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

EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#101

Post by schoen »

mikgp wrote: post #92
schoen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology. When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do n…

How is EFF asking to police or restrict users use of technology? The only thing they seem to be asking here is for X to continue to generate reports in how they use (or misuse) PII. The concerns on Grok seem pretty specific: to not take for granted that it doesn’t introduce problems with how Twitter handles user data, not what users can do with it. From the article: “These sweeping assurances that corporate restructu…

There is some clear disapproval of Grok's capabilities in the end of the second section:

> X Corp.’s flagship product since its identity change—a generative AI model called Grok—has created shocking amounts of child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”) and other nonconsensual sexual imagery. X Corp.’s generation of CSAM and other nonconsensual imagery was so egregious that it sparked several investigations and lawsuits, including by a bipartisan coalition of 35 state attorneys general and international law enforcement.

I guess it is complicated by the context that the letter goes on to claim that these capabilities were partly enabled by misuse of personal data (the underlying issue before the FTC here), which leaves open some possibility that EFF would agree that X should not be liable for users' use of Grok if it had been created by some other means.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#102

Post by mingus88 »

nailer wrote: post #96
mingus88 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Why on earth you would feel the need to play this game when we all know Musk’s character is baffling.

No, the opposite. I’m being acute. You are vaguely (I suspect deliberately vaguely) referring to “CSAM generation“, I’m pointing out the specific issue of generating images of children wearing bathing suits (children wearing bathing suits has historically not been considered CSAM) and giving references to prove it. “we all know musk’s character” is not an argument, in fact, it’s a textbook example of https://www.logi…

Look. OP said he couldn’t remember something so I provided some links to jog his memory. There is no shortage of examples of musk being a shithead for anyone who cares.

I am not going to litigate every detail in these articles because that’s not the point of this thread but for SOME REASON you feel obligated to jump to an oligarch’s defense and I am not going to waste any more time on you.

I mean really, what can I say to someone who is drawing lines around content of children in bikinis as some kind of defense. So weird and gross.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#103

Post by xracy »

chrisjj wrote: post #82
xracy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think my comment was responding to? Literally those are the words that I was responding to. Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflec…

> What do you think my comment was responding to? Your misunderstanding of "private data". This is not lawyered words. > Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself It is not a naked image of yourself. An image of someone else's naked body does not become a reflection of an image of you just because your face is pasted on it. Object if you wish, but when it comes to privacy, the only possible breach is of t…

> It is not a naked image of yourself.

If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.

Is that an image of you?

It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).

You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#104

Post by chrisjj »

xracy wrote: post #103
chrisjj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think my comment was responding to? Your misunderstanding of "private data". This is not lawyered words. > Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself It is not a naked image of yourself. An image of someone else's naked body does not become a reflection of an image of you just because your face is pasted on it. Object if you wish, but when it comes to privacy, the only possible breach is of t…

> It is not a naked image of yourself. If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created. Is that an image of you? It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human). You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you wi…

A pic of someone else who looks like you is not a pic of you and does not breach your privacy.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#105

Post by shakna »

chrisjj wrote: post #95
queenkjuul wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't tell me you think my own face is not my own likeness

I won't. I will tell you that any rights over commercial exploitation of a likeness is totally separate from this privacy issue.

Whilst the US has a carveout saying it has to be commercial, Australia, Quebec, and others, do not.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#106

Post by neuroticnews25 »

camgunz wrote: post #93
neuroticnews25 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent? Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person? Other than potential second-order effects that may or may not occur like increase in demand for abuse? I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being…

> This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent? I don't really wanna get into a hierarchy of abuse/violence; let's just say they're both bad. But watching a video of a beheading isn't beheading someone. We may have a moral objection to someone deriving pleasure from the watching of it, and we may even worry that without regulation we'd create a market for this abhorrent act, but it's still not the same thin…

Now I understand, yeah, it would make sense to use the CSAM acronym only for material presenting sexual abuse of actual children.

I'd say loli hentai is actually more distilled, visually appealing, action packed and addictive version of child porn, and long term it affects consumer's perception of real-life children in a deeply satanic way, and as such deserves more stigma than it gets.

Wow, this virtue signaling thing is easy.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#107

Post by solid_fuel »

schoen wrote: post #75
solid_fuel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.

The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology. When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do n…

I think there's a fundamental difference between a hosting service being liable for user content and an image generation service being responsible for the images they generate.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#108

Post by camgunz »

neuroticnews25 wrote: post #106
camgunz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent? I don't really wanna get into a hierarchy of abuse/violence; let's just say they're both bad. But watching a video of a beheading isn't beheading someone. We may have a moral objection to someone deriving pleasure from the watching of it, and we may even worry that without regulation we'd create a market for this abhorrent act, but it's still not the same thin…

Now I understand, yeah, it would make sense to use the CSAM acronym only for material presenting sexual abuse of actual children. I'd say loli hentai is actually more distilled, visually appealing, action packed and addictive version of child porn, and long term it affects consumer's perception of real-life children in a deeply satanic way, and as such deserves more stigma than it gets. Wow, this virtue signaling thi…

Yeah, exactly.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for loli hentai or CSAM. I'm closer to the ban Internet porn side of things. But it's not because I think it turns you into a degenerate (I'm on a big "please interact directly with more humans" kick lately). While it's true if you're sexually inexperienced you get a weird idea of sex from porn, it's not as though you watch a lot of, say, stepsister porn and dot dot dot, a few months later you're propositioning your own sister. These are the same wrong arguments people made about video games, horror movies, whatever. It's moral panic, pure and simple. And anyone who doesn't think that should explain why it's illegal to have CSAM but not snuff, why it's illegal to generate CSAM but not pictures of people being murdered, etc.

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#109

Post by schoen »

solid_fuel wrote: post #107
schoen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology. When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do n…

I think there's a fundamental difference between a hosting service being liable for user content and an image generation service being responsible for the images they generate.

Those cases are going to implicate significantly different legal doctrines (e.g. the former might be covered by the CDA immunity and the latter is probably not), but I imagine EFF would historically have preferred to protect the services from liability in both cases. I can't prove this conclusively because the issue didn't come up in a similar form while I worked there.

If it was about capabilities of downloaded software, I don't think it would even be a close question. For cloud services I can see that it can get more complicated, because the service operator would be straightforwardly able to choose to have more knowledge or choose to exercise more control. (But in other cases where the services had a somewhat more passive role, EFF regularly argued that companies shouldn't have to proactively monitor how people used them, even if they could.)

Re: EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

#110

Post by xracy »

chrisjj wrote: post #104
xracy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not a naked image of yourself. If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created. Is that an image of you? It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human). You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you wi…

A pic of someone else who looks like you is not a pic of you and does not breach your privacy.

yeah, I mean, if you don't engage with the comment, then you're not going to understand. So maybe you should take your own advice and actually read what I wrote.
Post reply on HN