Cited by 175Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryMisinformation and Its Impacts

The Distinct Wrong of Deepfakes

Open access
de Ruiter, Adrienne·2021·Philosophy & Technology

Abstract

Deepfake technology presents significant ethical challenges. The ability to produce realistic looking and sounding video or audio files of people doing or saying things they did not do or say brings with it unprecedented opportunities for deception. The literature that addresses the ethical implications of deepfakes raises concerns about their potential use for blackmail, intimidation, and sabotage, ideological influencing, and incitement to violence as well as broader implications for trust and accountability. While this literature importantly identifies and signals the potentially far-reaching consequences, less attention is paid to the moral dimensions of deepfake technology and deepfakes themselves. This article will help fill this gap by analysing whether deepfake technology and deepfakes are intrinsically morally wrong, and if so, why. The main argument is that deepfake technology and deepfakes are morally suspect, but not inherently morally wrong. Three factors are central to determining whether a deepfake is morally problematic: (i) whether the deepfaked person(s) would object to the way in which they are represented; (ii) whether the deepfake deceives viewers; and (iii) the intent with which the deepfake was created. The most distinctive aspect that renders deepfakes morally wrong is when they use digital data representing the image and/or voice of persons to portray them in ways in which they would be unwilling to be portrayed. Since our image and voice are closely linked to our identity, protection against the manipulation of hyper-realistic digital representations of our image and voice should be considered a fundamental moral right in the age of deepfakes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-021-00459-2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 175

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Agarwal, S., Farid, H., Gu, Y., He, M., Nagano, K. & Li, H. (2019). Protecting world leaders against deep fakes. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 38-45.
  2. Anscombe, G. E. M. (2000). [1957]. Intention. Harvard University Press.
  3. Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press.
  4. Caplan, A. (2004). Facing ourselves. American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3), 18-19.
  5. Caporusso, N. (2021). Deepfakes for the good: A beneficial application of contentious artificial intelli- gence technology. In T. Ahram (Ed.), Advances in artificial intelligence, software and systems engi- neering. Proceedings of the AFHE 2020 virtual conferences on software and systems engineering, and artificial intelligence and social computing, July 16-20, 2020 (pp. 235-241). Springer.
  6. Carosella, E. D., & Pradeu, T. (2006). Transplantation and identity: A dangerous split? Lancet, 368(9531), 183-184.
  7. Chawla, R. (2019). Deepfakes: How a pervert shook the world. International Journal of Advance Research and Development, 4(6), 4-8.
  8. Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345-391.
  9. Citron, D. K., & Chesney, R. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107, 1753-1819.
  10. Farwell, J. P., & Rohonzinski, R. (2011). Stuxnet and the future of cyber war. Survival, 53(1), 23-40.
  11. Fletcher, J. (2018). Deepfakes, artificial intelligence, and some kind of dystopia: The new faces of online post-fact performance. Theatre Journal, 70, 455-471.
  12. Franks, A., & Waldman, A. E. (2019). Sex, lies, and videotapes: Deep fakes and free speech illusions. Maryland Law Review, 78(4), 892-898.
  13. Haemmerli, A. (1999). Whose who? The case for a Kantian right of publicity. Duke Law Journal, 49(2), 383-492.
  14. Hao, K. (2019, October 10). The biggest threat of deepfakes isn't the deepfakes themselves. MIT Technol- ogy Review. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https:// www. techn ology review. com/ 2019/ 10/ 10/ 132667/ the-bigge st-threat-of-deepf akes-isnt-the-deepf akes-thems elves/.
  15. Harris, D. (2019). Deepfakes: False pornography is here and the law cannot protect you. Duke Law & Technology Review, 17, 99-127.
  16. Johnson, B. (2019, March 25). Deepfakes are solvable -but don't forget that "shallowfakes" are already pervasive. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https:// www. techn ology review. com/ 2019/ 03/ 25/ 136460/ deepf akes-shall owfak es-human-rights/.
  17. Li, Y., Chang, M.-C. & Lyu, S. (2018). In ictu oculi: Exposing AI created fake videos by detecting eye blinking. IEEE workshop on information forensics and security.
  18. McKenna, M. P. (2005). The right of publicity and autonomous self-definition. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 67, 225-294.
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (translated by C. Smith). Routledge.
  20. Meskys, E., Liaudanskas, A., Kalpokiene, J., & Jurcys, P. (2020). Regulating deep fakes: Legal and ethi- cal considerations. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15(1), 24-31.
  21. Mohebbi, S. (2016). The right to one's self-image. In E. Balsom & H. Peleg (Eds.), Documentary across disciplines (pp. 280-293). Haus der Kulturen der Welt and MIT Press.
  22. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2017). Deterrence and dissuasion in cyberspace. International Security, 41(3), 44-71.
  23. Paterson, T., & Hanley, L. (2020). Political warfare in the digital age: Cyber subversion, information operations, and "deep fakes." Australian Journal of International Affairs, 74(4), 439-454.
  24. Petty, R. D., & D'Rozario, D. (2009). The use of dead celebrities in advertising and marketing: Balancing interests in the right of publicity. Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 37-49.
  25. Post, R. C. & Rothman, J. E. (2020). The first amendment and the right(s) of publicity. Yale Law Review, 130(1).
  26. Robertson, J. (2004). Face transplants: Enriching the debate. American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3), 32-33.
  27. Silbey, J.M., & Hartzog, W. (2019). The upside of deep fakes. Maryland Law Review, 78(4), 960-966.
  28. Spivak, R. (2019). 'Deepfakes': The newest way to commit one of the oldest crimes. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 3(2), 339-400.
  29. Swindell, J. S. (2007). Facial allograft transplantation, personal identity and subjectivity. Journal of Med- ical Ethics, 33(8), 449-453.
  30. Thies, J., Zollhöfer, M., Stamminger, M., Theobalt, C. & Nießner, M. (2016). Face2Face: Real-time face capture and reenactment of RBG videos. Proceeding of 2016 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR).
  31. Valeriano, B., & Maness, R. C. (2015). Cyber war versus cyber realities. Cyber conflict in the interna- tional system. Oxford University Press.
  32. Weimann, G. (2015). Terrorism in cyberspace: The next generation. Columbia University Press.
  33. Westerlund, M. (2019). The emergence of deepfake technology: A review. Technology Innovation Man- agement Review, 9(11), 39-52.
  34. Wilson, D. G. (2017). The ethics of automated behavioral microtargeting. AI Matters, 3(3), 56-64.
  35. Yang, X., Li, Y. & Liu, S. (2019). Exposing deepfakes using inconsistent head poses. IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing.
  36. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Möller, J., Kruikemeier, S., Ó Fathaigh, R., Irion, K., Dobber, T., Bodo, B. & de Vreese, C. (2018). Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), 82-96.

Authors
de Ruiter, A.
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2021-06-10
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
1311-1332
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
OpenAlex
W3166900385
Cited by
175
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
FWCI
26.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
deepfakes, moral wrongness, deception, consent, identity, image editing, moral rights, intention, AI ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review