217
Ethical triumph or new disaster?
Yes.
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
217 points (99.1% liked)
News
23301 readers
3234 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What does Chris Hansen have to say?
"Heather" also tested out Snapchat's search tool, finding that "even though she used no sexually explicit language, the algorithm must have determined that she was looking for CSAM" when she searched for other teen users.
But literally in just the previous paragraph:
Posing as "Sexy14Heather," the investigator swapped messages with adult accounts, including users who "sent inappropriate messages and explicit photos.
Gee, I wonder how the algorithm could've possibly suggested these users. What a mystery.
I'm not defending Snapchat here - they're a scumbag company with a scumbag product and they should be held responsible for enabling the sharing of CSAM on their platform - but it doesn't just match you with random predators out of thin air. They went in with specific keywords in their username and a pattern of account engagement.
That's nuance that I hadn't considered and I appreciate you pointing it out. I'm not on any of these sharing platforms so I have no idea what they're like and that made it easy to overlook this detail which is probably pretty relevant.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Tough call. If you put out bait, you’re gonna get someone. But would that person have done the same thing if they had not seen your bait? Chicken and the egg. On one hand, it looks like entrapment.
IANAL, but my understanding is entrapment is when they convince you to do something you might not otherwise have done. So if the cops create an account of a minor and message an adult asking if they want to fuck, and the answer is like "uh no, absolutely not," and then the cops follow up by repeatedly sexting, and the adult blocks their account, but the cops relentlessly keep sexting from burner accounts, and plant people in the adult's work and social environments who keep talking about how normal it is to fuck minors who sext you out of the blue, and then the adult is finally like "oh whatever, fine" - that's entrapment.
Now, most people still are literally never going to take the minor up on the offer, no matter how relentless they are or how normalized it is in their environment. That's true about most crimes. The question is how many people wouldn't have committed that crime unless this very specific police-created situation came up, and that difference is what falls into entrapment.
I'd argue this isn't even close to entrapment, because all they did was set up an account much like all the others that exist, and waited for others to find them. It's no different from leaving a bike unlocked, then catching somebody who steals it. There are unlocked bikes everywhere, and people don't suddenly decide to steal the only bike of their life because they happened to find that unlocked bike.
Of course, they could also be spending this time and money getting to the root of societal issues and fixing the core problems instead of catching a small percentage of active pedophiles and letting the rest of them continue to cause irreparable harm.
The last paragraph is the big issue. Fix society. We can argue all day long about what line does “artwork” cross before it becomes illegal, but that’s not actually preventing anyone from getting abused.
And imo, it seems a little sick to say, “we made a bunch of kiddie porn that didn’t exist previously, and I’m going to distribute it to catch criminals—using tax dollars” … tf?
I mean, that part isn't really at issue here. It's fundamentally the same technique that's been used since the 90's, famously on To Catch a Predator. Seemingly, the "entrapment" angle has been settled.
But now they can argue that they aren’t sexually attracted to children, just AI artwork, which is technically not an image of a child. And unless I missed it, they were not trying to meet the girl.
The problem is going to be that images that aren’t real of a crime aren’t a crime. Of the opposite was true, images of murder would be illegal. Can’t just cherry pick.
If I draw a stick figure and label it “naked girl,” does it become child porn? What if I’m a really good artist?
I believe that cartoon images depicting sex of underage kids is still illegal. At least in the US.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but seems like I remember this from a news article a while back. Maybe it was just a specific state.
I am not going to Google that one though to find out though.
https://cellebrite.com/en/ai-and-csam-a-look-at-real-cases/
Best I could find about this.
Imo as long as the ai was not trained on actual CSAM and the product is not depicting real people, then it shouldn't be illegal as it is not hurting anyone which is why we have laws against CSAM in the first place.
What if it normalises CSAM and some people don't discerne between real and AI?
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think the bar is whether it could be reasonably mistaken for a real child. Which makes quite a lot of disgusting content legal.
I also find it to be repugnant, but if the images are not based on real people and the ai was not trained on real csam(good luck proving this either way), then it shouldn't be illegal. The laws were made to protect kids, and drawings of purly fictional characters are not hurting the kids.
Pretty much every law ever made in the history of humanity that was ostensibly to protect children is actually about control of the population.
This is just plain wrong.
Obviously, there are loads of laws and very good legislation that does indeed protect children.
Just one example: child labour laws.
I suspect that what you really mean is that whenever a politician says whatever police powers are required to protect children, they really just want more power to violate privacy to make it easier to prosecute various crimes.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Yeah don’t Google it hahaha
It what makes it a child? There’s some creepy anime girls who definitely fall into that questionable category. And if I label a stick figure with an age… does that make it illegal? What about an ai image with bubble text that says “I’m not real. I’m 18, I have a magical curse on me etc etc” now it’s fiction?
Since it isn’t actually real… what is the line, and how can that line be measured? Since this is just going to keep being a problem, this awkward conversation needs to happen in a logical, calm manner.
https://cellebrite.com/en/ai-and-csam-a-look-at-real-cases/
Best I could find about this.
Imo as long as the ai was not trained on actual CSAM and the product is not depicting real people, then it shouldn't be illegal as it is not hurting anyone which is why we have laws against CSAM in the first place.
I definitely don’t want to sound as if I’m promoting this material, but I agree. Fake things are fake and real things are real. Yeah, it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to think about it and I totally understand.
Fake images of murder seem to be perfectly fine! And that’s arguably the worst crime possible. We show that shit to our kids.
Isn't it sad that we even have to say we don't promote it before we say anything else?
Yeah. But you know how it is here, you’re either against it or you’re one of them. Make a logical comparison between two nearly identical things and you’re whatabouting. I appreciate you recognizing the difference.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Despite Snapchat setting the fake minor's profile to private and the account not adding any followers, "Heather" was soon recommended widely to "dangerous accounts, including ones named 'child.rape' and 'pedo_lover10,' in addition to others that are even more explicit," the New Mexico DOJ said in a press release.
wtf
load more comments
(1 replies)