WITNESS calls for human rights to shape the future of AI at the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva.
After 25 years of visionary leadership at WITNESS, Sam Gregory to step down as Executive Director.
On July 8, WITNESS and the Forum on Information and Democracy hosted Trustworthy by Design: AI, Content Authenticity, and the Future of Reliable Information, a convening that brought together experts from human rights, journalism, humanitarian action, technology, research, policymaking, and standards development to discuss one of the defining challenges of the AI era: how to safeguard reliable information while protecting privacy, safety, and human rights. Across the discussions, speakers emphasized that technical solutions alone will not be enough to strengthen trust in the digital information ecosystem. They highlighted the importance of collaboration among governments, civil society, technology companies, journalists, humanitarian organizations, and standards bodies, while stressing that governance and accountability must evolve alongside AI technologies. They also emphasized that efforts to strengthen information integrity must protect privacy, civic space, and human rights. The program featured opening remarks from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and WITNESS, with Mahsa Alimardani, Associate Director at WITNESS, and Bruna Martins dos Santos, Policy and Advocacy Manager at WITNESS, guiding discussions throughout the day. The event also included the launch of WITNESS’s new report, presented by Jacobo Castellanos, AI Infrastructure & Governance Manager at WITNESS, alongside discussions featuring representatives from
The Meta Oversight Board, an independent body that reviews the company’s content moderation decisions, today overturned Meta’s decision to keep online an AI-generated sexualized video that had been reported by users, citing concerns about the enforcement of its policies on non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII). The ruling aligns with recommendations submitted by WITNESS in a public comment to the Board earlier this year. The case involved an Instagram video depicting a woman that was reported as pornographic but only age-restricted by Meta, which determined that it did not violate the platform’s “Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity” policy. In its decision, the Oversight Board reversed Meta’s determination and raised broader concerns about the company’s handling of non-consensual intimate imagery and its reliance on user reports to identify and remove harmful content, reflecting points raised by WITNESS in its submission. WITNESS Recommendations to the Board WITNESS’ submission argued that Meta’s current approach is structurally insufficient because it fails to recognize AI-generated NCII as a form of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), relies too heavily on automated systems that under-prioritize harm, and and overlooks the central issue of consent. The submission also highlighted the need for the Oversight Board to reiterate its 2024 recommendations, many
Over the last months, stakeholders all over Europe have been united around the goal of coming up with clearer rules for AI transparency and AI-generated or manipulated content. These efforts are part of the first Code of Practice (COP) under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the European Union’s landmark legislation regulating artificial intelligence. The COP aims to set rules for disclosures to users when they interact with AI systems, including realistic synthetic media. It is also an effort to turn the broader principles of the EU AI Act into more concrete guidance for companies and platforms. As part of this process, successive draft versions are released for review and feedback from civil society organizations, industry representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders. WITNESS has been a member of the working group created to discuss these incoming rules. While reviewing the second draft of the COP, the organization submitted recommendations to Working Groups One and Two, which are responsible for developing rules around AI-generated and manipulated content. These groups are discussing issues such as how generative AI providers should identify and detect AI systems, as well as how platforms and deployers should label deepfakes and certain AI-generated or manipulated text shared