81–90 of 276 posts
Because client-side scanning is not going to work, and no one wants to government issued black box binary to send their conversations and photos to unnamed police person randomly, the non-compliance is the only way. People just start to use chat programs in the EU that do not comply. This would be Signal, Telegram, others. The EU can fine and fight with Meta/WhatsApp, Apple, others, but that’s about it. The EU bureau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a purely ethical standpoint, sure, I agree. But we live in reality, and there are plenty of activities that seem ethically victimless, but are practically necessary to criminalize, in order to uphold societal frameworks and expectations of morality. In this case, by giving every CSAM criminal a potential excuse that they "thought it was AI generated," the real victims are further victimized by being deprived of…
Broadening the definitions of crime to make it easier to punish the ethically guilty on scant evidence while incidentally sweeping up the ethically innocent is a hack around a legal tradition that is designed exactly on the principal that it is better that the guilty go unpunished than the innocent are punished, by making the genuinely innocent administratively guilty, and we ought to reject that kind of justificatio…
If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime, then we're not risking the false guiltiness of an innocent person. At best, we're risking their level of sentencing. And I'm open to the idea of reduced sentences for AI CSAM, but it shouldn't be a factor in determination of guilt (i.e. it should be a matter between the judge and the defendant, rather than something the prosecution needs to prove).
With regards to CSAM criminalization in general, there is a real risk of punishing innocent people that may have been framed by planted evidence. But this is a risk regardless of whether the evidence is "real" CSAM or not, so legalizing possession of AI-generated CSAM doesn't reduce the risk of an innocent person being framed. It might make it "easier" for a bad actor to frame someone, since they can now do it with AI content instead of real content. But if they're already planting evidence, do they really care whether they're committing a crime while preparing the evidence? And besides, if we keep the AI content illegal, then it's equally legally risky to frame someone with it as it is to frame them with real content.
The problem of prosecuting "innocent" people, whether you believe they're innocent because they were framed or because they're only guilty of possessing AI-generated CSAM, should be addressed at the time of enforcement. Stop using entrapment and fishing expeditions as an enforcement mechanism. Only open investigations when they start with a real and identifiable victim, rather than a potential perpetrator.
The issue described here, to my understanding, is that you find or create csam and then manipulate it so that its fingerprint collides with another image that you want to be flagged as csam. You then submit the manipulated version of the found or generated image to the authority. First, at what point does the authority go "uh... Where did you get this from?" Practically speaking, the people doing this would have to b…
Just post it to 4chan, it’s actively monitored by intelligence services
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that argument. Possession of CSAM should be illegal regardless of whether it's "real" or not. But the proposed scanning system is the wrong solution, regardless of any "real or AI" ambiguity, because it's possible to generate false positives with nonsense images that aren't even close to the expected CS…
I am of the opinion that regardless of whether they are both illegal, the penalties for “AI” should be significantly less.
How do these databases differentiate between AI generated CSAM and CSAM of real victims? (Since many jurisdictions only criminalize real CP) I know that 99% of people cannot tell an AI image from a real photo since that "Last giant irish greyhound 1902" photo has been going around on social media for weeks, and it is, to me, unbelievably obvious AI.
I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that argument. Possession of CSAM should be illegal regardless of whether it's "real" or not. But the proposed scanning system is the wrong solution, regardless of any "real or AI" ambiguity, because it's possible to generate false positives with nonsense images that aren't even close to the expected CS…
The issue is that the people (and the legislators) in each jurisdiction have made a choice that AI CSAM is not illegal, and therefore this runs the risk of falsely accusing someone of a crime.
[if you disagree that AI CSAM should be legal in your jurisdiction the solution isn't to arrest everyone, but to petition your lawmakers to change the law]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broadening the definitions of crime to make it easier to punish the ethically guilty on scant evidence while incidentally sweeping up the ethically innocent is a hack around a legal tradition that is designed exactly on the principal that it is better that the guilty go unpunished than the innocent are punished, by making the genuinely innocent administratively guilty, and we ought to reject that kind of justificatio…
I agree with you. I think our disagreement here is over the level of innocence of someone possessing AI generated CSAM. If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime, then we're not risking the false guiltiness of an innocent person. At best, we're risking their level of sentencing. And I'm open to the idea of reduced sentences for AI CSAM, but it shouldn't be a factor in determination of guilt (i.…
> If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime,
You just explicitly said upthread that ethically they are not, but argued that it is useful for them to be treated as criminals because it denies an excuse to those who are ethically guilty because they are possessors of genuine CSAM.
You seem to be moving your fundamental ethical premises around in response to it being pointed out that the argument you previously made conflicts with a different widely proclaimed ethical premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that I disagree. The point is to reduce actual child abuse. The images are in a way only tangential. If an image is made with an AI with no actual child being abused, then it shouldn't be a crime. In a way, it's better , because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activit…
You may think that intuitively, but actual studies actually indicate the opposite. Usage of CSAM material leads to increased risks of contacting and abusing children. This needs to be balanced against rights to privacy and expression, which I personally think take precedence, but pretending that it can serve as harm reduction is just not correct.
My point isn't that AI CSAM should be legal or not, but whether these tools can differentiate what the lawmakers have decided is a crime or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signal advises its users to install the app from the Play Store. While you can still get the .apk from Signal’s website, the developers warn against that. The EU can definitely exert pressure against what is hosted on the Play Store. Telegram famously lacks end-to-end encryption (unless you intentionally use its private-chat feature, which few people do) and shouldn’t be mentioned in the same context as Signal.
If you enable private chat, you don't get notifications for new messages, that way the feature is self defeating, it seems to me at least. (Something could also have gone wrong?)