Title: Bar Council Calls for Legal Framework to Regulate AI in Elections
The Bar Council has emphasized the urgent need for laws governing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in electoral campaigns to prevent its potential adverse implementation. Sarah Yong Li Hsien, Chairperson of the Bar Council’s technology, cyber, and privacy law committee, points out that while the Election Offences Act 1959 criminalizes corrupt practices and acts that impede an individual’s free will in elections, AI technologies can be utilized to carry out such offenses more surreptitiously.
Unlike in Europe, where recent legislation such as the AI Act aims to enhance regulations on AI’s development and usage, Malaysia lacks comprehensive laws addressing the risks posed by AI in elections. The World Economic Forum’s report indicates that Malaysia is particularly exposed to potential AI abuses. According to Sarah Yong, AI can deceive and manipulate masses on a highly personal level, significantly compromising their ability to exercise free will in the voting process.
The abuse of AI in elections encompasses various methods, including the utilization of AI-generated photos and videos, AI bots impersonating real individuals on social media platforms, targeted political advertising based on personal data, and profiling individuals based on sensitive information such as race, religious beliefs, and political views. Current laws in Malaysia are considered inadequate and outdated, as they fail to sufficiently cover these AI-driven abuses.
With regards to AI regulation, the Science, Technology, and Innovation Ministry acknowledges the necessity of a clear legal framework to prevent the possible abuse of AI in elections. Minister Chang Lih Kang highlights the importance of robust legal frameworks and ethical guidelines for AI use, proposing laws that mandate information source transparency and severe penalties for disseminating false information through AI tools.
While Malaysia does not currently possess specific laws governing AI, existing legislation such as the Communications and Multimedia Act 2010 (CMA) and the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) partially address potential AI abuses. Section 211 of the CMA prohibits the dissemination of indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive content, while Section 233 prohibits the creation, solicitation, and transmission of similar communications. However, the PDPA’s jurisdiction may be insufficient to address the misuse of personal data in elections.
The potential regulation of AI in Malaysia remains under consideration by the Ministry, indicating a commitment to tackling this pressing issue. While no standalone law currently exists, Sarah Yong believes that the ambiguity surrounding the abuse of AI can fall within existing legal frameworks. However, it is vital to enact legislation specific to AI’s rapidly evolving capabilities to ensure the integrity and transparency of electoral campaigns.
In conclusion, the Bar Council’s call for comprehensive laws and ethical guidelines to regulate AI in electoral campaigns signifies the importance of safeguarding the democratic process from potential AI abuses. Considering the inadequacy of Malaysia’s existing legal frameworks, the government’s focus on establishing a clear AI regulation framework is crucial to protect the electorate’s well-informed decision-making and maintain democratic integrity in the era of AI-driven election campaigns.
