Barry Ward’s Letter about Grok/AI

TD Barry Ward, who is also a barrister, has written a letter laying out very clearly why X/Grok could and should be prosecuted immediately under existing Irish law. I’m sharing it in full as it is the public interest. I’ll add my own opinion that the X premises should be raided as soon as possible before evidence can be destroyed.

The letter follows

–o–

To:
Detective Superintendent Pat Ryan
Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau

Dear Superintendent,

You will no doubt be aware of the social media company X and its Grok app, which utilises artificial intelligence to generate pictures and videos. I understand you are also aware that, among its capabilities is the generation, by artificial intelligence, of false images of real people either naked or in bikinis, etc. There has been a great deal of controversy recently about the use of this technology and its ability to target people without their knowledge or consent.

Whatever about the sharing of such images being contrary to the provisions of Coco’s Law (sections 2 and 3 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020), the Grok app is also capable of generating child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child pornography as defined by section 2(1) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (as substituted by section 9(b) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017).

In the circumstances, it seems there are reasonable grounds that the corporate entity X, as owner of Grok, or indeed the corporate entity Grok itself, is acting in contravention of a number of provisions of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (as amended). Inter alia, it is my contention that the following offences are being committed by X, Grok, and/or its subsidiaries:

1.⁠ ⁠Possession of child pornography contrary to section 6(1) in that the material generated by the Grok app must be stored on servers owned and/or operated by X and with the company’s knowledge, in this jurisdiction or in the European Union [subsections 6(3) and (4) would not apply in this case];

2.⁠ ⁠Production of child pornography contrary to section 5(1)(a) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that material is being generated by the Grok app, which constitutes child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child pornography as defined by section 2(1), since it constitutes a visual representation that shows person who is depicted as being a child “being engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit activity” (per paragraph (a)(i) of the definition of child pornography in section 2(1) as amended by section 9(b) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017);

3.⁠ ⁠Distribution of chiid pornography contrary to section 5(1)(b) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that the said images that constitute child pornography are being distributed, transmitted, disseminated or published to the users of the Grok app by X or its subsidiaries;

4.⁠ ⁠Distribution of chiid pornography contrary to section 5(1)(c) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that the Child pornography is being sold to the users of the Grok app by X or its subsidiaries, now that the app has been very publically put behind a pay wall;

5.⁠ ⁠Knowing possession any child pornography for the purpose of distributing, transmitting, disseminating, publishing, exporting, selling or showing same, contrary to section 5(1)(g) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

You will also be aware that, pursuant to section 9(1) of the 1998 Act, a body corporate is equally liable to be proceeded against and punished as if it were an individual.

Given the foregoing, as well as the public outcry against public decency, it is clear to me that X is flagrantly disregarding the laws of this country put in place by the Oireachtas to protect its citizens.

I am formally lodging this criminal complaint in the anticipation that you will investigate it fully and transmit a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions without delay; I would be grateful to hear from you in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Ward TD
Senior Counsel

88 Responses to “Barry Ward’s Letter about Grok/AI”

  1. @telescoper.blog there is zero chance of this ever happening and Ward is grandstanding

  2. I think this raises a serious and necessary question about accountability. Whatever one thinks about AI in general, existing laws around consent, harm, and especially child protection are not optional or “theoretical.” If a system can generate this material at scale, then governance, enforcement, and responsibility can’t be waved away as future problems. This feels less like an AI debate and more like a test of whether the law is applied consistently when technology moves fast.

  3. @telescoper.blog

    I emailed Mr. Ward:

    Dear TD,

    While I applaud your letter to Pat Ryan and I wholeheartedly support your efforts to hold the platform accountable, I must ask you to lead by example.

    When I look up your contact information I see you still offer people the option to follow you on X – still showing the older Twitter icon.

    While I appreciate that keeping a web page up to date may not seem high priority to you, in this case I would urge you to take it seriously and to get this reference removed from your contact information. If you are still operating an account on X, please close it. There can be no moral justification to maintain a presence on a platform so cavalier with its attitude to the right of people not to have their images used to produce pornographic or sexually suggestive material.

    Please, also speak with your colleagues in Fine Gael and the other parties in the Dáil. Taking legal action against X and Grok is great, but walking away from the platform is the least you should do.

    #LoseTheXLink #BarryWard

Leave a comment