Good intentions, but hazy implementation

There’s a difference, sometimes, between doing the right thing and ensuring the right thing is done.

By introducing changes to strengthen the laws governing the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, Manitoba’s provincial government is clearly doing the right thing. The ongoing evolution (some would argue devolution) of the internet and social media, and the rise of artificial intelligence, have turned the online realm into a figurative wild-west frontier, and the NDP government has recognized the potential trauma that can be created by individuals seeking to use the internet to inflict personal harm on others.

Last Thursday, Justice Minister Matt Wiebe unveiled a series of proposed changes to the Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, including an expansion of the definition of intimate images to include “nearly nude,” a prohibition on taking or sharing nude or nearly nude images of a person “after their death,” and a provision making it illegal to threaten to distribute intimate images — a tactic that can be used as a form of blackmail.

The changes are the latest in an ongoing series of legislative adjustments; last June, the same law was renamed and expanded to include images created or altered using AI or other machine-learning software. That bill also allowed victims to sue those responsible for distributing such images without their consent.

The latest amendments are common-sense changes to a law dealing with what one advocate described as “the ever-evolving landscape of online victimization.” And as the pace of technological change continues to accelerate, one can’t help thinking they won’t be the last.

The amended law will also require courts to consider a complainant’s view when deciding whether to impose a publication ban, and will allow for civil action against websites that fail to remove images within a reasonable time.

And that’s where things get a bit tricky.

The proposed bill would also compel websites to remove images that have been identified as contravening the law. Exactly how this mid-sized Canadian province intends to force global social-media giants to do so remains unclear.

Wiebe says it’s up to the companies in question to follow the legislation in jurisdictions in which they operate, and that if they fail to do so, it will be up to the courts to decide what remedies and penalties will be applied.

“It’s an important question that I think a lot of jurisdictions are wrestling (with) in (terms of) how we can impact and influence those companies,” the minister conceded.

Indeed. The subtext of Wiebe’s statement seems to be that Manitoba — like every other jurisdiction grappling with how to address the harms created by the online dissemination of unfiltered and unmoderated misinformation, mischief and outright hate — will have strongly worded laws in place but isn’t quite sure how it’s going to enforce them.

Around the world, governments and public-protection agencies have continually railed against the dangers their citizens face online. They demand local solutions to local crises and, almost without exception, the global entities responsible for social media and its various offshoots do nothing, citing “freedom of information” as their justification for ignoring the corrosive consequences of their creations.

Of course, it’s important for Manitoba to have clear and inclusive definitions enshrined in law and to support those who have been harmed by the actions of others. But when it comes to the most important element of this issue — ensuring that intimate images distributed without consent are removed from the online realms in which they have been unleashed — the limited power of legislative good intentions will likely be revealed the first time Manitoba goes head-to-head with a global website proprietor over a violation of provincial law.