Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

blog.xot.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 276 posts

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#231

Post by LorenPechtel »

gambiting wrote: post #128
chatmasta wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't support any automated scanning system or really any sort of "going out of our way" to find new criminals. The reason I think it's a bad idea to differentiate between real or AI is similar to the arguments against "means testing" for distributing benefits. You don't want to put real victims in a situation where they're deprived of justice because they can't prove that their victimization was "real." Imagin…

>> Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Saying "I thought this heroin was fake" is not a defense when caught with a bag of heroin, I don't see how this would be any different. It's not a magic out for anyone.

Sure it is. The bag of "heroin" on the movie set turns out to be real, think the actors are going to be convicted of possession?

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#232

Post by kelnos »

novok wrote: post #140
flkenosad wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow what a mess. At what point do we move on from copyright laws? Or more broadly intellectual property, in general. Even the words "intellectual property" sound ridiculous together when you think about it.

If you think deeper about it, the general concept of property is similarly ridiculous too. An arbitrary piece of land being ‘owned’ is similarly arbitrary human social concept, enforced by law and a registry

I agree that it's an arbitrary social concept, but it's not ridiculous at all, deeper thought or not. I think it's completely reasonable to expect that my house is my house, and others aren't allowed to enter it or live on my property without my consent. If you think we all should live commune-style and have no property or physical privacy, that's certainly fair for you to believe, but the vast majority of the people in the world would staunchly disagree with you... hence the concept of property ownership.

Certainly there are issues with how we've implemented property ownership, but I don't think the concept itself is inherently flawed or ridiculous.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#233

Post by pseudalopex »

trehalose wrote: post #186
londons_explore wrote: post #60

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…

> In a way, it's better, because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people. I see that assertion a lot. If that's how that works, why does the very large amount of CSAM already in existence not have the same effect? Why would synthesized CSAM distract pedophiles from their activities when real CSAM from their fellow pedophiles doesn't?

What are pedophiles' activities? Did you mean abusers?

I don't think they meant it would be 100% effective. And real child pornography may deter future abuse. Research is inconclusive.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#234

Post by LorenPechtel »

chatmasta wrote: post #112
sneak wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI cannot generate CSAM, because AI cannot abuse children. AI makes fictional images, which definitionally cannot be images of child sexual abuse. There is literally no victim of any kind, even conceptually, in the case of computer generated imagery. It should be protected artistic expression.

What if a police officer generates some AI CSAM and then sells it to someone who thinks it's real? There's still "no victim," but the buyer thinks that there was. Are they guilty of a crime? Your logic would seem to imply that there's no crime with possession of real CSAM either, and that the only crime lies with the original abuser who took the pictures.

While in one way you could look at it and say possession shouldn't be illegal the problem is that to possess it someone must have created it. If there's a market in it some people will engage in it to satisfy that market. Thus, possession of real CSAM has an indirect victim.

I had previously proposed that if the abuser has been caught that the victim should get the rights to the images and once they are an adult be allowed to legally sell them (thus a list of legally permitted images), but the AI image revolution has changed that. Have AIs sign their images, CSAM with a proper signature is legal.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#235

Post by anigbrowl »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #227
anigbrowl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming the truth of your conclusion without testing it. It's equally possible that encountering AI-CSAM is going to incentivize collectors to pay a premium for 'the real stuff', just as many CSAM collectors end up getting caught when they try to make the leap into engaging in abusive activities for real. Your mental model of how CSAM enthusiasts think isn't anchored in reality.

I don't think that's how it works. It's not that CSAM drives them to actual abuse, but that for some CSAM isn't enough to sufficiently satisfy their desires that they go on to real abuse. Thus I see no reason they would differentiate. With normal adult porn do we care that makeup and such might be involved?

I'm far less sure about this. We don't understand the neurodynamics of sexual desire that well, and lots of research in sex criminals show a pattern of escalation, similar to some kinds of drug addiction.

I don't understand your comparison with adult porn; that might be nonconsensual but typically isn't, whereas CP is nonconsensual by definition because minors aren't legally capable of agreeing. Obviously there are grey areas like two 17-yos sexting each other, but most courts take that context into account.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#236

Post by anigbrowl »

chownie wrote: post #191
anigbrowl wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people are not naturally sexually attracted to children (13 and under) in more than say 0.0001%. In the US alone, that would be ~30,000 people. Get back to me when you've read some legal cases or know anyone who's been abused to produce such material. Perhaps you'll learn some critical thinking and better manners along the way.

> Get back to me when you've read some legal cases or know anyone who's been abused to produce such material Hello, I'd be the anyone in this scenario. I don't believe that the pros outweigh the cons, violating the privacy of every single person to protect us from the absolute minority (abusers) of a minority (those attracted to children) is not worth the exchange. CSAM detection would not have protected me from abus…

OK, but if you read my posts above I am not arguing for mass privacy violations. I'm saying the tech community isn't going to get any traction for its advocacy unless it makes some effect to propose privacy respecting solutions to the CSAM proliferation problem.

I'm sorry that happened to you, but I presume you would also prefer that imagery including you did not continue to circulate?

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#237

Post by anigbrowl »

uconnectlol wrote: post #195
feoren wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claims of things that do happen are likely true. It is a propaganda word. People do use it as a bludgeon to push their agenda through. Police do use it for bullshit arrests. Teenagers' lives are ruined for basically no reason. Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any…

> Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any significant amount of time. Unthinkably horrible things happen to children to create these images. literally just propaganda and i have no doubt that this is a massive exaggeration. >The idea that we would legalize it is not on th…

I'm not the one who seems angry or incoherent here. I did carelessly omit the % on your suggested #, but I think your idea that there are only 300 child porn consumers in the US is laughably detached from reality.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#238

Post by gambiting »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #231
gambiting wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Saying "I thought this heroin was fake" is not a defense when caught with a bag of heroin, I don't see how this would be any different. It's not a magic out for anyone.

Sure it is. The bag of "heroin" on the movie set turns out to be real, think the actors are going to be convicted of possession?

I'm not sure what is the point that you are making here. An actor who was given a fake bag of heroin as a prop which then turns out to be real is no more guilty than a courier moving a package that happens to contain drugs or guns or fake money or anything else - neither would be found guilty of posession.

These are situational circumstances, and no prosecutor in the world would choose to prosecute those - but there is 0% chance you could get away with saying "oh I thought it was fake" if caught with CP on your phone.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#239

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

gambiting wrote: post #128
chatmasta wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't support any automated scanning system or really any sort of "going out of our way" to find new criminals. The reason I think it's a bad idea to differentiate between real or AI is similar to the arguments against "means testing" for distributing benefits. You don't want to put real victims in a situation where they're deprived of justice because they can't prove that their victimization was "real." Imagin…

>> Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Saying "I thought this heroin was fake" is not a defense when caught with a bag of heroin, I don't see how this would be any different. It's not a magic out for anyone.

That isn’t the argument at all.

It’s that you have a bag of fake heroin, you are then arrested for it because someone thinks that by you having fake heroin you are encouraging real heroin users to do more real heroin.

Re: Tainting the CSAM client-side scanning database

#240

Post by uconnectlol »

anigbrowl wrote: post #237
uconnectlol wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any significant amount of time. Unthinkably horrible things happen to children to create these images. literally just propaganda and i have no doubt that this is a massive exaggeration. >The idea that we would legalize it is not on th…

I'm not the one who seems angry or incoherent here. I did carelessly omit the % on your suggested #, but I think your idea that there are only 300 child porn consumers in the US is laughably detached from reality.

you haven't addressed a single argument i made in the first post, they were all very simple too, they should be immediately rebukeable if they were wrong

what % of those "child porn consumers" actually just looked at a picture of a naked 16 year old girl? answer that and stay fashionable.

Post reply on HN