who lack the resources to quickly
    and easily debunk false content.
        Local schools, community leaders, businesses, and law enforcement
    face significant challenges in distinguishing human-created from
    synthetic content online, leaving them vulnerable as bad actors exploit
    easily accessible AI tools with little or no technical expertise.
        This dynamic is most clearly seen in the prevalence and alarming
    rise of non-consensual pornography, often targeting young women, even
    minors. A recent study across 10 countries performed by researchers in
    Australia and the United States found that 2.2 percent of respondents
    were victims of deepfake pornography, while 1.8 percent admitted to
    creating or sharing it. Meanwhile, Catphishing and Sextortion scams are
    rapidly increasing and more often powered by AI technology.
        I fear we are witnessing the early stages of AI being weaponized
    against local communities and individuals who lack the resources to
    defend themselves. AI-driven visual deception is rapidly expanding
    beyond non-consensual pornography into local politics, schools, and
    business fraud. In New York and Maryland, for example, deepfake videos
    falsely depicted school leaders making offensive and racist remarks,
    uprooting communities and making national news. In Louisiana, bad
    actors on platforms like 4Chan have shared tools to create deepfakes
    targeting judges, prosecutors, and defendants during locally streamed
    parole board hearings.
        We know that businesses also face the same challenges. It has been
    reported that deepfake phishing scams grew by 3000 percent and deepfake
    incidents in the fintech sector increased by 700 percent last year
    alone. These trends harm consumers, small business owners, and
    jeopardize America's economic competitiveness.
    What Can Be Done?
        The reality is that there is no single solution to halt the growing
    trend of visual deception. However, there are effective strategies to
    mitigate the threat, elevate human-created content, and enhance
    transparency across the internet. I will defer to my esteemed colleague
    on the panel to discuss the capabilities of the detection of AI
    content, but one key approach I want to emphasize to this committee is
    the importance and potential of digital content provenance.
        Content provenance securely and cryptographically attaches
    information (metadata), known as Content Credentials, to photos,
    videos, or audio so consumers can understand where it came from, how it
    was created, and whether it has been edited. For example, Content
    Credentials can show if something was made by a camera or generated by
    AI, when and where it was created, and any changes it has gone through.
    This helps people understand what they see online by providing a clear
    record of its origins and history.

        This is not hyperbole. Today, Content Credentials are being used by
    many companies and leveraged on some of the world's most-used social
    media sites (LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc.). The
    approach is driven by an open standard developed by the Coalition for
    Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), of which Truepic is a proud
    steering committee member, along with Microsoft, Adobe, Google, OpenAI,
    BBC, and many others.
    How Is It Being Used?
        I would like to share how Truepic is leveraging Content Credentials
    and how that is helpful to consumers. First, let me begin with how the
    private industry has deployed Content Credentials as a necessary pre-
    requisite to operating in the AI world.

       Business credentialing and re-credentialing are quickly
            becoming one of the leading industries to embrace content
            provenance for verifying buyers of credit reports. Without
            verifiable and transparent content, companies face significant
            risks and become more vulnerable to AI-driven fraud. Provenance
            technology enables our partners like Equifax, Transunion, and
            Dun & Bradstreet to securely transform the verification
            process.

         Content Credentials protect consumers by enabling our
                partners to digitally verify the authenticity of
                organizations purchasing credit reports. This helps ensure
                that potentially sensitive credit information is shared
                only with authorized and legitimate businesses, helping
                safeguard consumers from AI fraud and deception.

       Insurance is another critical industry that has digitized
            its processes and is subject to significant fraud that raises
            rates and complicates processes for consumers. With partners
            such as EXL Service, USAA, Jewelers Mutual, and many more, our
            partners are leveraging content provenance to streamline claims
            processing, underwriting, reduce fraud, and improve customer
            experiences. Other partners, like Palomar Specialty Insurance,
            deploy content provenance to address natural disasters,
            speeding up the process for and supporting victims through
            authenticated content.

         Content Credentials protect consumers in insurance by
                ensuring claims and underwriting are supported by genuine
                and verifiable evidence, preventing fraud that can inflate
                premiums for everyone. This benefits policyholders by
                allowing them to receive fair and timely resolutions.

        We are excited to extend this impact to other consumer-focused
    areas like product recalls through partnerships with organizations like
    Sedgwick. Verifiable information through Content Credentials ensures
    that owners and victims of defective products can quickly prove
    possession and malfunction, allowing them to be compensated more
    efficiently and without unnecessary red tape, enhancing consumer
    protection.
    Public Facing Benefit
        Let me address how Content Credentials are being deployed to help
    power a more authentic and transparent online experience essential to
    help stem the deception of people online.
        OpenAI's ChatGPT, including DALL·E, is one of the most
    prominent AI text-to-image generation platforms. It has implemented
    stronger safeguards to combat misuse and prevent deception, an effort
    we are proud to support. Truepic plays a key role in this initiative by
    providing the Certificate Authority that backs the C2PA signature on
    AI-generated images, ensuring transparency and accountability. Content
    Credentials on OpenAI outputs help consumers because the Truepic
    certificate will be recognized by major social media platforms like
    LinkedIn, Instagram, or Facebook, and the consumer will be alerted the
    image is AI-created.

        We are also working to help power any organization that wants to
    capture and share authentic video on YouTube. Last month, we produced
    the first human-created video with Content Credentials on YouTube,
    which much like the prior example, allows consumers to understand the
    origins of the video they are watching. This capability can be extended
    to any application that captures videos and places them on YouTube.

        Another exciting example of this technology creating transparency
    for consumers lies in our smartphones. With AI increasingly accessible
    on mobile devices, we're proud to partner with Qualcomm to embed
    Truepic technology directly into Snapdragon chipsets. This enables on-
    device AI content to be tagged with Content Credentials. At the same
    time, creators can also choose to tag authentic images and videos,
    ensuring transparency in digital content while safeguarding privacy.

    Challenges
        While we are highly encouraged by this progress, it is important to
    acknowledge that significant challenges persist.

       Adoption: For the open specification to reach maximum
            efficacy, we need the various components of the Internet to
            adopt and implement, this includes browsers, platforms, CDNs
            (Content Delivery Networks), and OEMs (Original Equipment
            Manufacturers). Without widespread adoption, Content
            Credentials can be easily lost when content moves to non-
            compliant platforms. The C2PA expects the International
            Standards Organization (ISO) to approve the specification as an
            open standard in the coming months, and we anticipate there
            will be further adoption; however, much more needs to be done.

       Education: We also need to work together--industry,
            government, and civil society to educate all stakeholders on
            what Content Credentials mean and, perhaps more importantly, do
            not mean. They are not meant and should not be considered
            stamps of blind trust. Rather, they are indicators that more
            information on that piece of content is available so that
            consumers can make more accurate decisions based on digital
            content. We believe this is essential and the C2PA, supported
            by a generous grant from Microsoft and OpenAI, has been working
            hard to accelerate educational efforts on the specification and
            approach.
    Moving Forward & Recommendations
        We are dedicated to working with partners and the C2PA community to
    ensure Content Credentials empower more informed decisions online. We
    also believe that government can be critical in advancing a more
    transparent internet, especially with the following:

       Education & Funding: We believe this is the most immediate
            area in which the government can support various education
            initiatives and research institutions examining how provenance
            and Content Credentials can be most effective in supporting
            consumers.

       Engagement: Hearings like this with policymakers, industry
            leaders, and civil society are essential to raising awareness.
            I would encourage looking at provenance and transparency beyond
            just a safety measure, and more importantly, as an opportunity
            that unlocks significant government and private sector
            efficiencies.

       Existing Recommendations & Research: In line with the
            bipartisan AI Insight Roadmap, we encourage this committee to
            consider how establishing provenance of digital content, for
            both synthetic and non-synthetic content, can be beneficial.
            NIST is also performing a critical role as it looks at how
            transparency in AI can be more readily available.

        Transparency is essential as digitization accelerates and the line
    between human-created and synthetic content blurs. Without it,
    consumers face greater deception, businesses endure rising fraud, and
    governments risk miscalculation and exploitation. These challenges are
    significant, but with collaboration and the awareness driven by
    hearings like this, I am confident we can build a more transparent and
    authentic digital future.
        Thank you for considering this testimony.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you very much, Mr. Ibrahim.
        Next, Dorota Mani, who is an entrepreneur in her own right
    and has experienced some of the consequences of these
    fraudsters in a powerful way, and I really appreciate you being
    here.

    STATEMENT OF DOROTA MANI, MOTHER OF DEEPFAKE PORNOGRAPHY VICTIM

        Ms. Mani. Thank you for having me. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before this committee today. My name is
    Dorota Mani and I stand before you not only as an educator and
    advocate but also as a mother.
        My 14-year-old daughter, along with her sophomore
    classmates at Westfield High School, was a confirmed victim of
    AI deepfake misuse perpetrated by her peers last year.
        Boys in my daughter's grade used AI to generate sexually
    explicit images of her and other girls. AI technology, as
    complex and powerful as it is, presents both advancements and
    challenges to our society.
        While AI can greatly enhance many aspects of our life it
    also has the potential to harm your constituents deeply. I am
    here not to dwell on how this incident has made us feel but,
    rather, to shift the narrative away from the victims and toward
    the perpetrators, the lack of accountability, lack of laws, and
    the urgency of implementing effective safeguards.
        Based on personal experience, I strongly believe there is a
    critical missing component in our approach to artificial
    intelligence, which is education to prevent misuse.
        While not an area directly related to this committee, I do
    believe school districts should consider implementing AI
    literacy programs to ensure our children comprehend the
    implications and responsibilities associated with using such
    powerful technologies safely and ethically.
        But more than that, those programs will prepare our
    children not only to protect themselves but also to thrive in
    increasingly digital world.
        Unfortunately, AI and its capabilities will allow them to
    critically assess and navigate--understanding AI and its
    capabilities will allow them to critically assess and navigate
    potential manipulations by AI across several aspects of life.
        They will learn to cross reference and validate what they
    see, read, and hear, therefore avoiding manipulation and scams.
    At the same time, they can harness this tool to bridge gaps
    between affluent and underserved communities as well as rural
    and urban schools, in this manner providing equal access to
    resources and opportunities.
        Simultaneously, we need robust regulations and legislation
    for the specific harms AI creates like deepfake sexually
    explicit images.
        Currently, the absence of school policies on AI, alongside
    a lack of specific civil and criminal laws, leaves a
    significant gap in our ability to hold bad actors accountable.
        In the incident involving my daughter, the lack of AI
    specific guidelines at the school led to minimal disciplinary
    actions against the perpetrators who not only remained at the
    school and continued to attend the classes but also represent
    the school till this day in sports teams.
        The repeated excuse by the school was the absence of state
    and Federal laws. Even though there are many important AI bills
    like the Shield Defiance Act, Labeling Act, just to name a few,
    Senator Cruz's Take it Down Act deeply resonates with my
    daughter and I as it allows the victims to take control over
    their image by ensuring that those images can be easily taken
    off any sites where they can be seen by anyone, protecting the
    victim's reputation.
        It is also--it also creates a Federal law that criminalizes
    the publication of deepfakes, giving schools a tool to respond
    against AI misconduct instead of hiding behind the lack of
    laws.
        I thank the members of this committee for unanimously
    passing this legislation in July and I call for members of the
    Senate to pass it urgently to protect my daughters and other
    girls in this country.
        We should also consider further AI regulations that
    protects people from deepfake images like a labeling tool for
    AI-generated content to inform recipients of its source.
    Deepfake images circulating within the digital ecosystem can
    harm victims professionally, educationally, personally, and
    emotionally and more, potentially destroying reputations and
    futures.
        We should not try to reinvent the wheel but rather learn
    from existing models. I also would like to emphasize the urgent
    need to reform Section 230 especially given the rapid evolution
    of technology and the challenges posed by AI.
        Just as laws have adapted for self-driving versus
    traditional vehicles it is crucial that Section 230 evolves to
    stay relevant and effective in today's digital landscape. Let
    us not misunderstood C2--that should not be touched--of Section
    230.
        To tackle the spread of harmful online content we should
    focus on solutions starting with a round table involving
    leaders from major content holding platforms like Microsoft,
    Google, Apple, and Amazon.
        Those companies have the expertise and resources to enact
    significant changes immediately driven by social and ethical
    responsibility while legislators are crafting laws to hold bad
    actors accountable.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mani follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Dorota Mani,
                     Mother of Deepfake Pornography Victim
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee
    today. My name is Dorota Mani and I stand before you not only as an
    educator and advocate but also as a mother. My 14-year-old daughter,
    along with her sophomore classmates at Westfield High School, was a
    confirmed victim of AI deep fake misuse perpetrated by her peers last
    year. Boys in my daughter's grade used AI to generate sexually explicit
    images of her and other girls. AI technology, as complex and powerful
    as it is, presents both advancements and challenges to our society.
    While AI can greatly enhance many aspects of our lives, it also has the
    potential to harm your constituents deeply.
        I am here not to dwell on how this incident has made us feel but
    rather to shift the narrative away from the victims and towards the
    perpetrators, the lack of accountability, lack of laws and the urgency
    of implementing effective safeguards.
        Based on personal experience, I strongly believe there is a
    critical missing component in our approach to artificial intelligence,
    which is Education to Prevent Misuse. While not an area directly
    related to this Committee, I do believe school districts should
    consider implementing AI literacy programs, to ensure our children
    comprehend the implications and responsibilities associated with using
    such powerful technologies safely and ethically. But more than that,
    these programs will prepare our children not only to protect themselves
    but also to thrive in an increasingly digital world. Understanding AI
    and its capabilities will allow them to critically assess and navigate
    potential manipulations by AI across several aspects of life. They will
    learn to cross-reference and validate what they see, read, and hear,
    therefore avoiding manipulation, scams, or misinformation. At the same
    time, they can harness this tool to bridge gaps between affluent and
    underserved communities, as well as rural and urban schools, in this
    manner providing equal access to resources and opportunities.
        Simultaneously, we need robust Regulation and Legislation for the
    specific harms AI creates, like deepfake sexually explicit images.
    Currently, the absence of explicit school policies on AI, alongside a
    lack of specific civil and criminal laws, leaves a significant gap in
    our ability to hold bad actors accountable. In the incident involving
    my daughter, the lack of AI-specific guidelines at her school led to
    minimal disciplinary action against the perpetrators, who not only
    remained at the school but continued to attend classes and represent
    the school in sports till this day. The repeated excuse by the school
    was the absence of state and Federal laws.
        Even though there are many important AI bills, Senator Cruz's TAKE
    IT DOWN Act deeply resonates with my daughter and I as it allows the
    victims to take control over their image, by ensuring that these images
    can be easily taken off any site where they can be seen by anyone,
    protecting the victim's reputation. It also creates a Federal law that
    criminalizes the publication of deepfakes giving schools a tool to
    respond against AI misconduct, instead of hiding behind lack of laws. I
    thank the members of the Committee for unanimously passing the
    legislation in July and I call for members of the Senate to pass it
    urgently.
        We should also consider further AI regulation that protects people
    from deepfake images, like a labeling tool for AI-generated content to
    inform recipients of its source. Deep fake images circulating within
    the digital ecosystem can harm victims professionally, educationally,
    personally, emotionally, and more, potentially destroying reputations
    and futures. We should not try to reinvent the wheel but rather learn
    from existing models
        I also would like to emphasize the urgent need to reform Section
    230, especially given the rapid evolution of technology and the
    challenges posed by AI. Just as laws have adapted for self-driving
    versus traditional vehicles, it's crucial that Section 230 evolves to
    stay relevant and effective in today's digital landscape.
        To tackle the spread of harmful online content, we should focus on
    solutions, starting with a roundtable involving leaders from major
    content holding platforms like Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.
    These companies have the expertise and resources to enact significant
    changes immediately, driven by social and ethical responsibility, while
    legislators are crafting laws to hold bad actors accountable.
        Similarly, financial giants such as AMEX, PayPal, Chase, and Visa
    play a fundamental role in our digital ecosystem. It's essential they
    too engage proactively to prevent their platforms from facilitating
    harmful activities. Collaborative efforts with these institutions can
    help establish a secure and ethical transactional environment,
    showcasing a commitment to responsible business practices.
        To protect our children and ensure a safe learning environment, we
    must do more than just react, we need proactive education, stern
    policies, timely enforcement, and tough legislation that addresses the
    harms real people face.
        As AI continues to filter through every aspect of our lives, from
    simple tasks to complex decision-making processes, it is imperative
    that we educate our society about its potential and dangers. AI, the
    new calculator, is here to stay. Let us face this challenge head-on,
    recognize the need for sector specific regulation directed at
    particular harms, and harness this tool to bridge educational and
    workforce gaps, providing opportunities to advance, regardless of
    background.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you. Thank you each for being
    here.
        Now, we will stop and there--this is a kind of a crazy day
    so I think people are going to be coming in and out but you
    will be on a nonfraudulent video record. So we will make sure
    that you will have--despite the lack of senators sitting right
    at the table we will make sure many of them see this. I know
    there is tremendous interest.
        Mr. Brookman, why do I not start with you? We have seen AI
    technology evolve so rapidly the last few years I think we have
    to anticipate that that trend is going to continue and probably
    accelerate.
        In previous hearings we have highlighted how comprehensive
    privacy legislation is an essential building block to
    addressing some of the harms presented by AI, those that are
    anticipated and those that have already happened.
        As AI continues to evolve how would you see data privacy
    protections helping to mitigate fraud against consumers?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. So a lot of these scams are social
    engineering attacks and those are a lot more effective when
    they have data about you, and in the current environment there
    is a lot of data out there available about us. There is, like,
    hundreds of data brokers. California has a data broker
    registry. I think there are, like, 600 different companies on
    it, and you can get the sort of things that are valuable for
    this sort of attack. You can find out family members.
        You can go to dozens of data brokers and find out who
    family members are. You can get location. Sometimes you can get
    precise geolocation. You can find out about interests or what
    people have done. And so, you know, these little facts--these
    little factoids--are things they can say, oh, you were at the
    Braves game three weeks ago.
        You know, you were the one millionth fan for the year and
    you won a big prize and we are going to wire you the money--
    give us your routing number.
        So all of these sort of things can be used by hackers and I
    think that, as you all talked about now, they can do it at
    scale. AI can just kind of automate it all for you--automate
    the script, automate the e-mail, automate the--whatever the
    attack is. Like you say, who knows what they are going to be.
        Strong legislation, privacy legislation, can help kind of
    rein that in. Like I said, about 20 states now have passed
    legislation, Colorado being one of the first. Those are great
    advances but it still puts a lot of onus on users. Users have
    to kind of go out of their way to track down these 600 data
    brokers and opt out. That is hard to do.
        Even if we can opt in solutions are hard. You need
    permission and that is very difficult. So something that
    protects by default so you do not have to put all the onus on
    people to track down their data is something that we would
    recommend.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. I agree completely. I think it
    is been frustrating to almost everyone. This is normally a
    large committee but frustrating that the data privacy continues
    to be elusive. It is hard to imagine.
        Dr. Farid, you discussed different tools and techniques
    available for detecting AI-generated media including, you know,
    humans manually labeling content and automated detection tools.
        How effective are the different kinds of tools and
    techniques to detect deepfakes and, you know, all these things
    from voices to video how well are they working?
        Mr. Farid. Yes. So the first thing to understand is as a
    consumer your ability to distinguish reality from AI is
    becoming increasingly more difficult. I do this for a living
    and I am pretty good at it, and it is getting really hard.
        So putting that onus on the consumer is look for the hands,
    look for this, look for that. That is a false sense of security
    that will simply not be true tomorrow, let alone three months
    from now.
        In terms of automation of tools, there is two basic
    approaches to automation, what we call proactive and reactive.
        Proactive, you have already heard of it from Mounir and
    Truepic. This is you are at the point of creation. Whether it
    is an AI-generated voice, an AI-generated image, or an image
    that I took with one of these devices in my hand, you can
    cryptographically sign the source of that so you know
    provenance.
        That today is the only tool that works, and this is the
    important part, at scale. Your question needs a little bit of
    additional thing, which is at what scale do you want to
    operate, and if you want to operate at the scale of the
    Internet with billions of uploads a day, this today is the only
    technology that works at that scale.
        The reactive techniques say, well, we have a bad actor who
    is not using credentials, or the credentials have not been
    deployed widely. So we wait. We wait to get the phone call.
        We wait for the image to show up on social media and we
    respond to that. And there the answer of efficacy is it
    depends. If you give us enough time we will figure it out. We
    are pretty good at this.
        But the half life of a social media post is measured in
    about 30 to 60 seconds. So it is not like you have a lot of
    time once it gets onto the social media platforms for you to
    respond.
        So my view of these things is we need the proactive
    solutions. We need the reactive solutions to clean up the mess
    that is left behind and for consumers I think it is not so much
    about educating them on how to detect this but it is educating
    them on good digital hygiene on how to be careful and how to
    protect themselves.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. I agree completely.
        Ms. Mani, again, thank you for sharing your family's story.
    I know that it is not an easy thing and thank you for all your
    advocacy to address some of the harms that are being
    perpetrated through AI technology.
        From your perspective, why is it so important to consider
    the perspectives of the people impacted by technology when we
    are looking at policy responses that address some of the harms
    to individuals?
        Ms. Mani. I feel I have to deal with perspectives, many
    times misinformation. So education equals prevention. I feel it
    is--should be at forefront in any type of platform. So
    regulations in school, legislations in the government, as well
    as conversations with our students--children.
        I think it is equally important to send a message to our
    girls that they are worthy and they should demand certain
    respect. But at the same time we need to hold the bad actors
    accountable and educate them as well.
        We all know that the biggest protection is just the fear
    from going to jail. So, I mean, at this point FBI released this
    year statements saying that deepfakes are sexually explicit,
    deepfakes are illegal, and it is just surprising that our
    educational department did not follow with any regulations.
        We all know what has happened right now in Pennsylvania to
    46 girls and it is really not a unique situation. It has been
    happening and it will be happening unless we are going to start
    educating our youth because they are our future.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Absolutely. I have to go vote so I am
    going to excuse myself and turn it over to Senator Lujan from
    New Mexico. But I will be back. I have more questions.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Lujan [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to recognize our Chair and our Ranking Member for
    this important hearing and to each of our panelists who are
    with us today.
        According to the latest U.S. census data over 43.4 million
    people speak Spanish at home, making it the second most spoken
    language in America. This holds very true in my home state of
    New Mexico.
        My question is for Dr. Farid. How accurate are current
    deepfake detection tools for audio and video deepfakes in
    Spanish compared to English?
        Mr. Farid. Good. It is a good question. There are two
    different categories of detection schemes. So first of all, the
    proactive techniques are agnostic as to the language, right.
    They are there at the creation. They do not care what language
    you are speaking. So the kind of stuff that you will hear from
    Truepic does not matter.
        The reactive techniques there are two categories. There are
    ones that are language dependent and there are ones that are
    language agnostic. We like the language agnostic ones. It is a
    big world and there is a lot of languages out there, and
    English is a relative minority. So many of the techniques that
    we have developed do not care about the language and the
    accuracy stays, roughly, the same.
        The accuracies that you should expect, however, in the wild
    when you are dealing with things that are coming through your
    phone or what you are absorbing on social media on a good day
    90, 95 percent accuracy. So you are going to misfire and that
    is true whether it is in Spanish or English.
        There are ones that are language specific. They fired
    around the same accuracies, that 90 to 95 percent accuracy.
        Senator Lujan. What is driving these differences in
    performance and what is needed to reach parity, understanding
    nonagnostic tools out there as well? Is there more that can be
    done not just here in the United States but as we engage with
    the global partners in this space as well?
        Mr. Farid. Yes. The bias comes mostly from the training
    data. Most of the content online is in English and, certainly,
    what most of academics look at is English speaking because most
    of this research is happening here in the U.S. I think the next
    most common language that we do see is Spanish and so it is a
    close second, for obvious reasons.
        But I would say the gap is not as bad as you think it is
    because most of the techniques that we and others have
    developed are language agnostic.
        I am worried about all kinds of bias in the system. By the
    way, this is not on my top 10 list.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, sir.
        Mr. Ibrahim, do the C2PA standards online how to display
    content origin information in Spanish so that Spanish-speaking
    consumers can understand whether the content they are viewing
    is AI generated?
        Mr. Ibrahim. Thank you, Senator.
        So the mechanism of provenance, as Dr. Farid mentioned, is
    largely mathematical, right, so you are going to see the
    content credential pin on the digital content. I do not know if
    you saw some of the sample images we had earlier, but that
    aspect of it would, largely, be fairly standard across
    languages.
        However, the information--the spec itself and information
    about our spec is something we want to move toward is
    internationalization.
        We have done--we have spent a lot of time this year within
    the C2PA to raise awareness internationally because this is not
    just an American or English language standard. This is, in
    fact, a global standard.
        So one of the things we did in October is we worked with
    the government of France at the French Embassy here in
    Washington to raise awareness for, you know, the G-20 community
    and other countries that are interested in looking at digital
    content provenance.
        So internationalizing it not only in Spanish language but
    in parts of Asia, Africa, et cetera, is something we are
    certainly focused on.
        Senator Lujan. It is my understanding that displaying of
    this information the position widely is that it should remain
    voluntary. Do you agree with this approach? Why or why not?
        Mr. Ibrahim. Yes, Senator, for authentic capture. So if I
    have my smart phone and I am taking an authentic picture or
    video absolutely it is my choice if I want to add content
    credentials.
        Now, for Gen AI the platforms themselves have the
    provenance worked in. So all the outputs--think of it almost as
    an assembly line--are getting cryptographically hashed with
    this standard.
        So I do believe it is a slightly different approach for gen
    AI or AI, but for authenticity and authentic capture 100
    percent, sir.
        Senator Lujan. One year ago at a hearing before the Senate
    Aging Committee, Gary Schildhorn testified about a call that he
    received that appeared to be from his son Brett pleading for
    help from jail. Mr. Schildhorn was so upset by the authentic
    seeming call that he just about sent the $9,000 that was being
    demanded from a fake public defender in bail money.
        A 2024 FTC report found that older consumers have
    experienced an estimated $61 billion in financial loss due to
    scams over the last year. Older consumers lose more money to
    scams on average compared to younger consumers. Nearly one in
    10 adults over the age of 65 have dementia. Approximately 25
    percent of older adults live with mental health conditions.
        Older consumers are a clear target of phone scams,
    personalized phishing e-mails, and other deepfake tactics.
        Mr. Brookman, what is the most important thing that
    policymakers must do to protect older consumers from being
    scammed through these AI enabled tactics?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes, thank you for the question.
        It is--yes, there have been lots of academic research
    showing that older Americans, even setting aside dementia, are
    more likely to fall prey to these schemes. I think anecdotally
    we probably all recognize that.
        My own grandfather called me and said, hey, I got an e-mail
    from FrenchLottery@yahoo.com--I am a billionaire now. I said,
    no, papa, you are not.
        But I think--like, I mean user education is, sadly, the
    most important thing, like, talk to your family members. The
    government can try--should be doing more. Senator Blackburn
    mentioned the FTC says it is a $10 billion problem. That
    probably massively understates that. I am sure it is much
    greater than that.
        So we need to expand the resources to teach people about it
    and it is going to be a constantly changing battle because,
    again, these techniques are going to get more and more
    sophisticated.
        So each of us individually should be talking to our family
    members but the government should be investing a lot more in
    education.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that very much.
        I recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for
    questions, Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, and thank you all for the
    discussion. I know that Senator Hickenlooper asks about data
    privacy and the importance of getting that done so that people
    have the ability to protect their presence online.
        And, Mr. Farid, I would like to just ask you, when you look
    at this issue what kind of added protection could having a
    Federal privacy standard provide before people get into so much
    of this AI-driven content?
        Mr. Farid. Yes. I wish I had good news for you but I do
    not.
        So first of all, there are about 250 million people in this
    country and our data is out there and there is no bringing that
    data back in.
        So maybe we can protect the next generation, the one after
    that. But the 350 million of us that have been on the Internet
    for a few years that game is over.
        Here is the other problem is if you look at gen AI today,
    to clone your voice I need about 20 seconds of audio. That is
    not hours of data that are being mopped up. It is 20 seconds,
    and soon it will be 10 seconds and soon after that it will be
    five, which means somebody can be sitting next to you in a cafe
    and record your voice and they have it.
        To put you into a deepfake imagery--one image. You got a
    LinkedIn profile? Done, right? So how do you protect somebody
    when it is not about vacuuming up tons and tons of data?
        Do not get me wrong. It is--should be criminal that we do
    not have a data privacy law in this country but I do not
    think----
        Senator Blackburn. It would have given us those protections
    years ago.
        Mr. Farid.--it would have helped.
        Senator Blackburn. We have tried for 12 years and big tech
    has fought it.
        Mr. Farid. Yes, they have.
        Senator Blackburn. So it is truly frustrating.
        Mr. Brookman, with Consumer Reports you all have quite a
    reputation with consumers coming to you for information. So
    talk just a little bit on how you educate people?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. So we have a lot of tools. We have a
    tool called ``Security Planner'' that we try to franchise out
    to folks. We try to make a lot of our guidance available in
    Spanish language as well to make folks like this aware.
        Like, what are the basics--what are you worried about? What
    is your threat model? Are you worried about an ex-boyfriend?
    Are you are you worried about a scammer?
        And we tried to walk them through, like, you know, what
    they should do. You know, look for the warning signs. false
    urgency, right--like, you know, we need the money right now.
        Anyone asking being paid through dodgy means. Like, if your
    boss is asking for, like, $500 of gift cards from CVS that is
    probably not actually a legitimate thing. We try to--you know,
    and so we try to give practical guidance.
        Again, we cannot make it too overwhelming for folks like
    this cannot be a full-time job for folks. We try to give people
    the basic information that they have and they need to get
    through their day.
        Basic cyber security practices, having different passwords
    because if you do get hacked on one site you can use a
    different pass phrase on another site.
        One thing that could potentially help for some of these
    grandparents scam attacks is having a family safe word so
    only--it is only an accident if you say rutabaga or whatever
    your family's safe word happens to be.
        Again, this does put a lot of onus on individuals but,
    unfortunately, that is the world that we live in and so we all
    have an obligation to be a little bit more--a little bit more
    savvy.
        Senator Blackburn. Yes, and I know some of the senior
    specific organizations are beginning to do education because so
    many people are now using at home health and other
    conveniences, that much of their data is being transmitted and
    sensitive data--things that are HIPAA protected.
        So, Mr. Farid, I want to come back to you on--as you are
    looking at this, and we say 5 years from now, 10 years from
    now, because we look at the fact that, as I just said, privacy,
    we have never gotten that Federal standard.
        So people have treasure troves of information as out there.
    So when you look at advancements and changes in AI five years
    down the road what do you expect? Ten years down the road what
    do you expect?
        Mr. Farid. Everything is going to get worse and, by the
    way, I do not think it is 5 years. Five years--think about--
    here is something to think about. ChatGPT went from zero to 1
    billion users in one year.
        Five years is an eternity in this space. We need to be
    thinking tomorrow and next year. But here is what we know.
    Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars are being poured
    into predictive AI and generative AI.
        The technology is going to get better, it is going to get
    cheaper, and it is going to become more ubiquitous, and that
    means the bad guys are going to continue to weaponize it unless
    we figure out how to make that unbearable for them.
        I think the threats are continuing, and that is not--I am
    not extrapolating, right. We have seen this from the very early
    days of this AI revolution. From the very first days we have
    seen the weaponization of this technology and it is only
    getting worse.
        You cited the numbers in your opening statements. Those
    numbers will continue. The threats will continue.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. Then you talk about making it a
    heavy price to bear so that means penalties and enforcement and
    involves law enforcement.
        So, Mr. Ibrahim when we look at this as a global issue,
    what do you see as cooperation with some of our allies that are
    there?
        I know many times when we are at the EU working on privacy,
    data security, things of that nature, they talk about our
    hesitancy to put these regulations in place.
        So what kind of international cooperation do we need?
        Mr. Ibrahim. Thank you, Senator.
        Indeed, I do believe that working across like-minded
    countries to establish at the very least best practices that we
    can all agree on, encourage private industry and technology and
    consumers to the extent they are following that to all align
    on.
        We can educate together. We can work to establish at the
    very least a framework in which transparent information might
    be marked differently, elevated, because, as Dr. Farid and my
    colleagues here on the panel noted, we are not going to be able
    to stop every bad actor.
        That is just not going to happen. You have open source
    models that are ungovernable, that are forked and are used by
    bad actors to do whatever that they please.
        But what we can do is we can empower those that want to be
    transparent and that can change the dynamics of the digital
    content we see and hear online. We can--you know, social media
    companies, for example, can algorithmically design things so at
    the very least you are seeing transparent things without
    suppressing anything else.
        So aligning with our partners, I think the G-7, the G-20,
    are great places to start on at the very least best practices,
    even if we do not agree on full regulations, for example, like
    the EU's AI Act. That might go too far for the American
    audience but there are areas of overlap.
        Mr. Brookman. Excellent. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Senator Hickenlooper [presiding]. Thank you, and thank you
    for filling in, Senator Lujan.
        Senator Baldwin.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

        Senator Baldwin. I want to thank all of our witnesses for
    appearing here today to share your expertise and your personal
    experiences.
        I believe it really greatly benefits this committee and the
    American public to hear how technology is being used to
    increase the sophistication and prevalence of crimes and scams.
        I wanted to start with Ms. Mani. I especially want to thank
    you for sharing a deeply personal story with the public and
    with the Committee about your family's experiences with
    artificial intelligence deepfakes.
        Would you be willing to share with the Committee the
    various steps that your family took after finding out your
    daughter's likeness had been used in this way? What sort of
    steps did you take and how did you know what to do and what to
    do next?
        Ms. Mani. Well, thank you, Senator.
        I am going to start with saying that our situation is
    really not unique. It has been happening and it is happening
    right now. I mean, we just heard about Pennsylvania, sorry.
        So last year when we found out or when we were informed by
    the school what has happened to us the first thing we did,
    obviously, we called a lawyer.
        In the school sector we were informed that nothing can be
    truly done because there are no school policies and no
    legislation, and the lawyers repeat exactly the same thing.
        So when my daughter heard from the administration that, you
    know, in parenthesis she should be wearing a victim's badge and
    just go for counseling, and when she came home and she told me,
    I want to bring laws to my school so that way my sister--my
    younger sister--will have a safer digital future I said OK and
    that is how we started.
        We have been advocating on multiple fronts just because as
    complex this technology is the context of misuse is very
    complex as well. So we have been looking out, obviously, at the
    legislation as our first road for change and surprisingly so it
    was the easiest one.
        There are so many legislations right now that are--
    hopefully, will be passing soon and helping victims of deepfake
    misuse. We were looking in to the root of education as
    prevention, as setting an example of how victims should be
    treated.
        The old tale of consent that I feel it needs to be
    reinforced even in 2025, but most importantly we start in
    acknowledging that it is time for us to change the rhetoric no
    matter where we were. Going and talking to whom we were talking
    was always about how do you feel as a victim, and even though
    it is very important how victims feel--it is an important part
    of the story--I feel it is time for us to start talking about
    the perpetrators and the lack of accountability and the need
    for stronger protections.
        Like, for example--and as I mentioned, there are so many AI
    bills and so many AI laws out there and they are all important.
    Some of them resonate deeper with us than others. Take it Down
    Act is very close to our heart for one important reason, which
    I feel public should be educated about.
        Civil laws can be very expensive and not many can utilize
    them. Criminal laws--not everybody would like to go this route
    for multiple reasons--cultural, personal, religious, you name
    it.
        The Take it Down Act allows the victims to take control
    over their own image and I think that is so important, which
    gives the freedom to anybody affected to just move on with
    their life, which sometimes that is all they want.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        Mr. Brookman, in Wisconsin we are seeing a prevalence of
    technology being used to scam families including seniors. This
    past March the Dane County Sheriff's Office put out a warning
    about phone scams using artificial intelligent tools to mimic
    the voices and faces of loved ones to trick senior citizens
    into believing their loved ones are in danger and need help.
        I know other law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin and
    across the country are hearing from victims of similar scams. I
    also hear directly from constituents on this matter.
        In 2023, Wisconsinites lost approximately $92 million to
    fraudsters and scamsters. So once people realize they have
    become a victim of a financial fraud or scam can you speak to
    what steps people must take to report the crime and recover
    damages?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. So, you know, first they are going to
    try to get the money back and it really depends on how they did
    it. If you paid someone with a credit card there is actually
    pretty good protections in this country.
        If you used a peer to peer payment app, actually the
    protections are a lot weaker. I know there is some legislation
    before this committee to try to--because, again, it is a
    different button on your phone and suddenly the protections are
    a lot weaker.
        If you paid with crypto or a gift card or a wire transfer
    it is going to be tough. And so, again, educating people just
    about those differences is really important. Freezing your
    credit can often be a good idea, again, depending on what got
    compromised.
        It has gotten a lot easier in some ways since the Equifax
    data breach but still three different bureaus. If there are
    family members you need to get to that is still labor you need
    to do.
        Different law enforcement--it is a good idea to report.
    Maybe report to local law enforcement, report to the FTC, or
    report to your state attorney general. If you get locked out of
    your accounts, like, that can be just an absolute battle to get
    back in if the scammer takes that over.
        I think Matt Honan famously wrote a really detailed story
    about how he lost access to Gmail and the journey to get back
    there.
        So it can be absolutely overwhelming and dispiriting and it
    puts a tremendous burden on people who have already been ripped
    off.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great, and as the Chair of the
    Subcommittee I do have the discretion to ask more questions
    even though I had to race off to vote. So, hopefully, you will
    indulge me. I will not go on too long.
        I realize everybody is busy and really do appreciate you
    making the time.
        Dr. Farid, we talked a lot--a lot of people talk about
    watermarks and other ways of designating some way of telling
    authentic from synthetic content, at least from what the origin
    is.
        But some kinds of watermarks can be manipulated, removed,
    impersonated. What are example for methods to make these types
    of designations more secure and how resistant can they be?
        Mr. Farid. Yes. So when we talk about content credentials
    we have to go beyond watermarks. There is three legs to the
    stool here, right.
        So the first leg is what is called metadata. So this is
    where you just simply attach text to the file associated with
    the image, audio, or video that says, I created this at this
    date and time and it is AI or it is natural, and that text can
    be added or removed.
        So it is not the most resilient but, you know, 10 percent
    of the people do not know what metadata is and, you know, you
    will catch them.
        The watermark is the second technique where instead of
    adding it to the file you literally embed it into the
    underlying content. So what is nice about watermarks and
    metadata is you are tagging content and then putting that
    content into the wild where it can be identified from the piece
    of content and only the piece of content.
        But that upside is also the downside because if the tag is
    there somebody, a sophisticated actor, can reach in and rip out
    the metadata and yank out that watermark and different
    watermarks have different resilience.
        The third leg to the stool is to extract a digital
    signature from your content. So if, for example, OpenAI creates
    an AI-generated image, insert the watermark, insert the
    metadata, and then pull out a signature that I will store
    server side, and what that allows me to do is if somebody
    attacks my watermark and my metadata I can reattach the
    credential.
        So those three things--each one in isolation does not get
    you where you want to but the three, now to your last question,
    are good.
        Are they perfect? No, but they lop off a nice chunk of the
    problem, and then those reactive techniques that I talked about
    plus the public education, plus the regulatory, plus all those
    other things start to fill in the gaps.
        So I am all for it but we should be very clear that this is
    not bulletproof, that this can and will be attacked, right.
        But we raise the bar. Everything in cybersecurity is
    mitigation strategy. We do not eliminate threats. We simply
    mitigate them.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Do not say that. Do not say that,
    however true it might be.
        And we have talked a lot about the--this notion of how we
    better inform customers.
        Mr. Ibrahim, Truepic is a--obviously, a leading voice along
    with other industry partners in developing content provenance
    technology to better inform consumers about the content they
    see--what we were just talking about.
        But what are the incentives to encourage more industry
    adoption of labeling standards and investments in related
    research?
        Mr. Ibrahim. Thank you, Senator. So from our perch the
    incentives--the largest incentives has been the scale and the
    proliferation of generative and AI material.
        We have seen entire industries that were digitizing because
    of the efficiency and the cost savings well before the advent
    of AI, unable to compete in today's economy if they do not have
    authenticity, transparency, or provenance in the digital
    content that they are operating on.
        So we have seen that as the greatest incentive and that is
    why entire industries like insurance, business credentialing,
    warranties, supply chain monitoring, et cetera, et cetera, are
    adopting this technology.
        However, on the consumer facing side, you know, think peer
    to peer commerce, home rental sites, online dating sites. The
    incentives although are there there have not been the financial
    incentives, at least from our perch, or consequences, for these
    platforms to better protect or at least give more transparency
    to their consumers and that has been lagging.
        In the past year we have seen four of the largest social
    media platforms--LinkedIn, all the Meta sites, YouTube and
    TikTok, I believe, all begin implementing at various levels and
    at various commitments the C2PA open specification and that is
    great. But much more could be done in this regard.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Interesting. That is--
    obviously, that is something this committee has got to pay
    attention to. Ms. Mani, you have discussed the need for
    increased AI literacy in our schools, really, at all ages,
    whether elementary school or all the way through high school.
        How do you calibrate what the top benefits are? I mean, as
    you look at it, when you look at benefits and risks how do
    you--what do you present to our students? What do you think
    they should learn?
        What do they have to have top of mind? Let us put it that
    way.
        Ms. Mani. Thank you, Senator. I think that is such an
    important question because I feel personally many of the
    misunderstanding comes from miseducation and misrepresentation
    and just lack of understanding.
        So I think when we talk about AI, especially to our youth,
    we need to talk simultaneously about these pros and cons,
    right. It goes hand in hand.
        So it can--it is an amazing tool that has been advancing
    our society right now for years in research, in education, in
    art, in medicine, et cetera, et cetera. At the same time, it
    needs to be regulated because it has repercussions if misused.
        And I think it is equally important to educate about the
    repercussions to both the victims and the bad actors because at
    this point since it is illegal--and in many states we already
    have legislations--it can affect equally the victims
    professionally, personally, educationally if they apply for
    schools, emotionally and socially.
        But it can also affect the perpetrators because they can
    end up in jail, and if we have no control over how certain
    children are raised at home or just simply, you know, they are
    too young to understand or comprehend, we must put things in a
    perspective so they understand the consequences.
        And I also think, just to add to it, context is extremely
    important because we have K to 12 children who are right now
    misusing AI. We have college, which is a very different
    context, and we have perpetrators and pedophiles which should
    be looked from a singular perspective.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. No, I could not agree more, and
    consequences we need to----
        Ms. Mani. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper.--as we do that informing and
    proselytizing there is going to be consequences for that.
    Because you are right, people want to do the right thing but
    also people act properly because they have some consequence
    frequently.
        Ms. Mani. Correct.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Brookman, in your testimony you
    advocate for stronger enforcement, clearer rules of
    accountability for trying to mitigate customer harms and damage
    from these various scams and frauds.
        I kind of love that word fraudster. Somehow it sounds
    softer. It is probably the wrong word. We should actually use a
    word that has a much harsher edge.
        What actually do you think the FTC--the Federal Trade
    Commission--should take and what--if you were to have an
    opportunity what additional powers or authorities do you see as
    needed to protect the customers from all these various harms we
    have talked about today?
        Mr. Brookman. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator.
        So I mean, again, I want to see more aggressive
    enforcement. Like, there were the five cases they brought in
    September. Those were very welcome.
        And the cases against the tools when they are being used
    for bad like the--we talk about the scam--the fraudsters. The
    scammers are a dime a dozen. They are all over the world.
        But if they are all using the same tool and the tool could
    really only logically be used for harm and that was one of the
    cases that the FTC brought, like, that can be very powerful.
        I think we need to see more staffing. Again, they are
    considerably smaller than they were in 1980. They need more
    technologists. I was actually part of the first technology
    group that was created at the FTC, the Office of Technology
    Research and Investigation, but it was only, like, five people.
        I think it has expanded somewhat under Chief Technologist
    Nguyen but, like, they still need more resources.
        Two more things. There is, like, penalties. Like, when
    someone breaks the law they need to pay a fine. That seems,
    like, very basic. I worked for an attorney general. We had that
    authority. All attorney generals have it. FTC does not have it
    most of the time.
        And then restitution. I mean, like, you know, since the AMG
    Supreme Court case, if they catch a fraudster who, like, stole,
    like, $20,000--$200,000--they often lack the legal authority to
    make them even just give that back. Not even penalties. Just
    give the money back.
        I know there have been hearings, I think, in this committee
    and in the House on restoring the FTC's 13(b) authority. I
    think there had been bipartisan consensus around it.
        But since--after the initial being upset that it was taken
    away I think that it has fallen behind as a priority, which is
    too bad. There is actually a news story that came out just
    yesterday that the FTC said we got a lot less money back for
    consumers this year because we cannot get money back for
    consumers.
        So I think that needs to be fixed.
        Senator Hickenlooper. So great. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan from Alaska.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going
    to just follow up on this line of questioning because I think
    it is a really important one.
        I want to start with you, Ms. Mani. I am really sorry about
    what happened to your daughter. I have three daughters and, you
    know, it is horrendous. I can only imagine what you guys are
    going through.
        So I want to start with you but I am going to kind of pose
    the question to everybody once you answer, and it just goes to
    what Senator Hickenlooper was asking about--I think it is what
    we are all struggling with--and it is responsibility and
    consequences, and when the responsibility and consequences are
    too diffuse then there is nobody who is deterred from taking
    this kind of action.
        So in the 2022 Violence Against Women Act Congress passed
    legislation that created a civil cause of action for victims to
    sue individuals responsible for publishing nonconsensual
    intimate imagery.
        So that is different from the deepfakes but it is kind of
    along the same lines. So my question as I am thinking through
    this, the consequences could fall on a number of different
    entities--the AI platform that generates a deepfake of, you
    know, someone's daughter and something that is fake but, you
    know, looks real; the social media platform that posts it and I
    would welcome to hear about your experience on trying to get
    them to take it down.
        Because just having constituents in Alaska who deal with
    this, trying to get these companies to take something down that
    is harmful can be very challenging.
        And then, third, of course, the person who was behind it.
    In this case I think it was a classmate of your daughter's, who
    only received a brief suspension. So all of these are different
    kind of potential parties to be responsible.
        So I would ask for your view, first, in your specific
    situation and then I would ask all of you--I am a big believer
    in deterrence, right. You lay it out. Hey, if you do this you
    are going to get hammered. Hammered.
        You are going to go to jail. You are going to spend 5 years
    behind bars thinking about it. That creates an incentive for
    people to not do these kind of things.
        But right now I think the system is set up in a way that is
    so diffuse in terms of who is going to pay consequences that it
    enables everybody to just ignore them.
        So if you may--if you would like to try to address a few of
    those in your own situation with what happened to your
    daughter, and then the rest of the witnesses however you want
    to address that question.
        Ms. Mani. Thank you, Senator. And I think that is such a
    such a broad question and I think it depends on the context.
    Each incident has a completely different context and should be
    looked from its own perspective.
        In our case, and I think that is why, you know, talking
    about taking it down, I think that is why we are so fiercely
    advocating for Take It Down Act because it allows the victims
    to take ownership.
        Senator Sullivan. And did that happen in your case or did
    it take a long time?
        Ms. Mani. So our situation was slightly different because
    we have never had the image. We have never seen the image.
        But I can tell you that I am in close contact with Alison
    from Texas with her mom, and Ali--we testified together and our
    daughters did as well.
        And in their case, I know they have been--they have the
    image, maybe a few images, actually, and they were contacting
    Snapchat and asking them to take it down for eight months, and
    until Senator Cruz reached out personally it has now been down.
    After that, it took them literally 24 hours to put it down. So
    I think accountability----
        Senator Sullivan. But it should not take calling--I mean,
    Senator Cruz is a great friend of mine. He is soon going to
    Chair this committee. But it should not take a phone call from
    a United States Senator to get one of these companies to act.
    Trust me, I have made those phone calls.
        Ms. Mani. It should not take a Senator or a Congressman and
    it should not take a law. It should be an ethical
    responsibility of every platform and just to put things----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes. I think with some of these companies
    they need a law.
        Ms. Mani. Some of them do.
        Senator Sullivan. You cannot rely on their good kind of
    moral standing.
        Ms. Mani. Yes. But I think that is a clear example of how
    easily this can be mitigated.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Mani. Because if there is a will there is a way, you
    know.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes. Did your--did the perpetrator--and
    if you do not want to talk about it I understand because, you
    know, I am sure it is difficult on your family.
        But, like, did the perpetrator in the instance with your
    daughter--was there any punishment for the student? I heard he
    was suspended for a day or something pretty minor.
        Ms. Mani. That is correct, and I feel that is where lies a
    big responsibility, too, on our educational system----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Mani.--that they educate our boys and girls just in
    general, our community, on what will be acceptable and what is
    not. And yes, they are hiding behind the lack of laws. But
    every school has a code of conduct----
        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        Ms. Mani.--that they fall into and it is simply each
    administration's decision of how they are going to handle an
    incident.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Any other thoughts from the
    witnesses? I know I am already out of time but it is a general
    question. I think it is a really important one.
        Who should we make pay the consequences? And I think that
    helps with regard to the whole issue.
        Mr. Brookman. I have thoughts.
        So, I mean, I strongly agree with you. Deterrence is
    incredibly important. Everyone on the staff probably has some
    responsibilities, certainly the perpetrator. But the people who
    make these tools, like, some of these tools have very, very
    limited positive societal use cases. To create intimate images
    based on a real person--voice cloning.
        Like, I mean, maybe some very edge cases but overwhelmingly
    likely to be used for harm. If you are putting a product out in
    the market that is overwhelmingly likely to be used for harm
    you should bear some responsibility. That was the FTC's Ryder
    case.
        Senator Sullivan. What would you say--like, when you say
    there is very few of these products that have a societal good
    what would you--give me just a quick list of the ones you are
    thinking about that do not have a societal good?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. I mean, I think, like, generating
    innovative images based on a real person. Like, I can imagine
    some very theoretical cases but 99 times out of 100 will be
    used for evil.
        Voice cloning maybe, like, one in 30. But, like, I mean,
    again, maybe, like, someone--like a voice actor wants to
    franchise their voice. Maybe a person who is losing their voice
    wants to maintain it for sort of longevity.
        But overwhelmingly they are likely to be used for scams.
    You know, at the very least, like, you know, get a--make them
    read a script to say this.
        Image generation maybe just should not be available. Maybe
    it should just be per se harmful and illegal to offer that
    tool.
        Finally, like, the social media sites this has been an
    issue, like, I have been working on for 20 years. Like, back
    when Facebook was a baby company I was in an attorney general's
    office.
        We would send in complaints, like, hey, I am an underage
    user being sexually harassed--do something about it, and it
    was, like, crickets.
        And then we brought a settlement against them to make them
    promise to do things within, like, 24 hours. Over time they
    have dedicated more resources to it. Have they dedicated enough
    resources to it?
        I would say no, and so maybe clarifying they have some more
    obligation to respond to these things seems absolutely
    worthwhile.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Anyone else on the witness----
        Mr. Ibrahim. I would just add, Senator, one question that
    comes to my mind, particularly when it comes to distribution
    channels--the social media channels where a lot of this bad
    actions are taking place--are they doing everything they can
    from a technical perspective to try and mitigate that.
        While maybe you are always going to have bad actors who use
    open source models and create deepfakes, but there is a rising
    problem of sextortion, particularly on social.
        There are things that some of these social media companies
    can do to mitigate those chances. It will never eliminate it
    completely. Are they taking those actions and asking the
    question, why not. I think by itself would be critical.
        Senator Sullivan. OK.
        Mr. Farid. I will add a few things here. First of all, I
    believe in action and consequences and I think that is whether
    it is an individual, a trillion-dollar company or a U.S.
    Senator, for that matter, and I think the fact is that Silicon
    Valley and trillion-dollar companies have gotten away with it
    for 25 years and, frankly, we have let them.
        Now, I think with the specifics I think it depends on the
    content. I think if it is child sexual abuse material, the
    perpetrator, the AI company, the tech company that is hosting
    it--everybody goes to jail.
        This is easy, right? I think when it comes to nonconsensual
    imagery I think it is more complicated. I think if you are a
    12- to 14-year-old and somebody has handed you a tool to create
    porn. Are we surprised that this is exactly what they do?
        Do we think that 12-year-olds should go to jail for this?
    No. I think there should be consequences but I do not think it
    should be jail. But I think the person who created the tool and
    advertised it to say, take women's clothes off, and I think the
    financial institutions that tag on--a Visa and MasterCard tag
    that says pay for it with Visa and MasterCard--and I think the
    Googles of the world that surface that from a web search all
    have responsibility for putting that power into that 12-year-
    old.
        And then, of course, with fraud it is the same thing. It is
    not just the person creating it. It is not just the tool. These
    things are being not just hosted on Facebook, on TikTok, on
    YouTube, on Instagram, on Twitter. They are being
    algorithmically amplified by those platforms because they
    monetize it.
        They have a responsibility for that and we are letting them
    off the hook. So up and down the chain I think people have to
    be held accountable and until we change the calculus the fact
    it is not reining in abuses is good for business.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Farid. And we have to make it bad for business.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Great. Good answers. Thanks,
    panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Senator.
        Now we have on Zoom, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. All right.
        Well, thank you so much, Chairman Hickenlooper, for having
    this hearing, as well as Senator Blackburn, and thank you to
    Chair Cantwell and as well as Ranking Member Cruz.
        I care a lot about this subject. I guess I would start with
    you, Ms. Mani.
        As you know, Senator Cruz and I lead the Take It Down Act
    and we have actually passed the bill through the Committee--
    through the Commerce Committee--and I am feeling very good. We
    had some issues we had to work out on the floor and I think we
    have resolved these. So we can actually pass this bill.
        And I think you know the reason for this more than anyone.
    Just when you look out from your personal situation in 2016,
    one in 25 Americans reported being threatened with or being a
    victim of revenge porn.
        Now eight years later that number is one in eight.
    Meanwhile, the proliferation of AI-generated deepfakes is
    making this problem worse. Approximately 96 percent of deepfake
    videos circulating online are nonconsensual porn.
        So, I know--and you testified about your daughter and I am
    so sorry about what happened to her. And, as you know, our bill
    would ban the nonconsensual publication of intimate images--
    real or deepfake--and require the platforms to take the images
    down within 48 hours notice.
        In your testimony you mentioned that schools have cited the
    absence of state and Federal laws as a reason for not taking
    action when kids are victimized. How would a Federal law in
    this have changed the experience--the horrific experience that
    your daughter and your family went through?
        Ms. Mani. Well, thank you, Senator. I think I am going to
    just start with saying that in our case--in our high school it
    will allow the platform for the school to act and do anything
    at this point.
        In schools in general I feel, as I mentioned it before,
    laws are form of education to our society, especially right now
    that we are dealing with schools and the problem of deepfakes
    over there.
        They are a form of education our society of what is
    acceptable and what is not and what has not been delivered at
    home or in school can be delivered through laws and by fear of
    being criminally or in a civil way anyway affected by their
    actions, will allow, I guess, or will prevent, at least in some
    instances, from deepfakes being created.
        At the same time, as I mentioned before, criminal laws and
    civil laws even though they are so important not always the
    victims will choose to use them in their advocacy for their
    image.
        But the 48 hours take it down component of your bill is
    something that gives the victims immediate way to take the
    ownership of their image and some of them that is what they
    want.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Another difficult story is my own--one of my own employees
    her son is in the Marines and her husband got a call. Someone
    had scraped the son's voice off the Internet and left this very
    believable message and talked to the dad and said, ``Dad, I
    need help. I need help. I need money.''
        And the dad thought it was suspicious because where he was
    stationed he was not allowed to call. And anyway those we have
    since--I have looked into this a lot and we have and it was, of
    course, a fake call, and we are starting to see families of
    people in the military preyed upon and it only takes a few
    seconds of audio to clone a voice using AI.
        Criminals can pull the sample from public sources, as we
    know, like social media. As a result, AI-enabled scams are
    becoming far too common.
        Dr. Farid, while there is technology to detect synthetic
    images and videos I am concerned we are behind on finding ways
    to detect a synthetic voice when it is heard over the phone.
        How can the Federal Government best leverage available
    technology to verify the authenticity of audio, particularly in
    cases where a consumer does not have access to meta data?
        Mr. Farid. Yes, Senator, you are right to be concerned.
        The problem with the telephone is the quality of the audio
    that comes over is quite degraded as opposed to, for example, a
    YouTube video or a TikTok video and that inherently makes
    detection very difficult.
        Also, there are serious privacy concerns. Are we going to
    listen to everybody's phone call and monitor that for a
    deepfake or not?
        So I think the burden here has to shift to the producers.
    If you are an AI company--and you heard this from my colleague
    here--and you are allowing anybody to clone anybody's voice by
    simply clicking a box that says, I have permission to use their
    voice, you are the one who is on the hook for this.
        So going after the telecoms. Look, we have not been able to
    get them to stop the spam calls so why do we think we are going
    to get them to stop the AI fraud? So I think we have to go
    after the source of the creation of these deepfake audios.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Well, thank you.
        I see Senator Markey's face on the screen so I will forgo
    any additional questions. So thank you and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Markey.
        You got a hit. You are on mute. Senator Markey, you are on
    mute. You are still on mute. Cannot hear anything. Maybe you
    better talk to Senator Klobuchar.
        Oh, there you are. You were there good for a second. Try
    again. You were there for a second.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Can you hear me now?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
        Senator Markey. Hello?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, we hear you. You are loud and
    clear now.
        Senator Markey. Can you hear me now?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
        Senator Markey. Oh, beautiful. Thank you.
        Our witnesses today have done a very effective job in
    demonstrating that artificial intelligence poses serious new
    risks for fraud and scams across different sectors. From AI
    voice cloning tools to deepfake images and videos AI is
    threatening to undermine our ability to tell truth from
    falsity, to sow distrust in our understanding of reality
    itself.
        These scams and frauds will affect all Americans, but if
    history is any guide, marginalized communities are likely to be
    the greatest targets.
        Mr. Brookman, in your written testimony you discuss a
    recent report by Consumer Reports that found black and Hispanic
    Americans were more impacted by digital attacks and scams.
        Can you elaborate on your research?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. This is, like, a report that we do every
    year to kind of track how people are adopting cybersecurity
    techniques, you know, using specific passwords.
        This is the first year we asked about scams. You know, have
    you encountered scams--have you been--someone attempted a scam.
    Like, at least half of the people had, and of those who had, I
    think, overall about 10 percent of the people, the respondents
    to our nationally representative sample said they had lost
    money in a scam.
        And the percentages I can get them for you but I think--I
    believe it was, like, twice as much, like, for Black and
    Hispanic people.
        Of those who had encountered scams I think, like, a third
    of Black consumers and a third of Hispanic consumers had lost
    money and I think it was, like, about half of that for white
    Americans.
        This is but--this is consistent with the research the
    Federal Trade Commission has done. The Federal Trade Commission
    has done a couple of reports looking at similar issues--also
    found that.
        So I know we have talked a lot about in this hearing about
    the need to educate senior citizens and maybe many military
    families as well, and I strongly agree with that. But, like, we
    also probably need to reach out to marginalized communities too
    to--because that is where the money is.
        That is where people are losing money--to make sure they
    are educated and prepared for this new wave of AI-powered
    scams.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your great
    work.
        Because these issues now are well documented. In fact, in
    2021 both AARP and the Federal Trade Commission published
    reports that determined that Black and Latino adults were more
    likely to be targeted by scammers and by fraudsters.
        As artificial intelligence gives these bad actors new tools
    to target the public, communities of color will inevitably be
    the most impacted.
        So, Mr. Brookman, do you agree that AI-enabled frauds and
    scams will have a disproportionate impact on marginalized
    communities?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. I think the evidence so far indicates
    that. I mean, like, the traditional scams are more likely and
    so I think for AI-empowered scams as well it seems perfectly
    logical. So I mean, again, like, yes.
        Senator Markey. Yes. So I agree because any effort to
    address AI-enabled fraud and scams must be spent given special
    attention to the unique harms that are facing those
    populations, and as we discuss AI's impact on marginalized
    communities we must also remember that AI-powered algorithms
    can supercharge preexisting bias and discrimination.
        For example, a 2019 report found that due to bias in
    mortgage approval algorithms lenders were 80 percent more
    likely to reject Black applicants than similar White
    applicants.
        On another occasion, a major tech company found that its AI
    resume screening tools penalized resumes that included the
    words ``women'' and recommended male applicants for jobs at
    much higher rates than similar female applicants.
        That is unacceptable. We cannot let AI stand for
    accelerating inequality and it is why in September, I
    introduced the AI Civil Rights Act which would ensure that
    companies review and eliminate bias in their algorithms and put
    Americans back in control of key decisions in their lives.
        Mr. Brookman, do you agree that Congress should pass my AI
    Civil Rights Act?
        Mr. Brookman. Yes. I definitely agree that algorithmic
    harms from bias in existing inequalities is something that
    needs to be addressed. Dr. Farid testified about that earlier.
        We have also supported legislation in--a law in Colorado,
    the first law in the country to address that. But yes, the
    Federal Government should do it and we have endorsed your bill
    on this issue specifically.
        Senator Markey. And I appreciate that. We should not just
    leave it to the individuals to figure out how to protect
    themselves. We have to take action against the companies that
    set up these algorithms.
        So as Congress considers AI legislation we just cannot
    ignore how those algorithms will impact marginalized
    communities and that is why we have to pass my AI Civil Rights
    Act and all of this, you know, requires that consumers be able
    to authenticate the digital content and we need to put those
    protections in place.
        So I thank all of you for everything that you are doing to
    help to inform the public about these very important issues.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        And before closing--I think we are out of Senators for
    now--I would like to ask unanimous consent that statements from
    Microsoft on the NCII and from the Center for AI and Digital
    Policy on consumer protection be entered into the record
    without objection.
        I see no objection. So done.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                                      November 18, 2024

    Hon. Mike Johnson,
    Speaker of the House,
    U.S. House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Charles Schumer,
    Senate Majority Leader,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
    Democratic Leader,
    U.S. House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Mitch McConnell,
    Senate Republican Leader,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader
                Jeffries, and Republican Leader McConnell,

        This Congress has undertaken important efforts to advance
    legislation to address real and AI-generated non-consensual intimate
    imagery (NCII). Thanks to these bipartisan efforts, we are closer than
    ever to achieving what so many victims of this exploitation have long
    sought--true and effective remedies. That is why we are coming together
    to urge you to pass the Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and
    Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act and the Tools to Address Known
    Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and
    Networks (TAKE IT DOWN) Act this Congress.
        These next few weeks present a critical opportunity for bipartisan
    unity, and this area has been one where Congress has already
    demonstrated that it can put aside political differences to help
    protect vulnerable people. In July, the Senate passed the SHIELD Act by
    unanimous consent. This bill establishes Federal criminal liability for
    individuals who share private, sexually explicit or nude images without
    consent. Likewise, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously passed the
    TAKE IT DOWN Act this summer. That bill would criminalize the
    publication of non-consensual, sexually exploitative images--including
    AI-generated content--and require platforms to have in place notice and
    takedown processes. Both bills have bipartisan companions in the House.
        We recognize that there is other legislation in this space that
    Congress may be considering. We are advocating that Congress pass these
    bills for three primary reasons. First, we are concerned about both
    real and synthetic NCII. While it is critical to address AI-generated
    and other synthetic content, Congress must also address the non-
    consensual dissemination of authentic imagery, which these bills do.
    Second, both civil and criminal relief are necessary pieces in
    legislation to deter bad actors, especially for victims who may not
    have the financial resources to secure justice on their own through a
    civil lawsuit. Lastly, combating this horrific content will take a
    whole of society approach and that includes platforms, who must take
    action to remove this exploitative, non-consensual content once
    notified. No other set of bills accomplishes these three goals like
    SHIELD and TAKE IT DOWN do.
        Recent studies tell us the harm is dire, consequences are long-
    lasting, and the problem is not going away. In Microsoft's latest
    annual Global Online Safety Survey, respondents were asked about this
    topic, with 12 percent globally reporting having been exposed to sexual
    deepfakes in the last year. Fear about it is also increasing, with 73
    percent of respondents globally citing concern about sexual or online
    abuse from AI. And yet, there also appears to be an alarming gap in
    understanding the exploitation involved. In the United States, only 56
    percent of respondents thought it would be very harmful to use AI to
    create a false image of a politician, and only 63 percent of
    respondents thought it would be very harmful to create a nude image of
    a celebrity. While these bills might not solve all these concerns, they
    are a step in the right direction of taking action, protecting victims
    and holding bad actors accountable.
        Together, we are proud to support the SHIELD and TAKE IT DOWN Acts.
    While we represent three different entities--one corporation, two non-
    governmental organizations--we are united in our desire to address this
    harm and protect people, especially women and girls, from online
    exploitation.
        As Microsoft, we have long recognized our responsibility to keep
    our users safe, particularly children. We have a comprehensive policy
    addressing NCII harms, which has been in place since 2015. Microsoft
    does not allow the sharing or creation of sexually intimate images of
    someone without their permission. This includes photorealistic NCII
    content that was created or altered using technology. We do not allow
    NCII to be distributed on our services, nor do we allow any content
    that praises, supports, or requests NCII. In 2009, we collaborated with
    Dartmouth College to develop PhotoDNA, a hash-matching technology that
    was a landmark step forward in our collective ability to detect and
    address child sexual abuse material (CSAM) across the online ecosystem.
    In March 2024, Microsoft donated a new PhotoDNA capability to support
    the efforts of StopNCII.org, a service that enables people to protect
    themselves from having their intimate images shared online without
    their consent. In September 2024, we were proud to announce we have
    been piloting use of the StopNCII.org database to prevent NCII content
    from being returned in image search results in Bing. We will continue
    to evolve our approach, including as part of our comprehensive approach
    to addressing abusive AI-generated content. That approach is premised
    on a need for whole-of-society action, including steps to modernize
    legislation. To help better protect women and children from online
    exploitation, Microsoft was proud to endorse the SHIELD Act in our
    white paper, ``Protecting the public from abusive AI-generated
    content'', and to endorse the TAKE IT DOWN Act in July.
        For over 40 years, The National Center for Missing and Exploited
    Children (NCMEC) has served as the Congressionally-designated resource
    center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited children issues.
    NCMEC has witnessed how offenders often misuse new technology to
    sexually exploit children online. Last year, NCMEC's CyberTipline
    received more than 36 million reports relating to child sexual
    exploitation. CyberTipline reports relating to the online enticement
    and sextortion of children have increased over 300 percent over the
    past 3 years. Recently, NCMEC has seen the emergence of new threats
    with offenders using generative artificial intelligence (GAI)
    technology to create nude and sexually exploitative images of children.
    Over the past 2 years, NCMEC has received more than 10,000 reports of
    child sexual exploitation that were created with GAI technology. It is
    essential that our laws continue to be updated to address these
    emerging threats to child safety online. The SHIELD Act will close a
    gap in current law by criminalizing the distribution of nude and
    exploitative images of a child. Similarly, the TAKE IT DOWN Act will
    criminalize the distribution of nude and exploitative images of a child
    that are produced with GAI technology. Both bills will close legal gaps
    and are essential to provide crucial legal remedies to combat offenders
    who are exploiting children online, especially with emerging new
    technologies.
        As the Nation's oldest and most prominent nonprofit organization
    dedicated to combating image-based sexual abuse, the Cyber Civil Rights
    Initiative (CCRI) has been calling for a Federal criminal law
    prohibiting the nonconsensual distribution of intimate imagery for over
    a decade. CCRI provides the only 24-hour crisis helpline for victims
    and survivors of image-based abuse in the country, as well as an online
    safety center and other resources. Our advocacy efforts helped convince
    major tech companies to ban and remove image-based sexual abuse in 2015
    and we continue to work with the industry to improve policies and
    practices relating to privacy and abuse. CCRI's cutting-edge research
    into the prevalence and impact of image-based sexual abuse has revealed
    that criminal penalties are the most effective deterrent against this
    abuse. Since 2013, our model legislation on NCII has served as the
    template for the wave of state law legislative reform that brought the
    number of jurisdictions criminalizing this abuse from 3 to 49 (as well
    as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam). CCRI's model
    legislation has also served as the template for Federal laws, including
    an amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice; a Federal civil
    provision passed as part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization
    Act of 2022; and for SHIELD. While we celebrate the great strides that
    have been made with regard to state criminal laws and civil remedies
    for NCII, variations across jurisdictions in the definition,
    classification, and remedies for this crime have resulted in a
    patchwork of laws that is confusing for victims and law enforcement
    alike. Many state NCII laws are limited by misguided motive
    requirements, allowing perpetrators who commit this abuse for profit,
    voyeurism, or social validation to act with impunity. The SHIELD Act
    closes this loophole and serves as a powerful deterrent against this
    destructive and often borderless crime. The TAKE IT DOWN Act takes
    important steps to address the growing epidemic of sexually explicit
    digital forgeries and to create incentives for the removal of all forms
    of NCII.
        Microsoft, NCMEC, and CCRI wish to express our gratitude to
    Senators Klobuchar, Cruz and Cornyn for their leadership on these
    critical bills, as well as to the other sponsors. We also thank you for
    your consideration, and we look forward to working with you to advance
    them this Congress.
                Sincerely,
                                   Frederick S. Humphries, Jr.,
                     Corporate Vice President, U.S. Government Affairs,
                                                                 Microsoft.

                                              Michelle DeLaune,
                                                       President & CEO,
                  National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).

                                   Mary Anne Franks, JD, DPhil,
                      President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director,
                                                                      CCRI.
                                     ______

                               Center for AI and Digital Policy
                                                      November 19, 2024

    Chairman John Hickenlooper,
    Ranking Member Marsha Blackburn,
    Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security,
    Washington, DC.

    Re: CAIDP Statement for the Record: Hearing to examine protecting
                consumers from artificial intelligence enabled fraud and
                scams

    Dear Chairman Hickenlooper, Ranking Member Blackburn, and Members of
                the Committee,

        The Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) welcomes the hearing
    convened by this subcommittee on the urgent need to protect consumers
    from artificial intelligence (AI) enabled frauds and scams \1\
    Consumers today confront a wide range of new challenges because of
    techniques that mislead, manipulate, and misinform. This is bad for
    consumers, legitimate businesses, and the marketplace. The Federal
    Trade Commission (FTC) has a central responsibility to protect
    consumers against such unfair and deceptive trade practices. Although
    the FTC has issued useful business guidance,\2\ the consumer agency has
    failed to enforce the necessary AI guardrails to safeguard
    consumers.\3\ We submit this statement and request you to:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Senate Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection,
    Product Safety, and Data Security, Hearings to examine protecting
    consumers from artificial intelligence enabled fraud and scams, 118th
    Congress (2023-2024), (Nov. 19, 2024), https://www.congress.gov/event/
    118th-congress/senate-event/336302?s=1&r=1
        \2\ FTC, Using Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms, Business
    Guidance, (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/
    2020/04/using-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithms; FTC, Aiming for
    truth, fairness, and equity in your company's use of AI, Business
    Guidance, (Apr. 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/
    04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai; FTC, Keep your AI
    claims in check, (Feb. 27, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/business-
    guidance/blog/2023/02/keep-your-ai-claims-check; FTC, Chatbots,
    deepfakes, and voice clones: AI deception for sale, Business Guidance,
    (Mar. 20, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/03/
    chatbots-deepfakes-voice-clones-ai-deception-sale; FTC, The Luring
    Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust, Business Guidance, (May
    1, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/05/luring-test-ai-
    and-engineering-consumer-trust; FTC, Consumers Are Voicing Concerns
    About AI, Business Guidance, (Oct. 3, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/
    policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2023/10/consumers-are-voicing-
    concerns-about-ai; FTC, Succor borne every minute, Business Guidance,
    (Jun. 11, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/06/
    succor-borne-every-minute;
        \3\ CAIDP, ChatGPT and the Federal Trade Commission: Still No
    Guardrails, (Jul. 2024), https://www.caidp.org/app/download/8520338863/
    CAIDP-Still-No-Guardrails-July2024.pdf

      1.  Urge the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conclude the
            investigation of OpenAI and issue an Order, following the
            detailed complaint CAIDP filed with the consumer protection
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            agency in March 2023

      2.  Move forward bipartisan legislation that would safeguard
            consumers, including S.3312-Artificial Intelligence Research,
            Innovation, and Accountability Act (ARIA) 2024,\4\ S. 4769--the
            Validation and Evaluation for the Trustworthy Artificial
            Intelligence Act,\5\ S. 4178-Future of Artificial Intelligence
            Innovation Act of 2024,\6\ and H.R. 5077--CREATE AI Act\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Text--S.3312--118th Congress (2023-2024): Artificial
    Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act of 2023,
    S.3312, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
    congress/senate-bill/3312/text.
        \5\ Text--S.4769--118th Congress (2023-2024): VET Artificial
    Intelligence Act, S.4769, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/
    bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4769/text/is.
        \6\ Text--S.4178--118th Congress (2023-2024): Future of Artificial
    Intelligence Innovation Act of 2024, S.4178, 118th Cong. (2024),
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4178/text.
        \7\ H.R. 5077--118th Congress (2023-2024): CREATE AI Act of 2023,
    H.R. 5077, 118th Cong. (2024),https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
    congress/house-bill/5077.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    About CAIDP
        The CAIDP is a non-profit, independent research and education
    organization based in Washington D.C.\8\ In March of last year, we sent
    filed a detailed complaint with the FTC urging the agency to establish
    necessary safeguards for American consumers.\9\ In July 2023, both the
    New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that the FTC had
    launched the investigation we requested.\10\ But a year later, there is
    still no conclusion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ CAIDP, https://www.caidp.org/about-2/
        \9\ CAIDP, Complaint to the FTC--In re OpenAI and ChatGPT, (Mar.
    30, 2024), https://www.caidp.org/app/download/8450269463/CAIDP-FTC-
    Complaint-OpenAI-GPT-033023.pdf; CAIDP, Supplement to the Original
    Complaint to the FTC--In re OpenAI and ChatGPT, (Jul.10, 2023), https:/
    /www.caidp.org/app/download/8466615863/CAIDP-FTC-Supplement-OpenAI-
    07102023.pdf; CAIDP, Second Supplement to the Original Complaint to the
    FTC--In re OpenAI and ChatGPT, (Nov. 14, 2023),https://www.caidp.org/
    app/download/8485816363/CAIDP-Supplement-FTC-OpenAI-11142023.pdf
        \10\ New York Times, F.T.C. Opens Investigation Into ChatGPT Maker
    Over Technology's Potential Harms, (Jul. 13, 2023), https://
    www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/technology/chatgpt-investigation-ftc-
    openai.html; The Wall Street Journal, ChatGPT Comes Under Investigation
    by the Federal Trade Commission, (Jul.13, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/
    articles/chatgpt-under-investigation-by-ftc-21e4b3ef
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In September 2023, we also wrote to this Subcommittee to urge the
    establishment of transparency mechanisms for AI systems.\11\ Earlier
    this year, we also wrote to the Senate Commerce Committee on protecting
    American privacy\12\ and to pass Federal privacy legislation.\13\ We
    urged the Senate Commerce Committee to pass the American Privacy Rights
    Act.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ CAIDP Statement for the record: The Need for Transparency in
    Artificial Intelligence, (Sept. 12, 2023), https://www.linkedin.com/
    posts/center-for-ai-and-digital-policy_caidp-statement-for-senate-
    commerce-committee-sept-activity
        \12\ CAIDP Statement for the record: The Need to Protect American's
    Privacy and the AI Accelerant, (Jul. 10, 2024), https://
    www.linkedin.com/posts/center-for-ai-and-digital-policy
    _caidp-senate-commerce-ai-and-privacy-july-
        \13\ CAIDP Statement for the Record: Mark-up hearing on H.R. 8188,
    (Jun. 27, 2024), https://www.linkedin.com/posts/center-for-ai-and-
    digital-policy_caidp-to-us-congress-on-apra-and-ai-june-
    activity_7211990172387680256-_5JI?
        \14\ 118th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 8818, American Privacy
    Rights Act of 2024, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/
    H_R_8818_American_Privacy_Rights_Act_of_024_a265f50b54.pdf; See also,
    H.R. 8818--American Privacy Rights Act of 2024, https://
    www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8818/text
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We write now on the urgent issue of establishing guardrails for
    consumers through congressional action and agency enforcement under
    existing laws.
    1. Urge the Federal Tarde Commission to conclude the investigation of
            OpenAI and issue an Order
        Over a year ago, CAIDP filed a detailed, formal complaint \15\ with
    the FTC about OpenAI, alleging that OpenAI had violated U.S. consumer
    protection law by releasing consumer products without sufficient
    safeguards. We described real risks to the public--giving bad
    investment advice or telling children how to lie to their parents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ CAIDP, Complaint to the FTC--In re OpenAI and ChatGPT, (Mar.
    30, 2024), https://www.caidp.org/app/download/8450269463/CAIDP-FTC-
    Complaint-OpenAI-GPT-033023.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We cautioned that commercialized generative AI services, such as
    DALL-E, GPT-4o, and OpenAI Five, among other publicly available
    products, will turbocharge risks to public safety, online child safety,
    cybersecurity, and consumer deception.\16\ Those risks have already
    materialized. The release of ChatGPT-4o's voice assistant, ``Sky,''
    sparked public outrage due to its eerie similarity with Scarlett
    Johansson's voice.\17\ Additionally, OpenAI's ``GPTs,'' a custom
    chatbot store powered by OpenAI's models, has become filled with
    spam.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ CAIDP, Complaint to FTC--in re OpenAI and ChatGPT, (Mar. 30,
    2023), https://www.caidp.org/cases/openai/; Open AI, The GPT-4 System
    Card (Mar. 15, 2023), https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4-system-
    card.pdf; Merve Hickok, Marc Rotenberg, Christabel Randolph, It's time
    for the FTC to act on ChatGPT, Op-Ed, The Hill, (Jun. 14, 2023),
    https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4722343-its-time-for-the-ftc-to-
    act-on-chatgpt/ The Lancet, ChatGPT: Friend or Foe, Editorial (Feb. 6,
    2023), https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf
        \17\ New York Times, Scarlett Johansson's Statement About Her
    Interactions With Sam Altman, (May 20, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/
    2024/05/20/technology/scarlett-johansson-openai-statement.html
        \18\ TechCrunch, OpenAI's chatbot store is filling up with spam,
    (Mar. 20, 2024), https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/20/openais-chatbot-
    store-is-filling-up-with-spam/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Alarmingly, it was reported in May 2024 that OpenAI is considering
    extending the uses of its model to enable users to create AI-generated
    pornography and other explicit content.\19\ OpenAI on the one hand
    touts its mission statement of ``safe and beneficial AI'' and on the
    other hand in its own model specifications is extending use-cases of
    its Dall-E image generator to ``responsibly create erotica, extreme
    gore, slurs, and unsolicited profanity'' \20\--uses which have already
    affected many Americans through scams, and sexual exploitations.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ The Guardian, OpenAI considers allowing users to create AI-
    generated pornography, (May 9, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/
    technology/article/2024/may/09/openai-considers-allowing-users-to-
    create-ai-generated-pornography
        \20\ OpenAI, Model Spec, (May 08, 2024) https://cdn.openai.com/
    spec/model-spec-2024-05-08
    .html
        \21\ The Washington Post, AI-Generated images of child sexual abuse
    are on the rise, (Jun. 19, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
    technology/2023/06/19/artificial-intelligence-child-sex-abuse-images/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In September 2023, about 70 national and state consumer
    organizations called upon the FTC and Consumer Financial Protection
    Bureau (CFPB) to ``protect consumers from the increasing threat of AI-
    generated ``deepfake'' voice clips and videos used for financial
    fraud.'' \22\ The FTC has taken some steps, in line with its
    ``Operation AI Comply'' strategy to crackdown on AI-induced fraud and
    scam.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ U.S. PIRG and others, Letter to FTC and CFPB, (Sept. 13,
    2023), https://www.com
    monsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/deepfake-
    based-financial-fraud-letter-to-cfpb-and-ftc.pdf
        \23\ Alvaro Puig, Operation AI Comply: Detecting AI-infused frauds
    and deceptions, Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 25, 2024), https://
    consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/09/operation-ai-comply-detecting-
    ai-infused-frauds-and-deceptions
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As public scrutiny on OpenAI's business practices increase, one
    critical aspect is missing: action from the FTC. Overall, there have
    been over a dozen investigations of OpenAI in different countries,
    targeting various aspects of its services.\24\ In our recent report
    ``Still No Guardrails,'' we called attention to the FTC's delay in
    concluding the investigation and establishing critical guardrails.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Stephanie Psaila, Governments vs ChatGPT: Investigations
    around the world, DIPLO (Jun. 16, 2023), https://www.diplomacy.edu/
    blog/governments-chatgpt-investigations/.
        \25\ CAIDP, ChatGPT and the Federal Trade Commission: Still No
    Guardrails, (Jul. 2024), https://www.caidp.org/app/download/8520338863/
    CAIDP-Still-No-Guardrails-July2024.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AI does not operate in a vacuum. There are existing laws, and
    Federal agencies, including the FTC, have issued a joint statement
    stating their existing authorities over AI products and systems.\26\
    There is an urgent need to enforce consumer protection laws and enforce
    guardrails for AI systems, particularly those that directly interact
    with consumers or influence their behavior.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Joint Statement on Enforcement Efforts Against Discrimination
    and Bias in Automated Systems, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
    ftc_gov/pdf/EEOC-CRT-FTC-CFPB-AI-Joint-State
    ment%28final%29.pdf
        \27\ See, e.g., CAIDP, Comment on Trade Regulation Rule on
    Impersonation of Government and Businesses, FTC Matter No. R207000
    (Apr. 30, 2024); CAIDP, Comment on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems
    Accountability Measures and Policies, NTIA Docket No. 230407-0093 (Jun.
    12, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We ask that this Committee urge the FTC to enforce consumer
    guardrails in the AI industry, to conclude the investigation of OpenAI
    and issue an order. While Congressional action progresses on broader AI
    policy issues, it is incumbent upon the FTC to enforce existing
    consumer protection laws to protect the American public from fraud,
    scams, and exploitation.
    2. Move forward AI Bills--S. 3312, S. 4769, S. 4178, and H.R. 5077 on a
            priority basis during the lame-duck session
        We appreciate Chair Hickenlooper and Ranking Member Blackburn in
    advancing several important pieces of AI legislation. Congressional
    action on AI has been a model for bipartisan cooperation.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Marc Rotenberg, A Turning Point for U.S. AI Policy: Senate
    Explores Solutions, Blog@CACM, (May 17, 2023), https://cacm.acm.org/
    blogcacm/a-turning-point-for-u-s-ai-policy-senate-explores-solutions/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Senate and House Committees have marked up several bills
    providing funding and resources\29\ for the industry but with little or
    no accountability provisions. We need real accountability provisions
    that would strengthen guardrails for consumers in the context of AI
    systems.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Rebecca Heilweil, Senate Commerce Committee advances several
    bills on AI, Fedscoop, (Jul. 31, 2024), https://fedscoop.com/senate-
    commerce-committee-advances-several-bills-on-ai/
        \30\ CAIDP Statement for the record: Oversight of AI: Insiders'
    Perspectives, (Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.linkedin.com/posts/center-
    for-ai-and-digital-policy_caidp-senate-judiciary-commit
    tee-ai-sept-activity
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We support the passage of the Thune-Klobuchar S.3312-Artificial
    Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act (ARIA)
    2024\31\ (co-sponsored by Chair Hickenlooper and others) which requires
    transparency reports, risk management assessments, and enforcement
    against non-compliant high-risk applications. As Sen. Thune has stated
    S.3312 ``identifies some basic rules of the road that protect
    consumers.'' \32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Text--S.3312--118th Congress (2023-2024): Artificial
    Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act of 2023,
    S.3312, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
    congress/senate-bill/3312/text.
        \32\ Sen. John Thune, Thune, Klobuchar Lead Commerce Committee
    Colleagues in Introducing Bipartisan AI Bill to Boost Innovation and
    Strengthen Accountability, Press Release, (Nov. 15, 2023), https://
    www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=E27EFA8B-3AD1-
    42B5-8248-3987D2AFA649
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also support the Hickenlooper-Capito S. 4769--the Validation and
    Evaluation for the Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Act,\33\ and the
    Cantwell, Young, Hickenlooper, Blackburn S. 4178-Future of Artificial
    Intelligence Innovation Act of 2024 \34\ and the bicameral Heinrich,
    Young, Eshoo, Obernolte H.R. 5077--the CREATE AI Act of 2023.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Text--S.4769--118th Congress (2023-2024): VET Artificial
    Intelligence Act, S.4769, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/
    bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4769/text/is.
        \34\ Text--S.4178--118th Congress (2023-2024): Future of Artificial
    Intelligence Innovation Act of 2024, S.4178, 118th Cong. (2024),
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4178/text.
        \35\ Actions--H.R. 5077--118th Congress (2023-2024): CREATE AI Act
    of 2023, H.R. 5077, 118th Cong. (2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/
    118th-congress/house-bill/5077/all-actions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Together these bills establish mechanisms for transparency and
    accountability for AI systems through funding and resources for safe
    innovation, technical evaluations, audits, assurances, and oversight.
    All of these bills have been reported favorably by the Senate and House
    Commerce Committees and it is imperative to move this forward.
        Bi-partisan leadership is crucial, now more than ever, to bring
    these bills to the Senate floor for a final debate and vote on the
    provisions. We urge you-Chair Hickenlooper and Ranking Member Blackburn
    to work with Senate leader Schumer and McConnell to pass AI
    legislation, specifically, the aforesaid bills during the lame-duck
    session.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views. We ask that this
    statement be included in the hearing record. We would be pleased to
    provide you and your staff with additional information.
                Sincerely yours,
                                                  Merve Hickok,
                                                       CAIDP President.
                                                Marc Rotenberg,
                                              CAIDP Executive Director.
                                           Christabel Randolph,
                                                    Associate Director.
                                                  Janhvi Patel,
                                                            Law Fellow.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Let me just say thank you. I
    appreciate so much--I know you are every bit as busy as we are
    and that you took time out of your lives and schedule to come
    and share your experiences and your perspectives with us.
        I think these are important discussions and it can be very
    frustrating to be in a body that moves at such a careful, slow
    pace when things that you are describing are so blatantly
    problematic and screaming for consequences, I think several
    Senators said.
        I do think--just in the same sense that every great journey
    starts with the first step I think great legislation starts
    with the first hearing or maybe this might be the second or
    third hearing for some of you.
        But I remain very optimistic and I do feel a great sense of
    urgency for all the reasons that you have each made clear.
        So Senators will have until Tuesday, December 3 to submit
    questions for the record. Witnesses will have until Tuesday,
    December 17--our traditional two weeks--to respond to written
    questions.
        And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                   Hany Farid
    Detection Technology
        Last month in my home state of Washington, the Grays Harbor Public
    Utilities District warned that scammers are targeting consumers with
    voice cloning technology. According to Grays Harbor PUD, scammers are
    using this technology to create authentic sounding messages threatening
    to cut off utilities services and attempting to fool customers into
    sending money to avoid losing power.

        Question 1. What types of technologies are being developed
    specifically with respect to deepfake audio detection to allow
    businesses and consumers to identify deepfakes, including scam calls?
        Answer. Most of the efforts to detect deepfake voices is happening
    in Academe. There are, however, a few companies including a company
    that I co-founded (GetReal Labs) that is working to deploy these
    technologies to protect consumers and organizations.
    AI Innovation to Fight Fraud
        We know artificial intelligence is supercharging fraud. It is also
    one of our best weapons against fraud.

        Question 1. How is artificial intelligence being leveraged to
    detect and prevent fraud?
        Answer. The frustrating truth is that the largest tech companies
    are--for the most part--not particularly incentivized to develop and
    deploy these technologies. Put simply, safety and defense are not
    profitable. On the other hand, financial institutions are more
    incentivized, and we are starting to see a rollout of AI-powered
    technologies to protect consumers.

        Question 2. How can the government support innovation in the fraud-
    fighting space and ensure that these innovations trickle down to
    consumers?
        Answer. Hold AI companies responsible for the harms that they knew
    or should have known are coming from their products. Until there is an
    incentive to put safety first, safety will remain--at best--an
    afterthought.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                   Hany Farid
    Consumer Right to Identify AI-generated Content
        According to a study by the Center for Strategic and International
    Studies (CSIS), people are only about 50 percent accurate at
    recognizing content created by AI versus a human--as good as a coin
    toss. As AI becomes more advanced, it will become even harder, even for
    tech-savvy people, to tell the difference.

        Question 1. In your view, is labeling AI-generated content a viable
    path to providing this knowledge to people?
        Answer. Labelling is necessary but not sufficient. Responsible
    companies will cooperate with adding content credentials but there will
    be plenty of services that will not. In this way, labeling could give
    consumers a false sense of security.

        Question 2. Who has the responsibility to step in and establish
    that transparency for consumers?
        Answer. Everyone in the pipeline has responsibility from the
    content creation to the distribution side.

        Question 3. How do you recommend government, AI developers, social
    media platforms, and others work together to develop those solutions?
        Answer. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authentication
    (C2PA) and the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) are leaders in
    this space. These organizations have brought together many
    stakeholders, but many of the largest social media platforms are
    noticeably absent. The U.S. Government could mandate the labeling of
    AI-generated content (without passing judgement on the value of this
    content) and that would, I imagine, be a positive forcing function.

        Question 4. In your view, what is the best approach for labeling
    content generated by open-source AI systems?
        Answer. This is a non-trivial problem, and I don't know of any
    obvious solutions that could not be easily circumvented.
    Current Detection Tool Capabilities
        AI-generated content detection tools have made significant
    progress, but are still far from perfect. It's an arms race between
    those creating increasingly realistic content and those developing the
    tools to reliably detect it.

        Question 1. Will unassisted third-party detection tools ever become
    accurate enough for consumers to be able to consistently trust their
    results?
        Answer. I don't see an obvious and immediate path to make tools
    accessible enough or accurate enough for the average consumer. This is
    why the burden should fall on the AI companies, the social media
    companies, and the financial sector to deploy technologies to keep us
    safe.

        Question 2. Should developers label their AI-generated content to
    support consumer trust?
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                   Hany Farid
        Question 1. Elaborate on the differences between audio deepfake
    detection versus visual deepfake detection (image and video). What
    unique challenges exist for detecting synthetic audio and/or disclosing
    to consumers that a piece of audio content is synthetic--and in light
    of the rise in voice-clone scams--what recommendations do you have for
    policymakers to consider as they work to address the issue of deepfake
    audio?
        Answer. The underlying detection of image, audio, video, is not
    fundamentally different but the primary challenge with audio in
    inserting detection in the pipe (phone, voice-mail). This requires the
    cooperation of the largest telecommunication companies which, frankly,
    have not been particularly responsive to protecting consumers from a
    host of annoying and costly scams.

        Question 2. Are you aware of any content provenance and
    authenticity standards efforts for audio content? If so, please
    describe these initiatives, how they would work in practice, and how
    scalable this approach would be.
        Answer. The efforts of the Coalition for Content Provenance and
    Authentication (C2PA) and the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI)
    operate across all modalities: image, audio, and video.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                Justin Brookman
    Liability for Harm
        Seniors--and their retirement savings--have long been a target for
    scammers. AI is making this worse. Recently, an 82-year-old retiree was
    targeted by scammers who promoted an investment opportunity by using a
    deepfake video of Elon Musk touting the investment. The consumer opened
    an account for $248 and ultimately lost his retirement savings--more
    than $690,000--to the scammers.

        Question 1. How do we build safeguards and incentives to prevent
    similar harms from AI-generated content online? What role should social
    media platforms play?
        Answer. First, we need to do a better job educating consumers about
    the risks of AI-powered impersonation and the lack of consumer
    protection and redress mechanisms associated with certain forms of
    money transfers and investments. People need to become trained to
    suspect solicitations asking for money in the form of crypto, gift
    cards, wire transfers, and certain peer-to-peer payment apps, and
    evoking a false sense of urgency.
        However, we should not put all the burden on consumers to protect
    themselves. We should also update consumer protection laws to provide
    greater protections for forms of payment beyond credit card
    transactions--such as payments made through apps instead of credit
    cards.
        We also need to build up and empower regulators such as the FTC,
    CFPB, and Department of Justice to take speedy action against bad
    actors and to deter other potential scammers.
        We need to develop a transparency infrastructure that embeds
    provenance data within artificially generated (as well as authentic)
    content and also requires platforms to surface information to consumers
    about the nature of the content they host.
        Finally, beyond transparency, we should clarify greater
    responsibilities for toolmakers and online platforms such as social
    media platforms to take action to limit potential bad uses of
    generative AI products and to take down fraudulent content (see answer
    to new question).

        Question 2. Who should be held accountable for harmful AI-generated
    content?
        Answer. Certainly, the scammers themselves should be held
    accountable as the most responsible party, and as noted above,
    prosecutors need to be given more resources to keep up with the latest
    generation of digital scammers.
        However, in many cases it is difficult to identify or hold
    accountable the scammers themselves, as they take extreme measures to
    cloak their identity, and even if identified are often overseas and
    effectively outside the power of American authorities.
        As discussed in my testimony, generative AI tools should have some
    obligation to take action to remediate potential harms stemming from
    the use of their products. This is especially the case for tools whose
    most likely uses are harmful--such as deepfake pornography generators,
    voice impersonation tools, or the online review generator Rytr that was
    the subject of a recent FTC enforcement action.\1\ In some cases, if
    the harms created by these tools outweigh the benefits to consumers and
    competition--and those harms cannot be remediated--those tools should
    not be made available to the public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In the Matter of Rytr, LLC, Fed. Trade Comm'n, File No. 232-
    3052, Complaint, (Sep. 25, 2024), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CR-Endorsement-Guides-comments-September-
    2022-3.pdf; Consumer Reports filed a comment on the Rytr proceeding in
    support of the settlement, arguing it was in the public interest and
    that Rytr's product could only be reasonably used for fraudulent
    purposes. See Justin Brookman et al., Consumer Reports files comment in
    support of FTC's settlement with Rytr, (Nov. 4, 2024), Consumer Reports
    Advocacy, https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/consumer-
    reports-files-comment-in-support-of-ftcs-settle ment-with-rytr/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, the online platforms that host fraudulent or otherwise
    harmful AI-generated content should have clearer obligations to take
    proactive steps to detect and remove such content and to respond to
    complaints from consumers. These platforms likely already have such
    obligations under Section 5 of the FTC Act but updating the law could
    provide better clarity both to companies and to the users of their
    services.
    Privacy and AI-enabled Fraud
        When consumers lack control over their personal data, it can be
    used against them. We already see this with non-AI fraud, where bad
    actors can use personal details about consumers to perpetuate scams and
    gain access to consumer account information.
        With generative AI, bad actors can use consumers' biometric data,
    including their voices and faces, against them by creating AI-generated
    deepfakes. This raises the stakes for protecting consumer data and
    giving consumers meaningful rights over their data--and the ability to
    enforce that right in court.

        Question 1. How can providing consumers with more rights to control
    their data help prevent fraud and scams--including AI-enabled fraud and
    scams?
        Answer. If we limit the amount of data about us that is available
    for purchase on the open market, we can significantly limit the
    effectiveness of targeted social engineering scams, such as spear
    phishing attacks. For years, scammers have been able to purchase
    detailed information about consumers in order to specifically tailor
    impersonation schemes. Using AI, these same scammers can purchase
    personal data at scale and use it to craft automated personalized
    solicitations that make phishing and other attacks significantly more
    effective.
        However, framing privacy protections in terms of ``rights'' is not
    the best way to think about privacy. Granting consumers rights puts the
    onus of protecting their personal information on them, which in
    practice can be overwhelming. No one has the capacity to micromanage
    privacy settings across the dozens of businesses with which they
    regularly interact--let alone the hundreds of different websites and
    mobile applications they visit. Professor Dan Solove, among others,
    have written extensively on the limitations of protecting privacy
    through the allocation of ``rights.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Dan Solove, The Limitations of Privacy Rights, 98 Notre Dame
    Law Review 975 (2023), https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/
    viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/faculty_publications/article/2856/
    &path_info=SoloveLimitations_of_Privacy_Rights_FINAL.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Instead, consumer privacy should be protected by default. For this
    reason, we have urged Congress and other lawmakers to enact privacy
    legislation based on the principle of ``data minimization.'' \3\ Under
    a data minimization framework, companies are limited to processing
    personal information directly in service of a consumer request, with
    limited statutory exceptions for necessary first-party operational uses
    such as security and analytics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Consumer Reports and the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
    How the FTC Can Mandate Data Minimization Through a Section 5
    Unfairness Rulemaking, Consumer Reports, (Jan. 26, 2022), https://
    advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CR_Epic
    _FTCDataMinimization_012522_VF_.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the very least, if consumers are given rights to safeguard their
    data, they need to be able to exercise these rights at scale, either
    through dedicated agents working on their behalf,\4\ or through
    universal tools such as the Global Privacy Control (of which Consumer
    Reports is a founding organization).\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Consumer Reports offers a free product called Permission Slip
    that helps users take advantage of new privacy rights created by
    legislation in several states. See Permission Slip, https://
    www.permissionslipcr.com/.
        \5\ Global Privacy Control, https://globalprivacycontrol.org/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                Justin Brookman
    The Landscape of Information Consumption
        I believe a major way to rebuild trust in online content is to
    require platforms to show proof of where the content came from and how
    it was made. But some people worry that adding too much information
    could confuse people instead of helping them, even leading them to
    ignore or undervalue the labels over time. Users may even over-rely on
    disclosures and assume that unlabeled content is authentic when it
    clearly isn't.

        Question 1. Do you think labeling AI content can help people trust
    what they see, or could it make things overwhelming?
        Answer. Consumer Reports supports content labeling to help
    consumers distinguish between authentic and synthetic content.
    Certainly such labels should not try to convey too much information--
    the labels themselves should be designed to convey fairly minimal
    information, though a consumer could hover over or click it in order to
    receive more information (this is how standardized disclosures
    generated by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity
    (C2PA) work).
        We believe that California's AI Transparency Act is a promising
    start, requiring large generative AI platforms to (1) embed latent
    provenance data within synthetic media, (2) create tools to scan media
    for such latent data, and (3) offer creators an option to visibly mark
    media as synthetic.\6\ Ultimately this approach is unlikely to be
    sufficient on its own, but it does begin to put meaningful transparency
    obligations on generative platforms rather than leave everything to
    self-regulation (which has certainly not been sufficient).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ CA SB-942 California AI Transparency Act (2024), https://
    leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Bad actors will seek to avoid transparency requirements--and
    smaller models, including models outside the reach of U.S. regulators--
    will have the capacity to make increasingly convincing deepfake
    content. At the very least, however, through transparency
    standardization and requirements, good actors may be able to
    cryptographically certify reliable information about content, and
    platforms will be empowered to take action to disincentivize content
    creators who fail to do the same.

        Question 2. How can we be smart about not only developing these
    tools to label and disclose AI-generated content, but also doing so in
    a user-friendly way?
        Answer. We should be careful not to put too much onus on users to
    decipher complicated disclosures or to be able to independently
    distinguish between authentic and synthetic media. We also should be
    careful to message the limitations of labels, especially in early days
    when adoption may be sporadic even among well-intentioned actors, and
    platforms are not taking enough responsibility to weed out fraudulent
    content on their services.
        Ultimately generative AI tools and the platforms that host content
    need to take more responsibility to detect and prevent fraudulent and
    other harmful uses of AI, and to help consumers understand the nature
    of the content they are interacting with. Regulators and enforcers too
    will have to be more active in pursuing both scammers themselves but
    also intermediaries that fail to take reasonable steps to address the
    harms they enable.
    Impact to Vulnerable Groups
        Increased access to AI tools has widened its scope of users,
    including scammers. Financial scams, including real estate investment
    scams that have recently impacted residents in Hawaii, can use AI
    impersonations to trick everyday people into handing over money.

        Question 1. Could you please share how certain groups, such as
    seniors and those who speak English as a second language, which are
    both significant communities in Hawaii, could be especially vulnerable
    to these scams?
        Answer. Scammers certainly prefer to target vulnerable populations.
    Older Americans are at the top of that list--according to the FBI, last
    year seniors lost over $3.4 billion to scams, up over eleven percent
    from the year before.\7\ The use of AI voice cloning to impersonate
    loved ones is colloquially called the ``grandparent scam''--as scammers
    often target grandparents by impersonating the voices and identities of
    grandchildren in need.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Alanna Durkin Richer, Scammers stole more than $3.4 billion
    from older Americans last year, an FBI report says, Associated Press,
    (Apr. 30, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/older-people-fraud-fbi-
    report-c0da7899f667f9daace4926d5ff3f427.
        \8\ 'Grandparent' Scams Get More Sophisticated, Federal
    Communications Commission, (Feb. 1, 2024), https://www.fcc.gov/
    grandparent-scams-get-more-sophisticated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Other vulnerable communities are also especially at risk of scam
    attempts. According to a CR nationally representative survey from April
    2024, among Americans who have personally encountered a cyberattack or
    digital scam attempt, Black and Hispanic Americans are twice as likely
    to have lost money to a digital attack or scam as white Americans:
    Thirty-three percent of Black Americans and 30 percent of Hispanic
    Americans who have encountered such an attack say they have lost money
    to a digital attack or scam, compared with just 13 percent of white
    Americans.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Yael Grauer, New Report: 2024 Consumer Cyber Readiness,
    Consumer Reports Innovation Blog, (Oct. 1, 2024), at 4 https://
    innovation.consumerreports.org/new-report-2024-consumer-cyber-
    readiness/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This finding is backed by several other studies, including a 2016
    report by the Federal Trade Commission, ``Combating Fraud in African
    American and Latino Communities,'' which found that communities of
    color are more likely to become victims of fraud and are more likely to
    lose money when they are victims of fraud.\10\ It is also the case that
    there are some scammers who specifically target communities who do not
    primarily speak English. For example, earlier this year the Federal
    Trade Commission brought an action against Ganadores Online and
    Ganadores Inversiones Bienes Raices for targeting Spanish speakers with
    business opportunity and real estate scams.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Report to Congress, Combating Fraud in African American &
    Latino Communities The FTC's Comprehensive Strategic Plan, Federal
    Trade Commission, (Jun. 15, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
    documents/reports/combating-fraud-african-american-latino-communities-
    ftcs-comprehensive-strategic-plan-federal-trade/160615fraudreport.pdf.
        \11\ Press Release, FTC Action Leads to Ban for Ganadores Real
    Estate and Income Scam, its Owner, and Managers, Federal Trade
    Commission, (Jan. 17, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/
    press-releases/2024/01/ftc-action-leads-ban-ganadores-real-estate-
    income-scam-its-owner-managers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Community Resilience Against Scams
        I'm proud to have introduced with my colleague Senator Young, the
    bipartisan AI Public Awareness and Education Campaign Act, which passed
    out of this Committee earlier this year, to try to get at these
    concerns about risks of AI in the daily lives of Americans.

        Question 1. How would you recommend making vulnerable communities
    more resilient to identifying and protecting themselves from these
    scams?
        Answer. We need a public awareness campaign to proactively warn
    consumers about the harms of AI-powered scams and basic precautions
    that consumers can take to protect themselves. Given how scams are
    disproportionately targeted at vulnerable consumers, such a campaign
    should be especially targeted to reach those communities through the
    channels most likely to reach them.
        This campaign should make Americans aware of the increasing risks
    associated with deepfake and other AI-powered targeted scams (like
    phishing and robocalls), and teach basic security precautions such as
    the use of multifactor authentication, promptly installing security
    updates, how to block third-party content on the internet, and which
    payments methods offer stronger consumer protections and redress
    mechanisms (and which do not).
        Finally, transparency obligations on generative AI creators, tools,
    and the digital platforms that host such content--as well as detection
    and remediation responsibilities for the latter two categories--will
    help provide actionable information to vulnerable communities and also
    protect them from being exposed to fraudulent content in the first
    place.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
                                Justin Brookman
        Question. Representative Jamie Raskin and I have been leading an
    effort in the FY25 Appropriations bill to direct the Federal Trade
    Commission to develop a comprehensive online resource that will serve
    as a centralized resource page for victims of financial scams and
    frauds.
        During the hearing, I asked you to describe the steps people must
    take to report the crime and recover damages once people realize they
    have become the victim of financial fraud or a scam.
        What resources do you believe would be the most helpful for
    victims?
        Answer. A centralized resource page should prioritize guidance on
    potential remedies available to consumers, and provide detailed
    information about the differing protections for different payment
    methods. It should also provide guidance on other steps consumers
    should take based on what information or devices have been compromised,
    such as how to freeze credit and to remotely disable access to
    accounts. Consumers should also be informed of how to report illegal
    activity to the appropriate authorities. The FTC currently offers
    guidance on most of these topics, though its scams portal would benefit
    from visual redesign, and greater specificity on the limitations on
    protections for certain payment methods would be welcome.
        In addition to reactive guidance for people who have been harmed by
    scams, policymakers also need to invest in affirmative education to
    consumers to prepare them in advance to avoid falling for such scams in
    the first place. Consumer Reports for example offers Security Planner
    with practical advice to consumers on how to identify phishing and
    other social engineering attacks.\12\ Unfortunately, we cannot always
    rely on consumers to seek out static resources; instead there should be
    a public awareness campaign to prospectively alert consumers to the
    risk of AI-powered scams. We are currently part of such a campaign
    called ``Take9'' that messages to consumers they should pause and take
    nine seconds to consider whether urgent calls to action are legitimate
    or not, but a broader effort is needed.\13\ Given the staggering
    consumer losses to scams each year, investing in such a campaign would
    likely save Americans billions of dollars on net.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Security Planner, Consumer Reports, https://
    securityplanner.consumerreports.org/.
        \13\ Nine Seconds for a Safer World, Take9, https://
    pausetake9.org/.
        \14\ Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2023, Federal Trade
    Commission, (Feb. 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/
    CSN-Annual-Data-Book-2023.pdf (noting consumers lost over $10 billion
    to fraud in 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                Justin Brookman
        Question 1. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity
    (C2PA) has introduced a content credentials ``icon of transparency'',
    which is open source and can be added to video and image content.
    Hovering over the icon would reveal a ``digital nutrition label''
    containing information such as: ``the publisher or creator's
    information, where and when it was created, what tools were used to
    make it, including whether or not generative AI was used, as well as
    any edits that were made along the way.'' \15\ Does Consumer Reports
    believe that it should be voluntary for a social media company or
    online platform to display content credentials information for the
    content that they distribute? Why or why not? Please note that this
    question is focused on whether the disclosure of content credentials
    information should be voluntary/mandatory, not whether the use of the
    C2PA's icon should be voluntary/mandatory.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Introducing Official Content Credentials Icon--C2PA
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. CR supports transparency mandates for social media and
    other platforms to provide access to information about the provenance
    of media displayed on those services. We also support obligations on
    generative AI platforms to embed standardized latent information about
    the provenance of content within synthetic media. While bad actors will
    seek to evade and frustrate such transparency requirements, at the very
    least good actors may be able to cryptographically certify reliable
    information about content, and platforms will be empowered to take
    action to disincentivize content creators who fail to do the same.
        At this point we have not developed a position on whether such
    disclosures should be in the form of the specific digital nutrition
    label formulated by the C2PA. We are currently engaging with members of
    the C2PA and digital platforms to learn about implementation and
    adoption of C2PA standards and next steps for the coalition's work.

        Question 2. If the display of content credentials information were
    to remain voluntary, what recommendations does Consumer Reports have
    for consumers who use platforms that do not display this information
    and are unsure of whether a piece of content is AI-generated? In other
    words, how can we best equip consumers with the information they need
    to understand and interpret the media content they are seeing?
        Answer. Consumers unfortunately will need to be trained to doubt
    the authenticity of content they view online, especially through social
    media and other platforms without a robust editorial process. Today,
    there are certain recurring indicators of AI generated content that
    consumers can be inured to look for--such as unlikely misspellings,
    uncanny latency, and additional limbs. Over time however, it is likely
    that AI will improve and it will become harder and harder for even
    trained individuals to visually distinguish between authentic and
    inauthentic content. Even absent standardized provenance data, however,
    platforms and user agents like browsers will be incentivized to develop
    their own AI-empowered tools to detect and identify synthetic or
    altered media. However, it is unknown how effective such tools would be
    given the neverending cat-and-mouse game between the developers of
    tools that create inauthentic content and the developers of tools that
    try to identify them.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                 Mounir Ibrahim
    Public Private Collaboration
        AI-enabled fraud does not only impact consumers. Industry--
    especially the financial services industry--is also impacted.
    Deloitte's Center for Financial Services predicts that generative AI
    could lead to $40 billion in fraud losses in the United States in 2027.
    Public awareness of deepfakes benefits industry and vice versa.

        Question 1. How can Congress encourage public and private entities
    to work together to educate the public about AI-enabled fraud?
        Answer. We fully agree with this assessment and recognize that
    private enterprises, particularly CISA-designated critical industries
    such as financial services, are--and will increasingly become--primary
    targets for AI-driven deception and fraud. This threat has a direct and
    indirect impact on the general public, as the vast majority of
    consumers depend on financial services, peer-to-peer commerce, and
    telecommunications in their daily lives.
        To address this pressing issue, we encourage collaborative efforts
    between Congress, the technology sector, and private industry. We
    propose the following initiatives to enhance public education--
    targeting both the private sector workforce and the general public:

       Public Awareness Campaigns: Congress should consider
            allocating funding to industry-specific organizations (or
            agencies) to amplify awareness and spotlight fraud tactics
            within key sectors such as insurance, banking, lending, and
            commerce. This support would enable agencies and other
            stakeholders to better educate their constituents on the
            evolving methods and techniques used in AI-driven threat
            vectors, fostering a more informed and resilient approach to
            combating fraud. These campaigns will help increase efforts
            from private industry in those categories to address these
            threat vectors and adjust processes to help mitigate the risks
            of fraud.

       Foster Best Practice Sharing: Congress is uniquely
            positioned to establish forums, either public or private, where
            organizations can collaboratively share best practices for
            addressing and mitigating emerging threats. These forums could
            be modeled after the AI Insight Forums but with a more focused
            scope for each session (i.e., supply chain, banking,
            healthcare, etc. . .), emphasizing the sharing of mitigation
            strategies, their effectiveness, and insights into new threats
            impacting critical industries and consumers. A bipartisan
            initiative involving private industry, state/local government,
            civil society, and other key stakeholders could serve as a
            powerful mechanism to educate and equip industry-leading
            organizations with the knowledge and tools needed to better
            protect their consumers.

       Incentivize Public-Private Partnerships: Congress could
            consider establishing grants, tax incentives, or other
            financial mechanisms to encourage companies to invest in
            technologies aimed at fraud prevention and consumer protection.
            While many companies may be aware of these threats, they often
            lack sufficient motivation to adjust their operating procedures
            when they have not yet experienced a direct impact. These
            incentives provide a proactive and constructive approach to
            addressing emerging risks without imposing new mandates or
            regulatory burdens.

       Funds for Government Implementation: Congress could consider
            earmarking funds for government agencies to adopt the same
            fraud prevention and consumer protection technologies it
            encourages the private sector to utilize. Agencies like the SBA
            and FEMA, whose programs often mirror private sector
            operations, are well-positioned to lead by example. By
            deploying authenticity and transparency technologies, the
            government can set a standard and serve as a model for industry
            adoption, demonstrating the effectiveness of these tools in
            protecting consumers and reducing fraud. Successes can be used
            as educational tools for industry and the general public and
            amplify the overall goals.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                 Mounir Ibrahim
    Differences in Content Authenticity vs. Disclosure Approaches
        There are two primary approaches for identifying manipulated
    content. The first is the C2PA route, which is a standard for verifying
    the source and integrity of the content. The other is to label or
    disclose synthetic content, such as AI-generated materials. Both
    approaches have pros and cons: authenticity builds trust but requires
    more technical systems to verify, while disclosures are more
    straightforward to the consumer but rely on creators' compliance and
    are more easily circumvented.

        Question 1. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages
    of using content authenticity to confirm the source of online material
    compared to content disclosures that identify synthetic content like
    AI-generated posts?
        Answer. Disclosure of the origins of content can occur with either
    authentic or synthetic content. The C2PA standard, or Content
    Credentials, is a form of disclosure when platforms display or ``pass
    through'' the transparency information to the content consumer. Below
    are two examples of using Content Credentials for disclosures: one for
    authentic and one for synthetic. You can see each clearly labeled as
    such.

        Example of authentic image with Content Credential disclosure

        Example of synthetic image using C2PA Content Credentials to
    disclose its origins

        For either of these images to scale and move through the Internet
    without losing their cryptographic seal (which would occur if the image
    were moved to a non-compliant platform) adoption would be necessary
    throughout the many facets of the internet. This includes OEMs, CDNs,
    browsers, and distribution platforms. While we are encouraged to see
    growth and interest in the C2PA's Content Credentials, we also
    recognize that this process will take time, education, and buy-in with
    the approach.
        We agree that content authenticity extends beyond simply disclosing
    the origins and creation mechanisms of digital content. A key
    distinction lies in validating the authenticity of all data and
    information associated with the content. This requires a robust
    attestation mechanism to ensure the metadata cryptographically embedded
    in the file is accurate and verified. The C2PA is actively exploring
    how creation mechanisms with varying levels of security can be
    effectively communicated through Content Credentials. Truepic takes
    this a step further by addressing challenges like rebroadcast attacks,
    where bad actors capture an image of a screen displaying another image.
    In such cases, while the metadata may be authentic, the content itself
    is deceptive. Truepic's expertise lies in preventing such scenarios,
    ensuring the integrity of both the metadata and the content. Other
    methods, such as watermarks and digital fingerprints, can also play a
    vital role in authenticating content by tracing its origin and ensuring
    it remains untampered. When used in combination, these mechanisms
    complement each other, creating a more comprehensive and robust
    framework for digital content authentication. Together, they strengthen
    the ability to verify authenticity, protect against tampering, and
    build trust in the integrity of digital media.

        Question 2. Do you think these two approaches complement each other
    or is one preferable to the other?
        Answer. We firmly believe that content authenticity and labeling
    through C2PA Content Credentials are complementary and mutually
    reinforcing. Truepic's flagship platform, Vision, embodies this belief.
    Vision is a comprehensive content authenticity platform where C2PA
    Content Credentials serve as a foundational component, augmented by
    additional veracity and authenticity tests.
        These combined efforts ensure our partners and clients receive the
    highest level of confidence in the integrity of their digital content.
    Ultimately, we envision the integration of Content Credentials with
    advanced authenticity mechanisms becoming a best practice, delivering
    the greatest value to both enterprises and consumers alike.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                 Mounir Ibrahim
        Question 1. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity
    (C2PA) has introduced a content credentials ``icon of transparency'',
    which is open source and can be added to video and image content.
    Hovering over the icon would reveal a ``digital nutrition label''
    containing information such as: ``the publisher or creator's
    information, where and when it was created, what tools were used to
    make it, including whether or not generative AI was used, as well as
    any edits that were made along the way.'' [1] Do Truepic and
    the C2PA believe that it should be voluntary for a social media company
    or online platform to display content credentials information for the
    content that they distribute? Why or why not? Please note that this
    question is focused on whether the disclosure of content credentials
    information should be voluntary/mandatory, not whether the use of the
    C2PA's icon should be voluntary/mandatory.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[1]\ Introducing Official Content Credentials Icon--C2PA
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. We believe it is essential for any distribution platform--
    whether a social media platform, commerce platform, or exchange--to
    effectively relay transparency and authenticity signals embedded in
    digital content to the end user. When content carries such information,
    designed to inform or empower consumers to make more informed
    decisions, it should be conveyed through a reliable and accessible
    mechanism that preserves its intent and value.
        We also acknowledge that the style and method of relaying
    transparency information to consumers may vary depending on the
    platform and its user base. Essential details, such as whether the
    content originates from an AI or synthesis mechanism or was captured by
    a human using a camera, should always be clearly communicated. However,
    other metadata--such as time, date, or location--may not always be
    relevant and could be displayed at the discretion of the platform,
    tailored to the needs of its audience. Importantly, while the use of
    the exact C2PA icon and display may not be necessary for every piece of
    content, we strongly believe that preserving the intent of transparency
    markings--empowering consumers to make more informed decisions--is
    critical.

        Question 2. If the display of content credentials information were
    to remain voluntary, what recommendations do Truepic and C2PA have for
    consumers who use platforms that do not display this information and
    are unsure of whether a piece of content is AI-generated? In other
    words, how can we best equip consumers with the information they need
    to understand and interpret the media content they are seeing?
        Answer. On platforms operating under the status quo, where content
    consumers have no indication of authenticity or synthesis, the best
    guidance we can offer is to emphasize fundamental media literacy
    principles. Educating users to critically evaluate content, question
    sources, and recognize potential manipulation remains essential in such
    environments. Some publicly available technical tools like reverse
    image search and EXIF viewers can potentially provide clues and added
    context on the image but the authenticity of results should always be
    in question.

        Question 3. Are content provenance and authenticity standards
    efforts underway for audio content? If so, please describe these
    initiatives, how they would work in practice, and how scalable this
    approach would be.
        Answer. Yes, they are. The C2PA's Content Credentials can be added
    to audio and Truepic's technology does so. They can be used for
    authentic audio or synthetic creations alike. Similar to an image the
    creation mechanism (recording device like a phone or video camera, or
    synthesis platform) would add Content Credentials at the point of
    creation. However, it is important to note that audio is a much more
    challenging medium to ensure authenticity--even with the presence of
    Content Credentials.
        Unlike imagery, preventing rebroadcast audio attacks is incredibly
    difficult. For example, bad actors can capture audio of another audio
    while adding Content Credentials to the recapture to deceive consumers
    into thinking it is authentic. With imagery, various content
    authenticity techniques can detect rebroadcast visually, but that same
    capability does not exist for audio at reasonable accuracy levels.
        For these reasons, Truepic only provides its Content Credentials
    for audio in closed systems, in which it is used as one data point for
    an enterprise or organization or for the synthetic creation of audio.
    In which the audio is immediately marked as synthetic from its
    creation.

                                      [all]