It appears to regulate processing non-consensual sexual imagery although I haven’t had the time to read through this huge bill. I don’t know if there are any drawbacks.
@Chie Is this satisfactory for you?
1 Like
I hope that it clarifies that it does not include fiction.
1 Like
It has weird and inconsistent language.
“individual” is defined as a “natural person”.
For “sensitive covered data”, it makes clear it covers an “individual”. In a section to define content which is presumptively private, it mentions Section 1460 (an archaic obscenity law). In another to define content which is presumptively private, it mentions “Intimate images, authentic or generated by a computer or by artificial intelligence, known to be non-consensual.”
There is no mention of “individual” there although it’s a large and complex law. It could be to prevent someone from disclosing that without consent. If Section 1460 is supposed to be a definition of intimate material though, it is a really bad one.
Update
Looking at it further, something fictional is likely to fall under another “exclusion”.
1 Like