DEEPFAKE, PROPAGANDA, DISINFORMATION: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE, AND HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN DEAL WITH IT
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-1396
Abstract
The number of cyber incidents in Lithuania, as in the whole world, is increasing every year. According to the National Cyber Security Center at the Ministry of National Defense, in 2020 cybernetic incidents of a different kind increased by 25 per cent, and the number of incidents related to the distribution of malware increased by as much as 49 per cent, the same trend being observed in other states. Such categories as deep fake, propaganda, and disinformation are related to cybersecurity as well. Propaganda, systemic disinformation campaigns and deep fake content are designed to misinform the public, influence politics and democratic processes, and contribute to fraud and other crimes. It's amazing when deep fake images created with the help of AI add value to a movie but is very threatening and provocative when a fake and heavily manipulated video depicting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy circulated on social media and was placed on a Ukrainian news website by hackers in early March 2022. Is law offering at least some tools that can help victims of crimes that can be incriminated when using deep fakes (such as defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, privacy tort, and some others) to protect themselves, and– are law enforcement officials ready to identify and prevent these possible violations, and what other possible threats deep fakes can have on law enforcement activities is being discussed in this article. The author of this article raised a hypothesis that Lithuanian law enforcement institutions, despite being late and reacting to post-incident manifestations of information warfare, have a clear strategy for combating this type of activity, at least to monitor and prevent it. Law enforcement authorities can take specific legal actions only if one or another activity is defined as criminal at the legislative level. Therefore, a methodological decision was made to conduct qualitative research, that is, interviews with two experts who, due to their positions, could discuss the topic of the research. The results of the interviews were unexpected and required the adoption of non-traditional scientific decisions by the author of this article.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Authorship Responsibility and Authors' Statements
The authors must submit the Author's Guarantee Form, declaring that the article submitted to Public Security and Public Order is an original work and has neither been published nor is under consideration for publication elsewhere. More so, the work has been carried out by the authors and the article does not contravene any existing copyright or any other third party rights. The AUTHOR'S GUARANTEE FORM could be found HERE
Authors contributing to Public Security and Public Order agree to publish their articles allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it with a condition of proper referencing; the authors contributing agree to transfer all copyright ownership of the manuscript to the Public Security and Public Order.
