Woman's Hour - Deepfake pornography, Professor Yvonne Doyle – lessons from the pandemic, Pianist Chloe Flower

Episode Date: November 22, 2023

Another Body is an award-winning documentary which follows US engineering student, Taylor, in her search for answers and justice after she discovers deepfake pornography of herself circulating online. Ahead of its release in the UK, one of the documentary's directors, Sophie Compton joins Emma to discuss why she decided to make this documentary, what she found and why she used deepfake technology herself to anonymise the identities of the protagonists.The Covid-19 inquiry continues with key scientists sharing their insights into the pandemic response. Someone who has already given their testimony is Professor Yvonne Doyle. Professor Doyle was the former Medical Director and Director of Health Protection for the now defunct Public Health England. She speaks to Emma about the role of PHE in the pandemic response, her experience as a senior woman in government at the time and lessons we can learn from the pandemic.Israel has agreed to a four day pause in its retalitory bombardment of Gaza for the first time since the attacks, masssacring and kidnapping of Israelis by Hamas on October 7th. Hamas has agreed a deal to release 50 of the more than 200 hostages being held in Gaza. It is understood these will be women and children. Emma discusses the news with Yolande Nell, the BBC's Middle East correspondent in Jerusalem and Martin Richards, hostage and crisis negotiator and kidnap response consutlant. The pianist Chloe Flower came to the public’s attention after a show-stopping performance with rap queen Cardi B at the 2019 Grammy Awards. She has collaborated with some of the biggest names in music from Celine Dion to American rappers such as: Meek Mill, Lil Baby, 2Chainz and Nas. Recently Chloe received an award from Gloria Steinem at the Asia Society’s Last Girl Awards for her efforts in the fight against human trafficking. She joins Emma to talk about her “popsical” musical style, which infuses classical music with contemporary pop, and to perform live from her ‘Chloe Hearts Christmas’ album.Presented by Emma Barnett Producer: Louise Corley

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. You may or may not have been keeping up with the COVID-19 inquiry, an extremely expensive exercise to try to learn the lessons of the pandemic and what really went on. Whether it will achieve that or not is a whole other discussion. But what the evidence giving by our top scientists, medical practitioners, public health officials, politicians and civil servants does already show is a huge tension at the top of government between the scientific and medical world and the decision makers,

the politicians, and then sometimes between the politicians. And with the use of private diaries and unguarded WhatsApp messages, it has given us all an unparalleled window into the cabinet. It was an incredibly stressful time, of course, and shortly you will hear from one of the few women at the top table during that time, Professor Yvonne Doyle, the medical director for then Public Health England, whom you may also remember from some of the number 10 daily COVID briefings. While the UK registered one of the worst increases in death rates of major European economies during the years of the pandemic, we can also boast of an incredible vaccination programme. But today I wanted to see if you have any learnings so far from the inquiry.

Many of you will have been supportive of having it, of trying to learn. And as I say, there will be discussions about whether this is the best way to do this. But it is what we have so far and what we have learned I'm interested in from your perspective. What have you taken away? What have been your reactions? There were, you may remember,

complaints about the macho culture of Westminster by another of the few women around the table making headlines a couple of weeks ago. As you look at those in charge now, do you have confidence, especially with a general election looming? Might the revelations of the COVID-19 inquiry impact how you vote? And what hangover, if any, do you have in your life now from the major changes made during that time? Maybe they didn't affect you, but they affected your children or they affected those that you care for or you see on a now daily basis again.

I always say, and I want to remember to always say, I know some of you are still shielding and are living very different lives indeed, but it's your chance to have your say on the COVID inquiry as we get ready to hear from somebody who has given evidence and also from that person,

perhaps about what we have heard, that macho culture and those who do make the decisions. But please do get in touch. Your voice is very much a part of this. 84844, that's the number you need to text me here at Woman's Hour. On social media, we're at BBC Woman's Hour

or email me through the Woman's Hour website or if you like WhatsApp, you can do a message at voice note 03700 100 444. Just look out for those data charges. Also on today's programme, as Israel and Hamas agree a deal to release female and children hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a four-day pause in fighting, I'll be joined by a hostage negotiator to talk about, amongst other things, the focus and the prioritisation of women we turn the spotlight on deep fake pornography and the use of this technology being an issue of violence against

women it really is a new powerful film puts the spotlight on that the director joins me and we have some uplifting piano music for you the piano is out here in the women's house studio what a sight it is and i'll warn you with the music, Christmas may be involved. It was mentioned on the programme yesterday. We're inching closer. It is the 22nd of November. Come on, humour me. Humour us all. It's OK. The music will be coming. But first, it is on track to potentially be the most expensive public inquiry in this country's history, costing approximately £85 million before it even began. I am talking about that COVID-19 inquiry set up to figure out how decisions to manage the pandemic

happened and also to learn lessons. The process continues apace with lead scientists and health officials giving their testimony this week. On Monday, we heard from the former Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance and yesterday and today it's the turn of the Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, who has argued that politicians didn't take diseases and natural threats as seriously as national security risks like terrorism. Someone who's already given their testimony is, my guest is in the studio, Professor Yvonne Doyle.

Professor Doyle was the former Medical Director and Director of Health Protection for the now defunct Public Health England. And some of you may recognise her, as I mentioned, from those televised daily number 10 Covid briefings. Her testimony at the inquiry made headlines when she spoke about a challenging relationship with the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, in the early months of the pandemic. We'll get to all of that. Professor Yvonne Doyle, good morning. Good morning, Emma. Just to remind people, Public Health England, it's been changed into a couple of agencies now,

but what was the role of it, PHE, during the pandemic? So Public Health England was formed in 2013 as a result of the Health and Social Care Act itself, quite a disruptive change in the system. And during the pandemic, its role was one of 10 functions it had, really, was to ensure that there was good specialist microbiology laboratory services available, that there was good surveillance, international surveillance as well and links with like WHO and international organisations and a limited capacity for outbreak control locally, which was really an evolution of its day-to-day function prior to 2020. And part of that, some early success, was you were involved in developing a test for COVID as early as January 2020, making us one of the first countries in the world to do

so. But according to your witness statement, by March of 2020, PHE had only provided 26,000 tests. Do you think we squandered an early lead? We had an early lead and it was remarkable. In many ways, that was exactly what Public Health England was set up to do, is to provide expert scientific advice and expert virology, which it did. When the issues began to arise was when huge capacity was needed in the system when a whole population was becoming involved and public health england for all its benefits was never set up for that so subsequently a number of solutions were brought to bear and in terms of not being able to do more you would say it was what the the limitations of what the role could do the function could do and the money that

was there well it had a very limited budget for a start it was what the limitations of what the role could do, the function could do and the money that was there? Well, it had a very limited budget for a start. It was 300 million for the 10 functions to start, but that was cut back significantly. But it also, at full flight during test and trace, the budget was 125 times greater than the whole budget of Public Health England. So money was some of it, but not all of it. Manpower was very important. So coming into the need to population test everyone, there were about 420 people for 55 million people at a local level in Public Health England. And most of our national teams were based in laboratories.

So there really was a manpower capacity, which eventually was made good. So there were many reasons why this public health England on its own couldn't do all of this. Do you think more lives could have been saved if the correct resources had been given to you? This is impossible to say until we actually learn the lessons from the pandemic itself.

And I say that because we had international connections with practically every country that was willing to give information. Everyone was suffering the same challenges, but the pandemic played out differently in different countries. I suppose, who do you blame for not having the manpower? Well, the blame issue is one of our problems, actually, is the learning would be a much better way of addressing this. I know, but for people who aren't familiar with how all of this works, I'm just trying to understand what could have been done

and if something wasn't signed off or could have been signed off. So this is an interesting point. If you go back, if you'll allow me for 30 seconds, to 2009-10, when the public health system was part of the NHS. At that point, when the swine flu epidemic started, there was the whole heft of the NHS to come behind and it was offered.

But between 2013 and 2020, Public Health England was a relatively small national agency and the other half of its manpower had gone to local government. So there were changes there. You have to keep looking back at what happened prior to 2020 to understand why the system headed the way it did into 2020. And, you know, it's been, and I'm again paraphrasing, but of several people's evidence, it seemed that the contact tracing and all of that, it just wasn't going to work the way it was at that time. So lockdown was moved more towards the priority of how to try and contain this,

even though it would have been preferable to have had this sort of system. That's how it seems to be coming across. Well, just to explain about contact tracing, it works best when there's very little virus about because it can find the contacts. But in a situation where testing still hadn't gone up to its maximum capacity, but also where it's not absolutely clear who is infected. And the viruses transmit, transmit, transmit, and very well set up to do that itself. Very difficult to contact trace everybody in those circumstances.

I think what's also coming across is, which may not have come across, is how anguished the decisions were on the science side and on the medical side about whether to lock down or not. We're seeing the tension there between Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance come out about whether they should have gone sooner. Patrick Vallance seemed to say we should have done and Chris Whitty was worried about the other untold consequences of doing that, which is interesting just for the public to know. Yes, and it is out there. And this is one of the lessons, Emma, is there were no easy options here. And anyone who comes forward and says, if they'd only listened to me, it would have been all great.

But we are seeing from, you know, the word shambolic, chaotic are being used in the diary, let's say, of Patrick Vallance, about the politics, about the running of this, about interactions between people on your side of this, public health, and medical practitioners, and the politicians, the government, the cabinet. Would you use that word, shambolic, chaotic? Well, the kind of circumstances that were being described there were not where I was present. So I can't really use that in all fairness. But it was extremely complicated.

It was tense, very, very tense. And there were personalities involved, of course. And that's always going to be the case where you have something of this complexity that affects a whole population. But we did need people to be working well together. And in your testimony, you said a distance formed between you and the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock early on. What do you think caused that? Well, again, tense, tense situations. And perhaps at the beginning of the pandemic, not everybody appreciating exactly what might be happening in China. And that was very difficult at the time as well, because it was very early days.

In my testimony, I did say that it may have been perhaps the way the interview was conducted. I don't know. And I actually... This is when you were asked by a journalist about whether anybody in the UK could have COVID at the moment. And this was in January 2020? Yes. So at that point, yes. But, you know, I have never really fully understood why. And that's also on record.

But I think these were... We got over it quickly. It wasn't pleasant at the time,, we got over it quickly and it wasn't pleasant at the time but we got past it and as you say eventually I was on platforms in Downing Street so we did pick ourselves up. Yes of course but for a while you were not and you said he told you I quote not to patronise him. How did you feel about that because I believe that was said in front of others?

Yes it was and this brings out one of the issues about women's leadership is I had a couple of things in mind after that. First, I was the medical director of an organisation that needed to keep its troops marching. So I couldn't, you know, it was humiliating, but I couldn't go into a corner and disappear in grief. I had to keep moving on. Second, you know, how do you lead in these circumstances? How do you manage yourself? And there are feminine qualities that come to bear on this. You know, a lack of attention to oneself, perhaps,

and attention, perhaps, to the needs of others, including the population you serve. And finally, your medical ethics as a doctor. What was Matt Hancock saying you shouldn't patronise him about? I have absolutely no idea about that. This was after you gave an interview where you talked about some people perhaps having COVID. It was in that context. It was in that context.

So it may have been an attempt to explain why the interview was given the way it was. But actually, as I said in the evidence of the pandemic inquiry, I felt I was speaking the way it was. But actually, as I said, in the evidence of the pandemic inquiry, I felt I was speaking the truth. And I will still do that because once you feel you're acting with integrity, it feels better, actually. There was a description by Helen McNamara of the Cabinet Office on the civil servant side of a macho culture. Do you recognise that? This is interesting. So all my career, and I'm 40 years qualified, I've never really thought much about, you know, gender differences in healthcare.

I just get on with the job. Now, this was the first time I actually was aware, perhaps because it was such a national role, that there was a very male gender dominated culture in those early months. Afterwards, as we know, very influential women came into bear. But it definitely was, if you just look at the gender mix of the cabinet of the senior roles in government at that time, there were very few women at the very top. And, you know, that was an interesting observation for me.

It did make me think differently about how I managed to lead and how I managed myself in those circumstances. I mean, it's a very striking word to say, you know, humiliated. That's how you felt. Yes, it definitely was and i can't remember another time when it felt like that but that isn't the important issue the important issue is how you handle the situation and also what happens afterwards and whether the public got the service that they should have got but that yes being known behind the scenes is is

also an important part of the transparency i I mean, a spokesperson for Matt Hancock said, Mr. Hancock has supported the inquiry throughout and will respond to all questions when he gives his evidence and there'll be a continuation of this process. But just one more if I can, because you and your role at Public Health England, him as the health secretary as he was, what was your response when you found out that he had broken the rules and he'd had an affair with an aide? No response at all, Emma, because it isn't my role to have a view about that. At the time, I was a medic and a civil servant. My job was to get on and look after the population. You're still a person who's hearing the health secretary has told you not to patronise him and made you feel, your words, humiliated, has broken the rules he set himself. I just wonder what you

made of that as people were trying to keep to the rules. The rules are for everyone. And I think various of our scientists and myself have said that many times. Of course. And for the sake of the population who did keep the rules, that still remains my view. In terms of where we are with the testimonies and what we found out, there was another line which caught our eye, which was that a diary entry by Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer, shown to the inquiry,

read that our now Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, then the Chancellor, allegedly said, it's all about handling the scientists. This was later in October 2020. It's all about handling the scientists, not handling the virus. Did you get that impression? I felt that the science was received. Certainly the work that we produced was received. The major issue is the decisions are political.

So those decisions don't always have to follow the science. And therefore, it's not necessary always to say you're following the science because inevitably, you may not. I would give a call out here to some of the really excellent science and you mentioned humiliation for me but many of the scientists had a very difficult time during that period and the academy of whom I'm a fellow produced some excellent material and that was welcome. So you know it was a very mixed experience. And had a hard time from members of the public. Is that what you're talking about, abuse, threats? Because we know about that.

Or are you talking about something else? People with strong views of any persuasion. This came out during the pandemic and still does. As we know, there are very strong views about what should and shouldn't have happened. But sometimes that was vested on the people who were simply trying to provide the evidence. There's just another thing, which I think is also an important quote to share and see what your response is, because, you know, I'm very mindful of who's listening to this programme and who wanted this inquiry and the family of those who were bereaved, but also mindful of it being a very stressful time. Again, October 2020, Sir Patrick Vallance's diary

describes a shambolic meeting in which Boris Johnson, as prime minister, argued for letting it all rip, saying, yes, there will be more casualties, but so be it. They've had a good innings. Going on to say most people who die have reached their time anyway. These are the sorts of conversations that are going on. What do you make of that if we're trying to learn? So this is the important thing is what is to learn about that? So one really important lesson is we need to have a conversation nationally about the ethics of life, of health in life, of how we headed into that pandemic and the very poor health status of much of our population and vulnerability at the end of life. And who makes those decisions? These are very difficult discussions. And that's why we keep saying there were no good options in this. There were just the least bad options. It's hard to hear that, isn't it, though? It's hard to

read that. It is very hard. But I also think that we can help ourselves as a country to consider how we make things better, particularly for those who are most vulnerable to poor health and vulnerability and decisions that are not within their control. We are getting quite a few messages from people's response to the inquiry. Do you feel we're ready for the next one? Some say it will happen again in our lifetimes, depending where you are up to in your life. But the point being, it might not be as far away. The key question. So we are living in a period, I think, an era of accelerated risk. And the sign certainly is pretty clear that we will have more problems from infections.

So we must not prepare for the last pandemic, for sure. But learning quickly the lessons, both internationally as well, because there is learning from other countries on this. Can you actually instigate actions that prevent the decisions rather than the politicians make using the evidence from people like yourself. Having been so up close to politicians at this time, do you have faith in that system? I think that's for the voters to decide. You're a voter. You are allowed to say this is not a testimony. You haven't had to consult a lawyer, I don't think, to talk to me. You're obviously a woman who's incredibly diplomatic. But I think it would be interesting to know your human response to that, if I could try. What really motivates me and my values on this, Emma, and it would be values on an election as well, is are we actually caring and taking note of the need of all our population and what are the difficult decisions we have to make to trade off to get to that point? Okay I see that those are big questions but I don't think I'm getting any more am I? Well let me be specific for instance we know that about

a third of our children are living in poverty we know that about short of 3 million young people between 18 and 35 are not working at the moment, mainly due to mental ill health. We know that our older population have many conditions together. The Academy have called it out as multi-morbidity. And we know there are a lot of people who are still suffering the effects of the pandemic itself. Now, that's quite

a challenge for society, not just for a health department. The question is, how are we going to address that? I will remember those questions when I am next talking to somebody who is making those decisions and will be trying to make them for the future as we run up to a general election. Professor Yvonne Doyle, the former Medical Director and Director of Health Protection for what was Public Health England. Thank you. Thank you, Emma. We've got a message here.

Absolutely no confidence in this government after the inquiry. No scientific, clinical or engineering skills in the cabinet. Lawyers, classicists and historians who couldn't understand a thing about public health. That's my read. Unwillingness to turn a Brexit cabinet into a war cabinet. Jobs for the boys more important than seriously tackling a public danger. No name on that message. No name on this one either, but nothing I'm hearing from the COVID inquiry is surprising.

I could see the incompetence at the time. I contacted my MP at the time about the apparent lack of women involved in the decisions and planning. Claire says it's been fascinating listening to the inquiry and at times depressing. What comes to mind, having heard what the excellent Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty have said, is that ministers and the civil service need to be far more knowledgeable in their respective fields and in turn the roles they're given. This seems vital to implement as we move on and we learn from the negative consequences of the pandemic. Claire, thank you for that message. Keep them coming in and I'll come back to them shortly. Now Israel has agreed to a four-day

pause in its retaliatory bombardment of Gaza for the first time since the attacks, massacring and kidnapping of Israelis by Hamas on October 7th. Hamas has agreed a deal to release 50 of the more than 200 hostages being held in Gaza. It's understood these will be women and children. In return, a number of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israel will be released, some of whom are women. The start of the pause will be announced in the next 24 hours, and if successful, it will be the first break in Israel's military campaign. In the meantime, Israel is continuing its operations in the Gaza Strip. Yolande Nell is the BBC's Middle East correspondent in Jerusalem. Yolande, what do we know in terms of the detail about the women and children being released by Hamas?

We haven't got full details, but what we have been told from the Israeli media reports is that there are 30 children who are involved, eight mothers and 12 older women. Now, among the children, we expect there to be a three year old Israeli U Israeli-US girl. She is somebody who had both her parents killed on the 7th of October in those deadly attacks by Hamas gunmen. And, I mean, we know, of course, that there are many children that are really very small. The 10-month-old baby boy is the youngest hostage who's being held in Gaza, a number of toddlers as well. It's really, at the first stage,

it looks like it's those who Hamas can reach most easily, because we know that not all of the hostages are being held by Hamas. Some are held by other armed factions, sort of by criminal families that operate in Gaza as well. But there had been repeatedly, when I've met families of the hostages, calls to let out some of the older people who need medical care, some of the children, obviously the most vulnerable group that are being held in the Gaza Strip. But for some families, looking at this list, this prospect, they have different generations that are being held,

men and women, in the Gaza Strip. So they're looking at the prospect of perhaps some of their loved ones coming home and not others. And the decision about women and children, has there been any detail on that? I mean, really, we know that there have been sort of repeated calls. Certainly with Hamas, it's been easier to kind of negotiate the return of civilian women because, of course, there are soldiers who are women who are being held in the Gaza Strip as well and children based on sort of humanitarian reasons. And in terms of the families, the hostage families, have they been given any extra information? Have they been speaking today we only know that the they're going to be batches of the hostages that are released

they haven't been given exact names of who will be expected back and when we know that the international committee for the red cross is going to be very much involved going inside the gaza strip to receive uh some of the hostages and and then kind of bring them out through Egypt's Rafah crossing. Of course, there are four women hostages who have already been released earlier on in the conflict with the mediation of Qatar and Egypt. So there is already some sort of a mechanism. We've seen how this could possibly work on the ground. And the release of the Palestinian prisoners, what do we know of them? So in the last few hours, the Israeli government has also put out a list of 300 Palestinian

prisoners who could be released. Now, this is a legal requirement actually in Israel so that Israeli citizens can appeal to the Supreme Court if they want to, to kind of basically if they don't want particular individuals to be released. We expect 140, 150 prisoners, basically Palestinian teenagers in the main and Palestinian women to be released. Looking down this long list, you know, you can see a lot of people come

from occupied East Jerusalem from the West Bank a lot of the Palestinian teens are accused of relatively minor charges things like throwing stones at Israeli soldiers belonging to a band group among the women we're actually expecting according to Palestinian officials the first batch of Palestinian prisoners released because all of this will take place in stages staggered over several days, that there will be more than 30 women released at first. Looking down that list, you can see that some of the women are accused of supporting terrorism,

possessing weapons and explosives, carrying knives. There are two also accused of attempted murder. And in Gaza, just to go back to what the pause may mean, if we can briefly, Yolanda, that will allow for humanitarian aid to get in. What do we know about that? Yeah, so Washington is saying that there will be a surge in aid that will be allowed in with this pause. We understand that fuel crucially will be allowed into Gaza that has been really restricted so far. And of course, we've had humanitarian agencies saying that is so important to get water desalination plants up and running again,

so they can pump water pump away the sewage that has accumulated. And also so that some fuel can go through to hospitals so that they can run their generators. Israel has been really strict about fuel going into the Gaza Strip, saying that it's worried that Hamas could steal it. The UN agency is saying this will be very tightly controlled. We're also expecting a lot more medical supplies to go in, food and water as well. Ilan Nam, BBC's Middle East correspondent in Jerusalem. Thank you for the latest detail. Let's talk to Martin Richards, hostage and crisis negotiator and kidnap response consultant.

Good morning, Martin. Good morning, Anna. It is striking about the response to this being women and children to be released first. Can you give us a bit more context and how this plays out? Well, I mean, it could be part of it that hamas has their own propaganda and they want to be seen to be more caring than um than they are so therefore they feel as though to release women and children first will assist that propaganda also stereotypically

um people tend to think that women and children won't cope within the harsh environments as well as a man, albeit that's not always the case. In all the cases I've dealt with in the past, we always want the most vulnerable out first. And they are often the sickest people because ultimately your strategy is about saving life. And so we would want to find out within those strongholds, who's the most vulnerable individual here to come out first. You know, the whole thing will be a gamble in many ways as to how this works and what it will mean. There's a lot of things you have to balance. And not least, it's also striking how little is known still at this point about who will be released, because that can all change as well, can't it? Exactly. And there would have been a negotiation.

I mean, the demands, initially, they may have wanted more prisoners released. The governments may have wanted more hostages released. And there would have been a resistance strategy from both sides to get down to a particular figure and a particular number. And you're right, so much can go wrong. When there's an agreement, there's lots to be done post-agreement. The planning that's required to hand over hostages and get a safe route out back to their families is immense. And quite often, these releases are aborted at the last minute because one side hasn't held up to their side of the bargain or there's confusion or the location may change at the last minute or the number of hostages may change at the last minute. And have we been told,

for example, the medical condition of the hostages? Do we need medical aid straight away or not do we know the names of the hostages or not so all of that is currently probably going on now and her mass will need to trust that their locations aren't identified because bearing in mind they're going to have to bring the hostages out of their secure stronghold, out into the open, and the route to where they're handed over, they clearly don't want that monitored either. And they're going to be fully aware that the hostages are going to be debriefed. And in that debrief, an intelligence debrief,

some of the hostages will be able to identify maybe not the exact location, but at least the vicinity and where they were held. It's now a coordinated few days, if we could put it like that. And it sounds incredibly delicate on every level. And, you know, the families, I was only speaking to one member of the family who's waiting for his 75-year-old mother to hopefully appear, will just, I suppose, be kept in the dark till the last minute.

Is that the norm as well? Yeah, I mean, this is unusual already because in all the cases I've dealt with, we will not inform the families that their loved ones are back and safe until we actually have eyes on them and they're back in a safe environment. Because as just discussed, so much can go wrong from the agreement phase to the release phase and you can imagine yourself sitting at home now listening to the media and hearing about women and children being released and you'll be hoping it's one of your loved ones that's part of that process and if it turns out that it's not one of your loved ones, you can imagine the

re-traumatising of that poor family. They're on this emotional rollercoaster now, hoping that one of those hostages is their loved one. Martin Richards, we'll see how this plays out. Hostage and crisis negotiator, thank you. Your message is still coming in about the covid inquiry just one here to share i was a gp during covid and after listening to dominic cummings the former chief advisor to the former prime minister there's lots of formers here boris johnson i look back at our work whatsapp set up in response to covid it's full of scientific information changes to our practice and lots of vital information we all needed the thing that's made me both sad and incandescent with rage was the tone of our messages compared to those or some of those I think we

should say in parliament. We were scared at the start but we prioritised our patients and were so proud of how we were helping, how different from those that were leading us. So sad. And there's another one here. My husband, a businessman, joined a nursing agency to do his bit for the global pandemic. He worked a split shift, 12 day fortnight. It was a huge success providing care at home to vulnerable clients for two years. And he was awarded Carer of the Year UK by his employer. He died in July 2022 of a blood clot as a consequence of COVID-19. He was 56.

I'm appalled to learn of the values and behaviours demonstrated at the top of government. I had expected everyone else to be doing their best in these unprecedented circumstances. Our world has turned upside down due to the loss of an active and loving son, brother, father, stepfather and husband. Gillian, thank you for that very powerful message and I'm incredibly sorry for your loss. But it's also very important to hear from the bereaved this morning. So many of whom campaigned for this inquiry and I'd like to hear your voices please do get in touch with what we're learning and what we're not learning some of you saying this is focusing too much on people and not process and making the point that a lot of those people will not be

there and are already not there keep those messages coming in now the use of deep fakes is an issue of female violence and violence against women. This is because of how the technology is being used specifically in porn to replace a person's face in a video with someone else's face to make convincing fake content, making it look like a woman has made a porn film when she hasn't. Often photos from someone's social media accounts are used to do this. And it's a very specific assault that often lawmakers struggle to understand, despite advances finally coming into the law, such as the Online Safety Act in the UK.

But it's taken quite a while, and we've followed it here on this programme. Another Body is an award-winning documentary, that's the name of it, which follows the story of someone that they're calling Taylor, not her real name, an engineering student in the US searching for answers

after she discovers deepfake pornography of herself circulating online. One of the documentary's directors, Sophie Compton, joins me now in the studio ahead of the film's release here in the UK. Good morning, Sophie. Morning, Emma. Congratulations on an incredibly powerful film. But how you came across this was a deep trawl, deep dive. Tell us more. Yeah. So Ruben Hamlin, my co-director and I, we heard about the issue of deep fakes and instantly could see that this was a violence against women issue and that it was not being reported as such in the media.

The kind of threats to democracy or political stability were capturing people's attention. But people didn't seem to notice that this was predominantly happening, you know, targeting women really specifically on forums. I think on the internet, we just don't really think about. So there are spaces like 4chan, which is like an online messaging forum where people were gathering and building a kind of culture and a community around this practice of deepfaking.

And it was pretty disturbing, especially as a woman to start looking through what was on these sites. It's kind of like, you know, what you imagine is inside the locker room, and all of the misogyny, entitlement to female bodies, racism that you can possibly imagine there. But we felt like it's really important for us to understand what's in these spaces. And it's really important to expose that and to show the human cost of this. Because because these spaces are so vicious and so violent, so few people speak out about this. I know, you know, I've been working on this for a couple of years now, I can count on one hand, the people that have kind of gone public. So we wanted to work with a woman that made that incredibly brave decision to share their story with us.

And you found out about her in a thread in one of these chat rooms and approached her that way? Yeah, yeah. So we actually found one of the deepfakes of Taylor, did a reverse image search to see where else on the Internet this same video had appeared. And it pulled up the Pornhub page. So one of the things that was characteristic of her case was that it wasn't just the porn videos. It was someone had made a fake profile of her with her real name, her real hometown, her real college. And actually, I think one of the most chilling things,

wrote in the bio, like, hit me up if you want a good time. So actively soliciting other men to come and find her. And they knew where she lived. So she was terrified. And I've heard to come and find her. And they knew where she lived. So she was terrified. And I've heard this time and time again, people being afraid to leave home. Because one of the things about online abuse is that you don't often know who's doing it. So it could be anyone. So people have talked about walking on the street and every person that you walk past,

you think, have they seen the videos? Did they make the videos? Is it my partner? Is it someone at my school so the level of you know the way that it impacts your relationships your trust and your kind of feeling of who you are in the world is really extreme and you know that you show and I think this is why I found it so powerful right at the beginning you show the footage that was created of her uh you show the the porn I mean not explicitly but but the images of her face and onto this body which is moving

you can tell it's having the body not to disassociate it but there's sex happening there and you can then put yourself in a position where you think well what if this was me and that trauma and that abuse is palpable Absolutely

I mean it is a violation so Taylor when she talks about the first moment she saw the images she said it's my face looking back at me doing things I've never done pulling expressions that she's never seen herself pull and the kind of disassociation I think is a really great word that feeling of of your body being taken over by someone else and also that sense of all of those eyes on you because you know the context within which you're being viewed. And you can read the comments about other people making derogatory

or even kind of praising celebratory comments. I think it feels so queasy in your skin. You don't, I mean, it's a really clever use, but you don't use her face either in this. So she is visible, but you're using some of the technology to help her tell this story. So we deepfake Taylor throughout the film because we knew we had to make her anonymous because it would risk retraumatization and it would risk the kind of vicious 4chan communities coming to find her if they knew who she was. And also we really believe that the technology is not intrinsically the problem. It's the misuse of the technology. That's why we're really passionate about framing this as a violence against women issue, not just a technology issue. So we reclaim deepfake technology

and deepfake Taylor throughout the film. But you know, as a filmmaker, you have to build trust. So we wanted to reveal that. And so we there's a moment in the film when her face starts to shift into faces of other women and she tells the audience that she's been deep faked and that felt really important because this technology has amazing applications possibly because what it allows you to do is to really connect with with a person who's not actually speaking so we think it has crazy powers powerful powers in documentary reporting, in journalism.

Also, it can be used for people, let's say your voice can be cloned. If you lose your voice through an accident, you can then speak in your own voice. So there are all these amazing ways that this technology can be used. If it is not, but we need to kind of get a grip

on the kind of social conditions around the misuse of the violation of consent. It's also striking. She has a very hard time trying to explain to a police officer what the problem is. Does she get some form of justice? So in the US, it's not illegal. And so she goes to the police, says... Which is astonishing.

I mean, you know, sometimes I've got to pause to, you know, when you see this violation that there's no one you can call easily, no one will necessarily know what's going on. Even if they then are quite tech savvy, there's nothing for them to do. And it's not even just that. It's the way that the police responded to her and said, as we've had time and time again, literally, what did you do to cause this to happen to you?

And do you know them and everything about their link? Yeah. So, so often the focus and the blame is put on the survivor. But even if that didn't happen, which is awful when it does, because it won't happen all the time, but even they still don't have the laws. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So in the US, yeah, there's no laws. In the UK, the situation is that through the Online Safety Act, distributing deepfakes has now been criminalized. But the reality is that most people don't know who their perpetrator is. So there's no one to really go after. And also, we actually have big

doubts about, you know, approaching this and actually changing the culture through criminal law. It's kind of like a game of whack-a-mole. Each individual person you can try and go after. But a focus that I feel really passionate about is on the sites that are allowing this practice to grow and grow and grow. And it's actually becoming like a commercial venture now. So there are sites like the biggest deepfake porn website is getting 14 million hits a month. People are making money. I actually heard reporting that people were on the forums because not only does this allow you to like share deepfake pornography there are also forums where you can commission it of your ex of your girlfriend of you know whoever and also like on those forums people try and train the next generation of users and give tips and tricks about how you might be

able to make better deepfakes people are hiring full-time assistants so this whole world which has become like a quasi accepted and normalized phenomenon to the point where out of those 14 million users i bet there are many that don't even necessarily realize what they're doing is problematic they think that they're watching porn but actually what they're watching is abuse uh just because you mentioned 4chan, we should say we asked the website 4chan for a statement, but no one got back to us. And you talked about the UK and a spokesperson for the government here said, We are cracking down on abusers who share or manipulate intimate photos in order to threaten or humiliate women and girls. This includes giving police and prosecutors the powers that they need to bring these cowards who share these photos to justice. Through the Online Safety Act, which I mentioned,

we have made sharing intimate images of another person without consent a criminal offence for the first time. That includes deep fakes. The Act has also placed groundbreaking new duties on social media platforms to stop illegal content being shared on their sites, or they risk facing fines that could reach billions of pounds. And also, with regard to Pornhub, this has come from the Pornhub's Trust and Safety Centre on their website, its website,

consent as a rule and value is paramount to the security of our users and integrity of our platforms. To help protect the integrity of the platform, we also prohibit content, including fictional, simulated or animated, that features or depicts any deepfakes whatsoever. As a content-sharing platform, Pornhub relies on technology, our team of human moderators and our wider community of users to help identify violating content.

We also actively cooperate with law enforcement investigations and promptly respond to valid legal requests received And it goes on to say they do remove and review infringing content and fingerprint the content in question to help block future uploads of it and suspend or permanently terminate the associated uploader's account where appropriate. It's a lot of detail there, but it's important to try to get out. Just let me give you a chance to respond to that, Sophie, as someone who's spent two years looking at this. Yeah, I think that we're letting tech companies mark their own homework. I mean, Pornhub does seem to have slightly smartened up its act with regard to this. But the reality is that most of this content, in fact, 94% of this content is being shared on sites dedicated to this abuse. So they're quite shady, fringe sites. The Online Safety Act does not seem at all set up in order to deal with sites like that. I can't see Ofcom

kind of going after them. I can't see Ofcom having the investigative powers to try and find out who's actually responsible and bring them to any justice. You need to go and talk to Ofcom, don't you? Yeah, definitely. To make sure that there is knowledge on this. But also, I think something that's really important is that we think of the internet as this like huge amorphous blob that's impossible to regulate. It's not. Okay, there are gatekeepers. We reach sites through a lot of established channels, through Google, through internet service providers, through, you know, websites, website hosting platforms, etc.

And Google, I think, has a really huge responsibility here. So Google makes decisions around harmful content. If you Google how to harm a cat, you will be essentially the kind of animal abuse websites are downranked. So what you'll get is 10 reasons why you shouldn't harm this cat, etc. If you Google how to make deepfake porn of women, you will get tutorials on how to do it and you'll be directly linked to deepfake porn websites with, you know, my girlfriend as a search term. So these are decisions that are being made all the time about how we organise the internet

and the architecture of the internet. And I really think that we, as a public, need to understand that we do have the power to change some of these norms. I mean, that's also what those who've been pushing for the online safety ads have been saying, you know, there is the power and perhaps that we won't go far enough and there'll be people like yourself to keep an eye. On the Google point, the statement here that says we understand how distressing this content can be for people affected. We are actively working to bring more protections to search. Like any search engine, Google indexes content that exists on the web, but we actively

design our ranking systems to avoid shocking people with unexpected, harmful or explicit content they don't want to see. We've also developed policy protections so people can have involuntary fake pornography, including them removed from search. As this space evolves, we are in the process of building more expansive safeguards with a particular focus on removing the need for known victims to request content removals one by one. Yeah, which I think, I mean, I'm hopeful. I'm an eternal, I'm an activist. So I'm an eternal optimist. Optimist, activist. They don't always go together.

I know. Well, they have to be because otherwise, how do you keep going, honestly? Well, I don't always go together but I know well they have to be because otherwise how do you keep going honestly well I don't always hear that so there you go yeah I've seen this field grow and I think it's because there have been amazing survivor leaders that are just holding holding these companies to account so I really encourage anyone to to share their story and get involved well there is one at the heart of your award-winning documentary which is called another body and it's released here in the UK. When's it out? This Friday. This Friday. You've been listening to it.

It's called Another Body. I always get told off by our listeners if I don't repeat the name of the thing that they have been listening about. But that's what it's called. And Sophie Compton is one of the documentary's directors. Thank you for talking to us this morning. Now, somebody's just joined us in the studio. I did mention at the start of the programme, a beautiful piano, our woman's piano that we slightly borrow from Radio 3 is out.

And I've got someone who knows what to do with it. My goodness, I do. The pianist Chloe Flower came to the public's attention after a show-stopping performance with rap queen Cardi B at the 2019 Grammy Awards, after which viral fame ensued almost immediately. She has collaborated with some of the biggest names in music. I mean, I was going to say from Celine Dion to American rappers,

and obviously that includes lots of other people, but you know, just Celine Dion would suffice and we'll keep going. And I should say, Chloe recently received an award from Gloria Steinem at the Asia Society's Last Girl Awards for her efforts in the fight against human trafficking, and she campaigned for women's representation in the music industry. But in a bit of a handbrake turn, she's also obsessed with Christmas and has a new album appropriately called Chloe Hearts Christmas. Chloe, good morning. Good morning. So happy to be here.

It's lovely to have you. And I mentioned that performance with Cardi B. May we start there? Please. A lot of people will have met you through that, or they'll now be looking it up. How was it for you? I believe you were playing on Liberace's former piano. I was, you know, actually, this is the perfect space to talk about that experience because it was my first time working with like a female performer entertainer at that level. And she was such a

girl's girl. She was it was like the best experience as an artist. It was like, I want to be like that. You know, at one point, you know, she wanted me to shine. She wanted me to stand out. So she actually spearheaded the getting Liberace's piano to Los Angeles, which was difficult and expensive. She wanted me to stand out. They took out some of my solos that I had written and she asked them to put them back in. She asked the camera people to make sure they get enough piano of me on air. So it was really an empowering and amazing experience. And quite sparkly. Yeah, very sparkly, like we love. Is the piano sparkly? It's made of crystals. No, it's fully sparkly.

That must have also been a first. It was it was definitely a first. And it was my mom was afterwards laughing. She was like, Oh, like, that was an interesting piano. But I've also read that you said, you know, nothing about you and the way you perform and your training has changed. It's just you got the audience. Yeah, you know, I was the same person Saturday night as I was Monday morning. But you know, all of a sudden, everyone got it. And I think that's the beauty of a platform like that and to work with an artist like that who really empowers you and lifts you up because you you all of a sudden have a platform to do what you love and show people that if you're different it's not necessarily a bad thing and you know

different can be kind of amazing. And you started playing from what age? Two. Two? Like back then we had telephone books so I sat on a telephone book and a pillow on top of it. Is that because people in your family played the piano or it was thought that you might be able to? What was the reason? No, you know, I think my parents identified very early on that I had an affinity for music. They would play this theme, Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 3. It's not like particularly my favorite song now, but any time I heard that theme, I would try to get up and start yelling and dancing to that theme. And so they're like,

oh, she recognizes that theme. So I actually added it to that theme to my first single that I released. Obviously has a huge resonance. Yeah, even if not your favorite now, we will get to Christmas, I promise. But from two to now, it's been it's been quite a journey, I imagine. And how do you describe your style? I describe it as popsicle because it's really pop plus classical. And I just kind of came up with that term a long time ago secretly. And then, you know, a friend of mine outed me. But, you know, it's it's like a mix of many different sounds. And I think like that's kind of who I am as a person. I'm an Asian, but I'm also an American. I love classical, traditional classical music, but I also love hip hop and I love rap music.

So I felt like I just didn't fit in anywhere, fit in anywhere. So I decided, you know, I'm sure there's so many other artists like me who don't necessarily fit into a genre. Is it a good life, your job? I mean, I love what I do. I think there's nothing else other artists like me who don't necessarily fit into a genre. Is it a good life, your job? I mean, I love what I do. I think there's nothing else in this world I could do for 14 hours a day. But I suppose it's very hard if you don't get that platform, isn't it, at the same time? Because I know you want to encourage especially more women and girls to go into it. But it's interesting about what it's like as a life. It is. It's, you know, it's definitely hard. There's, you know, you see all the crystals and you see the feathers and the glamour, but it's,

you know, hours, like I haven't slept in days, hours and hours of work. But, you know, I think what the Grammys did for me and for instrumental music in general, it really showed the power of instrumental music, like whether you play the piano, the harp, the violin, the cello. You started to see a lot of other artists wanting to incorporate live instruments into their performance as big artists. And so I performed with so many artists after that asked me to play. And I thought and I would see other artists, other instrumentalists on TV and in videos with these artists. So I think that having that platform is just so great for instrumental music as a whole.

I do want you to get some sleep now you've said that. I'll get some on Thursday. I mean, I have a 10 month old at home. So I'm always about the sleep. So you know what it's like. No, no, I'm not like, go sleep, go sleep. Christmas, talk to me. You know, you mentioned being Asian,

you mentioned being American. How's the tradition for you? What's the love of it? You know, I just, part of the reason I love Christmas, talk to me. You know, you mentioned being Asian, you mentioned being American. How's the tradition for you? What's the love of it? You know, I just part of the reason I love Christmas, it's actually not, you know, for all of the like, we didn't actually celebrate Christmas in the traditional sense. We didn't get presents. We didn't open presents under a tree. But one thing I loved about Christmas was that sense of it was, the holidays are about love and connection and connection to your family, your given family or your chosen family. And so I want my Christmas album to feel like a hug.

I just want it to be a warm hug. And I wanted to bring that feeling of the holidays to everyone, but it's not always like happy, right? So my album kind of ebbs and flows through, you know, really upbeat, happy songs into like some sadder, some more melancholy tracks. What are you playing for us today? Today I'm playing Santa Tell Me by Ariana Grande. Had to have her on the album. She's just an incredible female artist and a writer. So she

wrote this song, co-wrote the song. And in the ebb and flow, are we saying happy here or are we saying sad? Well, originally, I think the original version is very happy, but I've completely turned it around into like a ballad style. So it's got a more, I wouldn't say it's sad, but it's definitely got a different vibe. I'm going to let you walk over to the piano. You go do that, which is a real treat for us today. And definitely one of the best bits of me having this job ever that I can sit in this studio and share this moment with you all. So you're listening to the pianist, Chloe Flower. She's getting herself set up. And this is from her new album, Chloe Hearts Christmas.

And it's a solo piano version of Santa Tell Me. It's beautiful. What a wonderful thing to be able to hear this morning. Thank you so much. You're listening there to Santa Tell Me. That's from the new album of Chloeloe flower and it's called chloe hearts christmas uh maybe because you don't know it necessarily as a christmas song you won't feel it's too early for this for some of you are saying come on emma it's the 22nd of november what an absolute joy uh and i'm sure you'll be you'll be looking that up and

feeling it this morning from ariana grande originally and um reorganized and put together by chloe flower they're talking about the power of music and also what moves you and many of you today been you know getting in touch and talking about uh how you're doing and especially in light of what we went through during the pandemic with the covid inquiry so thank you very much for all of those messages uh and there's you know one here just talking about this is from rebecca how hard is to process grieving having lost her father during that time and not being able to visit during his dying days. So I'm always very grateful when you feel like you can share. Rebecca, thank you for that. And I do hope you're doing as okay as possible. I'll be back with you tomorrow from 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one.

Hello, this is Marion Keys. And this is Tara Flynn. We host a podcast you might like for BBC Radio 4 and BBC Sounds called Now You're Asking. Each week we take real listeners' questions about life, love, lingerie,

cats, dogs, dentists, pockets, or the lack of anything really and apply our worldly wisdom in a way which we hope will help. About life, love, lingerie, cats, dogs, dentists, pockets, or the lack of. Anything really. And apply our worldly wisdom in a way which we hope will help.

But also hopefully entertain. Join us, why don't you? Search up Now You're Asking on BBC Sounds. Thanking you. We'll be right back. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now.