Camarda Reinvent Albany on Intro 12A - AI disclosure
Alex Camarda of Reinvent Albany supports disclosure of AI-altered political communications but urges the bill require disclosure in the communication itself, not just to CFB. He raises concerns about intersection with state election law, undefined terms, and whether provenance data will be available to voters in real time.
Good afternoon, Chair Brewer and members of the Council Committee on Governmental Operations, State and Federal Legislation.
My name is Alex Camarda.
I'm a senior policy advisor for Reinvent Albany.
Reinvent Albany is a watchdog organization that advocates for open and accountable government in New York.
Reinvent Albany supports the intent and spirit of both Intro 12A and Intro 951, but believes the Council needs to better account for how these proposals intersect with the existing law.
Regarding Intro number 12A, Reinvent Albany supports disclosure of when political communications are created by artificial intelligence or altered by it.
The advent of social media and more recently artificial intelligence have made it very challenging for New Yorkers to discern between the truth and fiction in digital media related to candidates running for office in political and public policy discourse.
Social media platforms are awash in communications where
The sources are not clearly identifiable, and facts and untruths mingle together.
The growing use of artificial intelligence compounds this already significant problem with videos, sound, and pictures reflecting reality altered to create a false impression with the viewer often unaware of the manipulation.
Intro number 12A takes a first step in addressing the growing challenges to voters making informed choices about candidates by requiring provenance data, underlying metadata indicating when political communications were altered and by what tool
to be disclosed to the New York City Campaign Finance Board and made available to the public online.
While not explicitly indicated in the bill language, this disclosure appears to be implemented in concert with CFB's disclosure regime and its rules, and subject to the existing enforcement procedures and penalties,
the latter of which is referenced in the bill summary.
While Reinvent Albany commends the Speaker for tackling this issue, it is also imperative that the bill at minimum clarify that disclosure is required in the communication itself that simply states
this image, video, or audio has been manipulated consistent with New York State election law.
Reinvent Albany will only support legislation that contains this disclosure in the communication itself because it ensures that voters are informed in real time and can adequately process the message to make an informed consideration of the candidate running for office.
Beyond the recommended...
disclosure in the communication.
There are several other issues the council should clarify or consider before passing this bill.
Some embodied in Governor Hochul's fiscal year 27 budget proposals and contemplated in briefs on the issue by national experts like the Brennan Center for Justice.
Specifically, the council should clarify in the bill summary or legislative intent how this legislation builds on or intersects with New York State election law 14-106,
which already requires disclosure of, quote, material deceptive media, with few exceptions.
Adequately define synthetic content creation system and provenance data as the bill references section 1550 of the New York State General Business Law, which currently doesn't exist.
In determining these definitions, the council should consider whether to include personal identifying information, for example, as part of the provenance data, such as an internet protocol address.
Charge synthetic content creation system providers like OpenAI and Meta with providing a tool to the public to read provenance data and political and policy-related communications, as is mandated in the New York State Fiscal 27 Executive Budget Proposals.
Prohibit the creation or publication of a deepfake within 90 days of an election if the publisher knows or should know it was fake.
It was intended to impact the election and was made without a candidate's or individual's permission if they are featured in the deepfake, as was done in the executive.
budget proposals.
This will require examining constitutional permissibility.
And clarify if copies of communications will be provided to the campaign finance board and made public with prominence data for communications sent by candidate committees.
It's our understanding that unlike independent expenditure committees, candidate committees are not required to submit originals or copies of their campaign communications until the post-election audit process and are not posted publicly in the searchable database.
If Providence data is not provided until well after voters have cast their ballots or is provided without a copy of the communication, a voter can reference.
When reviewing the data, the utility of this disclosure requirement will be greatly diminished.
And lastly, amend Section 1 of the bill to not only reference new additions to the campaign finance database this bill requires, but also other disclosures beyond contributions and expenditures of a campaign's authorized committee.