Hong Kong officials have launched a criminal probe into a troubling incident at the University of Hong Kong involving a male law student allegedly using artificial intelligence to create unauthorized deepfake pornographic pictures of more than twelve female students and instructors. This formal investigation, revealed recently by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, comes after a considerable outcry from students at the city’s most historic institution, who voiced strong discontent with the university’s handling of the situation. The event highlights the swiftly changing issues introduced by the abuse of AI and the pressing necessity for strong regulatory measures.
The accusations against the student were brought to public attention through a widely circulated letter posted on Instagram by an account managed by three unnamed victims. This letter detailed a chilling discovery: folders on the accused’s laptop purportedly containing more than 700 deepfake images, meticulously organized by victim’s name, alongside the original photos from which they were derived. According to the victims’ account, the male law student allegedly sourced photographs of the individuals from their social media profiles, subsequently employing AI software to manipulate these images into explicit, pornographic content featuring their faces. While it has not been confirmed that these fabricated images were broadly disseminated, their mere existence and the alleged intent behind their creation have ignited a significant controversy.
The sequence of events presented by the victims suggests a worrisome delay in how the university addressed the issue. The images were supposedly found and reported to the university in February. Nonetheless, the university only reportedly began interviewing some of the affected parties in March. By April, one of the victims learned that the accused student had submitted a brief “apology letter” consisting of just 60 words. Although the validity of this letter and the Instagram account managed by the victims could not be independently corroborated, the University of Hong Kong acknowledged that it was aware of “social media posts regarding a student allegedly using AI tools to produce inappropriate images.” In its initial public statement issued on a Saturday, the university confirmed it had given a warning letter to the student and required him to issue a formal apology to those impacted.
This response, however, failed to quell the growing outrage among the student body. The victims, in their public letter, sharply criticized the university’s perceived inaction, lamenting that they were compelled to continue sharing classroom spaces with the accused student on at least four occasions. This forced proximity, they argued, inflicted “unnecessary psychological distress.” The broader student community subsequently intensified its demands for more decisive and stringent measures from the university administration.
The incident quickly escalated beyond the university campus, attracting the attention of Hong Kong’s highest official. Chief Executive John Lee publicly addressed the controversy during a news briefing, emphasizing the “responsibility of developing students’ moral character” that universities bear. He unequivocally stated that educational institutions should “deal with student misconduct seriously,” underscoring that “any conduct that causes harm to others may constitute a criminal offense and may also infringe individual rights and also privacy.” This high-level intervention signaled the gravity with which the authorities were beginning to view the case, transcending a mere internal university disciplinary matter.
The University of Hong Kong has since indicated a reevaluation of its approach. While initially not responding to specific media inquiries, it later informed local media outlets that it was conducting a further review of the incident and pledged to take additional action if deemed appropriate or if victims demanded more robust measures. Its statement conveyed a commitment to ensuring “a safe and respectful learning environment,” suggesting a recognition of the need for a stronger response to the concerns raised by the student community and the public.
The emergence of AI-generated deepfake pornography presents a complex legal and ethical quagmire globally. This form of non-consensual pornography involves the sophisticated alteration of existing images or the creation of entirely new ones using readily available artificial intelligence tools, designed to falsely depict individuals engaging in sexual acts. The legal landscape in Hong Kong, much like many other jurisdictions, is currently struggling to keep pace with the rapid advancements in this technology. While existing laws criminalize the “publication or threatened publication of intimate images without consent,” they do not explicitly outlaw the generation or personal possession of such fabricated content.
This gap in legislation presents major obstacles for both prosecution and safeguarding victims. In the United States, for example, President Donald Trump approved a law in May specifically outlawing the unauthorized online release of AI-created pornographic material. Nonetheless, federal legislation does not clearly outlaw the personal ownership of these images, and a district judge remarkably decided in February that simply having such material is under the protection of the First Amendment. This is in stark contrast to the strategies adopted by other countries. In South Korea, for instance, following several comparable scandals, legislation was passed last year that not only made the possession but also the consumption of such deepfake materials a crime, indicating a stricter approach to this sort of digital mistreatment.
The situation in Hong Kong exemplifies the pressing necessity for legal systems to advance in tandem with technological progress. As AI technologies grow increasingly available and advanced, their potential misuse—especially in generating convincing, yet completely fake, intimate images—presents a serious risk to personal privacy, reputation, and mental health. The absence of definitive legal restrictions on producing or privately holding such content can result in victims feeling vulnerable and law enforcement facing challenges in effectively bringing offenders to justice.
Beyond the legal aspects, the incident also highlights the responsibilities of educational institutions in fostering a safe and respectful environment, both online and offline. Universities are increasingly grappling with how to address digital misconduct that may not neatly fit into existing disciplinary codes, particularly when it involves advanced technologies like AI. The initial response by the University of Hong Kong, perceived as insufficient by its students, underscores the need for clear protocols, swift action, and strong support systems for victims of tech-facilitated abuse.
The probe conducted by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data in Hong Kong represents a significant move towards tackling the problem more thoroughly. This involvement indicates that the authorities are now addressing the issue with the necessary seriousness, acknowledging the possible criminal aspects beyond simple academic violations. This inquiry might establish a key precedent for upcoming situations involving AI-produced non-consensual material in Hong Kong, possibly impacting legislative changes and enhancing protections for victims.
The current debate at the University of Hong Kong acts as an international warning. It highlights the necessity for societies to actively establish solid legal, ethical, and institutional measures as artificial intelligence progresses, aiming to minimize its potential dangers. Safeguarding people from online misuse, particularly when advanced tools are employed to breach privacy and fabricate harmful content, is becoming a critical priority in our digital era. The results of this inquiry and the actions taken by the university will, without a doubt, be observed attentively as Hong Kong, along with the rest of the world, confronts the adverse aspects of technological advancement.
