SINGAPORE: Last week, it emerged that deepfake nude photos of Singapore Sports School students had been created and circulated by schoolmates.
This came on the back of politicians – including Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan – receiving extortion letters with manipulated, obscene photos earlier in 2024.
Experts have pointed to an “explosion” of deepfakes – created using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to alter visual and audio content – as a recent and intensifying scourge.
What are the legal options?
Acts involving such doctored photos could constitute offences under the Penal Code, according to lawyers.
“As these are all serious arrestable offences, the police would investigate and if the perpetrator can be found, the matter would likely result in state prosecution,” said Mr Cory Wong, director of Invictus Law.
He pointed to specific sections under the Penal Code that could apply to the victims from the Singapore Sports School, who would range from 13 to 18 years old.
Someone who produces deepfake AI porn with the face of a person below the age of 16 could be charged for intentionally producing child abuse material under Section 377BH of the Penal Code, said Mr Wong.
This carries a jail term of up to 10 years with the possibility of a fine or caning.
For distributing child abuse material, a person could be jailed up to seven years, and can also be liable to a fine or to caning.
If the victims are aged 16 or above, the offences could fall under Section 377BE of distributing intimate images, said Mr Wong.
This section carries a jail term of up to five years, along with a possible fine and caning.
Under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), those who intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress could be charged as well. And this could apply to creators and distributors of deepfake pornography, said Ms Tania Chin, director of the litigation department at TSMP Law.
Victims could also file a POHA application to get a protection order against a perpetrator.
A protection order could include terms for a perpetrator to take down the content and to not publish or circulate the content, said Mr Wong.
Still, he acknowledged that the victim would not be able to sue each social media user who further circulates the content, essentially rendering a protection order “pointless” in this scenario.
Under Singapore’s Films Act, possession or creation of an obscene deepfake video could also be an offence.
