Ghibli Trend: Another Ethical Conundrum Caused by AI?
The Ghibli trend has been in the news for the past couple of weeks for multiple reasons, be it good or bad. The nostalgia that everyone has for the art form has made people turn a blind eye to what the trend means to the artists who painstakingly create the art. The open-source platforms may be trained on artistic material without the artist's ‘explicit permission’ making it so that the rights of the artists are downgraded. The artistic community has reached a level where they are questioning their ability to create, which can be recreated by this software in a couple of seconds and without any thought as to what it is doing. OpenAI’s update on ChatGPT makes it simple for users to create illustrations that are like the style created by Hayao Miyazaki and made into anything from personal pictures to movie scenes and making them into Ghibli-style art. The updates in AI to generate art, including Ghibli-style, may raise critical questions about artistic integrity, intellectual property, and data privacy risks.
AI and the Democratization of Creativity
AI-powered tools have lowered barriers and enable more people to engage with artistic expression. AI allows people to create appealing content in the form of art regardless of their artistic capabilities. The update of ChatGPT has made it so that art has been democratized, and the abilities of the user don't matter. It makes art accessible, efficient and a creative experiment to many.
Unfortunately, these developments also pose challenges for the original artistry and the labour of human creators. The concern doesn't just stop at AI replacing artists, but also about the potential misuse it can lead to. This includes unauthorized replication of distinct styles or deepfake applications. When it is used ethically, AI can enhance artistic processes. It can assist with repetitive tasks, improving efficiency, and enabling creative experimentation.
However, its ability to mimic existing styles raises concerns. The potential that AI-generated content has could lead to a devaluation of human artists' work, potential copyright issues, and even data privacy risks. Unauthorized training of AI models that create art can be exploited for misinformation and deepfakes, making human oversight essential. Few artists believe that AI artworks are disrupting the accepted norms of the art world. Additionally, AI can misinterpret prompts, producing distorted or unethical imagery that contradicts artistic intent and cultural values, highlighting the critical need for human oversight.
The Ethical and Legal Dilemmas
The main dilemma that surrounds trends such as the Ghibli trend is whether it compromises human efforts by blurring the line between inspiration and infringement of artistic freedom. Further, an issue that is not considered by most users is whether the personal content (personal pictures in this case) uploaded on AI models is posing a risk to their privacy. This leads to the issue where the potential misuse of AI-generated content can be used to spread misinformation through misleading or inappropriate visuals.
The negative effects can only be balanced if a policy framework is created that can ensure the fair use of AI in Art. Further, this should ensure that the training of AI models is done in a manner that is fair to the artists who are the original creators of a style. Human oversight is needed to moderate the AI-generated content. This oversight can be created by creating ethical AI usage guidelines for platforms that host AI-generated art.
Conclusion: What Can Potentially Be Done?
AI is not a replacement for human effort, it is to ease human effort. We need to promote a balanced AI approach that protects the integrity of artists and, at the same time, continues to foster innovation. And finally, strengthening copyright laws to address AI-generated content. Labelling AI content and ensuring that this content is disclosed as AI-generated is the first step. Furthermore, there should be fair compensation made to the human artists based on whose work the AI model is trained. There is an increasing need to create global AI ethics guidelines to ensure that there is transparency, ethical use and human oversight in AI-driven art. The need of the hour is that industries should work collaboratively with regulators to ensure that there is responsible use of AI.
References
- https://medium.com/@haileyq/my-experience-with-studio-ghibli-style-ai-art-ethical-debates-in-the-gpt-4o-era-b84e5a24cb60
- https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241018-ai-art-the-end-of-creativity-or-a-new-movement
Related Blogs
Introduction
DDoS – Distributed Denial of Service Attack is one of the cyber-attacks which has been evolving at the fastest pace, the new technologies have created a blanket of vulnerability for the victim which allows the cyber criminals to stay under the radar and keep launching small scale high intensity cyber attacks. A distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt the normal traffic of a targeted server, service, or network by overwhelming the target or its surrounding infrastructure with a flood of Internet traffic. DDoS attacks achieve effectiveness by utilizing multiple compromised computer systems as sources of attack traffic. Exploited machines can include computers and other networked resources such as IoT devices. From a high level, a DDoS attack is like an unexpected traffic jam clogging up the highway, preventing regular traffic from arriving at its destination.
Op Power Off
In a recent Operation by Law enforcement agencies known as Op Power Off, LEAs from United Kingdom, United States of America, Netherlands, Poland, and Germany joined hands to target the cybergroups committing such large-scale attacks which can paralyse the Internet become inaccessible for a large faction of netizens. The services collectively seized were by far the most popular DDoS booter services on the market, receiving top billing on search engines. One such service taken down had been used to carry out over 30 million attacks. As part of this action, seven administrators have been arrested so far in the United States and the United Kingdom, with further actions planned against the users of these illegal services. International police cooperation was central to the success of this operation as the administrators, users, critical infrastructure, and victims were scattered across the world. Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre coordinated the activities in Europe through its Joint Cybercrime Action Taskforce (J-CAT).
Participating Authorities
- United States: US Department of Justice (US DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
- United Kingdom: National Crime Agency (NCA)
- The Netherlands: National High Tech Crime Unit Landelijke Eenheid, Cybercrime team Midden-Nederland, Cybercrime team Noord-Holland and Cybercrime team Den Haag
- Germany: Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), Hanover Police Department (Polizeidirektion Hannover), Public Prosecutor’s Office Verden (Staatsanwaltschaft Verden)
- Poland: National Police Cybercrime Bureau (Biuro do Walki z Cyber-przestępczością)
Issue related to DDoS Attacks
DDoS booter services have effectively lowered the entry barrier into cybercrime: for a fee as low as EUR 10, any low-skilled individual can launch DDoS attacks with the click of a button, knocking offline whole websites and networks by barraging them with traffic. The damage they can do to victims can be considerable, crippling businesses financially and depriving people of essential services offered by banks, government institutions, and police forces. Emboldened by perceived anonymity, many young IT enthusiasts get involved in this seemingly low-level crime, unaware of the consequences that such online activities can carry. The influence of toolkits available on the dark net has made it easier for criminals to commit such crimes and at times even get away with it as well.
Recent examples of DDoS Attacks
- In February 2020, Amazon Web Services (AWS) suffered a DDoS attack sophisticated enough to keep its incident response teams occupied for several days also affecting customers worldwide.
- In February 2021, the EXMO Cryptocurrency exchange fell victim to a DDoS attack that rendered the organization inoperable for almost five hours.
- Recently, Australia experienced a significant, sustained, state-sponsored DDoS attack.
- Belgium also became a victim of a DDoS attack that targeted the country’s parliament, police services, and universities.
DDoS vs. DoS Attacks: What’s the Difference?
It’s important to avoid confusing a DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack with a DoS (denial of service) attack. Although only one word separates the two, these attacks vary significantly in nature.
- Strictly defined, a typical DDoS attack manipulates many distributed network devices between the attacker and the victim into waging an unwitting attack, exploiting legitimate behavior.
- A traditional DoS attack doesn’t use multiple, distributed devices, nor does it focus on devices between the attacker and the organization. These attacks also tend not to use multiple internet devices.
Conclusion
In this era of cyberspace, it is of paramount importance to maintain digital safety and security equivalent to physical safety, the cybercriminals will not stop at anything and can stoop to any level to target netizens and critical infrastructures in order to commit ransomware and malware attacks. As we can see DDoS-ing is taken seriously by law enforcement, at all levels of users, and are on the radar of law enforcement, be it a gamer booting out the competition out of a video game, or a high-level hacker carrying out DDoS attacks against commercial targets for financial gain.
Introduction
Cybercrimes have been traversing peripheries and growing at a fast pace. Cybercrime is known to be an offensive action that either targets or operates through a computer, a computer network or a networked device, according to Kaspersky. In the “Era of globalisation” and a “Digitally coalesced world”, there has been an increase in International cybercrime. Cybercrime could be for personal or political objectives. Nevertheless, Cybercrime aims to sabotage networks for motives other than gain and be carried out either by organisations or individuals. Some of the cybercriminals have no national boundaries and are considered a global threat. They are likewise inordinately technically adept and operate avant-garde strategies.
The 2023 Global Risk Report points to exacerbating geopolitical apprehensions that have increased the advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are evolving globally as they are ubiquitous. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank and former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2020 cautioned that a cyber attack could lead to a severe economic predicament. Contemporary technologies and hazardous players have grown at an exceptional gait over the last few decades. Also, cybercrime has heightened on the agenda of nation-states, establishments and global organisations, as per the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The Role of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee
In two shakes, the United Nations (UN) has a major initiative to develop a new and more inclusive approach to addressing cybercrime and is presently negotiating a new convention on cybercrime. The following convention seeks to enhance global collaboration in the combat against cybercrime. The UN has a central initiative to develop a unique and more inclusive strategy for addressing cybercrime. The UN passed resolution 74/247, which designated an open-ended ad hoc committee (AHC) in December 2019 entrusted with setting a broad global convention on countering the use of information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for illicit pursuits.
The Cybercrime treaty, if adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) would be the foremost imperative UN mechanism on a cyber point. The treaty could further become a crucial international legal framework for global collaboration on arraigning cyber criminals, precluding and investigating cybercrime. There have correspondingly been numerous other national and international measures to counter the criminal use of ICTs. However, the UN treaty is intended to tackle cybercrime and enhance partnership and coordination between states. The negotiations of the Ad Hoc Committee with the member states will be completed by early 2024 to further adopt the treaty during the UNGA in September 2024.
However, the following treaty is said to be complex. Some countries endorse a treaty that criminalises cyber-dependent offences and a comprehensive spectrum of cyber-enabled crimes. The proposals of Russia, Belarus, China, Nicaragua and Cuba have included highly controversial recommendations. Nevertheless, India has backed for criminalising crimes associated with ‘cyber terrorism’ and the suggestions of India to the UN Ad Hoc committee are in string with its regulatory strategy in the country. Similarly, the US, Japan, the UK, European Union (EU) member states and Australia want to include core cyber-dependent crimes.
Nonetheless, though a new treaty could become a practical instrument in the international step against cybercrime, it must conform to existing global agencies and networks that occupy similar areas. This convention will further supplement the "Budapest Cybercrime Convention" on cybercrime that materialised in the 1990s and was signed in Budapest in the year 2001.
Conclusion
According to Cyber Security Ventures, global cybercrime is expected to increase by 15 per cent per year over the next five years, reaching USD 10.5 trillion annually by 2025, up from USD 3 trillion in 2015. The UN cybercrime convention aims to be more global. That being the case, next-generation tools should have state-of-the-art technology to deal with new cyber crimes and cyber warfare. The global crevasse in nation-states due to cybercrime is beyond calculation. It could lead to a great cataclysm in the global economy and threaten the political interest of the countries on that account. It is crucial for global governments and international organisations. It is necessary to strengthen the collaboration between establishments (public and private) and law enforcement mechanisms. An “appropriately designed policy” is henceforward the need of the hour.
References
- https://www.kaspersky.co.in/resource-center/threats/what-is-cybercrime
- https://www.cyberpeace.org/
- https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cybercrime
- https://www.bizzbuzz.news/bizz-talk/ransomware-attacks-on-startups-msmes-on-the-rise-in-india-cyberpeace-foundation-1261320
- https://www.financialexpress.com/business/digital-transformation-cyberpeace-foundation-receives-4-million-google-org-grant-3282515/
- https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/08/what-un-cybercrime-treaty-and-why-does-it-matter
- https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/global-rules-crack-down-cybercrime/
- https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2023/
- https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/03/global-cyber-threat-to-financial-systems-maurer.htm
- https://www.eff.org/issues/un-cybercrime-treaty#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20currently,of%20billions%20of%20people%20worldwide.
- https://cybersecurityventures.com/hackerpocalypse-cybercrime-report-2016/
- https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-budapest-convention
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/counter-use-of-technology-for-cybercrime-india-tells-un-ad-hoc-group/articleshow/92237908.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
- https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf
- https://unric.org/en/a-un-treaty-on-cybercrime-en-route/
Recently, Apple has pushed away the Advanced Data Protection feature for its customers in the UK. This was done due to a request by the UK’s Home Office, which demanded access to encrypted data stored in its cloud service, empowered by the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA). The Act compels firms to provide information to law enforcement. This move and its subsequent result, however, have raised concerns—bringing out different perspectives regarding the balance between privacy and security, along with the involvement of higher authorities and tech firms.
What is Advanced Data Protection?
Advanced Data Protection is an opt-in feature and doesn’t necessarily require activation. It is Apple’s strongest data tool, which provides end-to-end encryption for the data that the user chooses to protect. This is different from the standard (default) encrypted data services that Apple provides for photos, back-ups, and notes, among other things. The flip side of having such a strong security feature from a user perspective is that if the Apple account holder were to lose access to the account, they would lose their data as well since there are no recovery paths.
Doing away with the feature altogether, the sign-ups have been currently halted, and the company is working on removing existing user access at a later date (which is yet to be confirmed). For the UK users who hadn’t availed of this feature, there would be no change. However, for the ones who are currently trying to avail it are met with a notification on the Advanced Data Protection settings page that states that the feature cannot be enabled anymore. Consequently, there is no clarity whether the data stored by the UK users who availed the former facility would now cease to exist as even Apple doesn’t have access to it. It is important to note that withdrawing the feature does not ensure compliance with the Investigative Powers Act (IPA) as it is applicable to tech firms worldwide that have a UK market. Similar requests to access data have been previously shut down by Apple in the US.
Apple’s Stand on Encryption and Government Requests
The Tech giant has resisted court orders, rejecting requests to write software that would allow officials to access and enable identification of iPhones operated by gunmen (made in 2016 and 2020). It is said that the supposed reasons for such a demand by the UK Home Office have been made owing to the elusive role of end-to-end encryption in hiding criminal activities such as child sexual abuse and terrorism, hampering the efforts of security officials in catching them. Over the years, Apple has emphasised time and again its reluctance to create a backdoor to its encrypted data, stating the consequences of it being more vulnerable to attackers once a pathway is created. The Salt Typhoon attack on the US Telecommunication system is a recent example that has alerted officials, who now encourage the use of end-to-end encryption. Barring this, such requests could set a dangerous precedent for how tech firms and governments operate together. This comes against the backdrop of the Paris AI Action Summit, where US Vice President J.D. Vance raised concerns regarding regulation. As per reports, Apple has now filed a legal complaint against the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the UK’s judicial body that handles complaints with respect to surveillance power usage by public authorities.
The Broader Debate on Privacy vs. Security
This standoff raises critical questions about how tech firms and governments should collaborate without compromising fundamental rights. Striking the right balance between privacy and regulation is imperative, ensuring security concerns are addressed without dismantling individual data protection. The outcome of Apple’s legal challenge against the IPA may set a significant precedent for how encryption policies evolve in the future.
References
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20g288yldko
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn524lx9445o
- https://www.yahoo.com/tech/apple-advanced-data-protection-why-184822119.html
- https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/apple-advanced-data-protection-removal-uk-9851486/
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/366619638/Apple-pulls-Advanced-Data-Protection-in-UK-sparking-concerns
- https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366619614/Apple-withdraws-encrypted-iCloud-storage-from-UK-after-government-demands-back-door-access?_gl=1*1p1xpm0*_ga*NTE3NDk1NzQxLjE3MzEzMDA2NTc.*_ga_TQKE4GS5P9*MTc0MDc0MTA4Mi4zMS4xLjE3NDA3NDEwODMuMC4wLjA.
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/21/apple-removes-advanced-data-protection-tool-uk-government
- https://proton.me/blog/protect-data-apple-adp-uk#:~:text=Proton-,Apple%20revoked%20advanced%20data%20protection%20
- https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/apple_reportedly_ipt_complaint/
- https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366616972/Government-agencies-urged-to-use-encrypted-messaging-after-Chinese-Salt-Typhoon-hack
