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

Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#71

Post by spwa4 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #17
jsheard wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is known that the LAION dataset underpinning foundation models like Stable Diffusion contained at least a few thousand instances of real-life CSAM at one point. I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that any model trained on internet scrapes definitively wasn't trained on any CSAM whatsoever. https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009418/generative-ai-i...

Then all image generation models should be considered inherently harmful, no?

But this is the dream for the supposed protectors of children. You see, just because child porn production stops, does not mean those children disappear. Usually, of course, they go into youth services (in practice most don't even make it to the front door and run away to resume the child abuse, but let's ignore that). That is how the situation of those children changes when CSAM is persecuted. From the situation they were in, to whatever situation exists in youth services. In other words, youth services is the upper limit to how much police and anyone CAN help those children.

So you'd think they would make youth services a good place to be for a child, right. After all, if that situation were to be only marginally better than child prostitution, there's no point to finding CSAM. Or at least, the point is not to protect children, since that is simply not what they're doing.

So how is youth services doing these days? Well ... NOT good. Regularly children run away from youth services to start doing child porn (ie. live off off an onlyfans account). There's a netflix series on the subject ("Young and locked up") which eventually, reluctantly shows the real problem, the outcome (ie. prison or street poverty).

In other words your argument doesn't really apply since the goal is not to improve children's well being. If that was the goal, these programs would do entirely different things.

Goals differ. There's people who go into government with the express purpose to "moralize" and arrest people for offenses. Obviously, to them it's the arresting part that's important, now how serious the offense was and CERTAINLY not if their actions actually help people. And then there's people who simply want a well-paying long-term job where they don't accomplish much. Ironically these are much less damaging, but they still seek to justify their own existence.

Both groups really, really, really want ALL image generation models to be considered inherently harmful, as you say.

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#72

Post by 9rx »

harshreality wrote: post #61
9rx wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell us more about the market that is carrying out mass shootings/carjackings with intent to sell the imagery of it. This is the first I've heard of it. In fact, when mass shootings do occur they are usually explained away for some other reason (e.g. a troubled teen who went off the rails), not that it is the day-to-day operation of a videography business.

They don't have to sell imagery, or intend for it to be publicized, for it to have the effect of driving demand for such imagery. The link between consumption (without purchase) of CSAM and increased production of CSAM is assumed in the same way, isn't it? The motives and situational dynamics of pedophiles filming child pornography, and gangs robbing or carjacking people on video in broad daylight, may be different i…

> They don't have to sell imagery, or intend for it to be publicized, for it to have the effect of driving demand for such imagery.

As stated in the first comment, the law here is concerned about future production of imagery to satisfy demand, with its incentive to harm even more children. The business of creating CSAM material is well understood. It is, after all, an extension of the adult porn industry. The law didn't emerge out of someone sitting around dreaming up hypotheticals, it was in reaction to actual situations that the public didn't want to see continue. What is done is done, and there are other laws to deal with what is already done, but the law also seeks to prevent future harm. Outlawing the product so that there is no market for producers to sell into is the only way it knows how. It's overly blunt, is far from perfect, but it tries.

The business of committing mass shootings/carjackings to produce salable imagery is not well understood. Frankly, I've never heard of it before, and since you can't speak to it I take it that you haven't either. It is unclear why you decided to make it up. As before, I cannot think of any mass shooting that was considered "producing a product to sell" and not "deranged person acting out". Most importantly, even if it is a thing, since nobody is aware that it is happening there is no public will to see that line of business come to an end. Your attempt to find parallel is poorly considered.

The closest analogy, which still isn't great but is at least in the same universe, that might be found in your ramblings is a case of people wanting to own stolen car parts, incentivizing others to carry out carjackings to get ahold of stolen parts to sell. In reaction, you might make it illegal to possess stolen car parts with the intent to create a situation where someone trying to steal and sell stolen car parts ultimately doesn't have anyone to sell to, diminishing the incentive to carjack in the future. Of course, the law already does exactly that, so...

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#73

Post by NotYourLawyer »

6ix8igth wrote: post #59
loeg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? Hard to be mad about the outcome.

Laws like this impede everyone while providing little tangible benefit for actual children. It's silly to imply that generating an image with a model hurts anyone. In general I don't like legislation that tries to criminalize abstract depictions of something that would otherwise be a crime. It's too intangible, and opens the opportunity for abusing the legal system to persecute undesirables. We have to be really care…

Only pedophiles are impeded. And that’s fine with me.

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#74

Post by yellowapple »

danaris wrote: post #70
yellowapple wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the one case where I'd disagree is when it's a depiction of an actual person - say, someone creates pornography (be it AI-generated, drawn, CG-animated, etc.) depicting a person who actually exists in the real world, and not just some invented character. That's certainly a case where it'd cross into actual CSAM/CSEM, because despite the child not physically being abused/exploited in the way depicted in the wo…

That would only apply if the child is exposed to it, either directly or indirectly—which, if it's distributed publicly, is a possibility, though far from a certainty. I would also say that there's enough difference between being sexually abused, in person, and having someone make a fake image of that, that it's at least questionable to apply the term. I would further note that part of the reason to use the term CSAM…

> That would only apply if the child is exposed to it

Not just the child, but anyone associated with the child. Classmates sharing it around school and gossiping about it, overbearing parents punishing the child for something the child didn't even do, predators identifying the child and seeking to turn the fictional images into reality... there are a lot of plausible angles for a fictional representation of a real person to produce tangible psychological or even physical harm, just by the mere existence of that representation.

It's in a similar vein to so-called "revenge porn". Nobody was harmed in the creation of it (assuming that the persons in it consented to being in it), and yet the dissemination of it has clear negative impacts on those who did not consent to said dissemination.

That all being to say:

> I would further note that part of the reason to use the term CSAM is to emphasize that there is an actual child in actual danger that may need help.

Creating pornographic works depicting a child who actually exists in the real world does indeed put that actual child in actual danger. That's why it'd be appropriate to call such works "CSAM".

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#75

Post by skissane »

metalcrow wrote: post #25
skissane wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wrong country. In 2021, a Texas man was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison over CSAM text and drawings - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-sentenced-40-years-...

Specifically, this ruling does not make that kind of content illegal. This person was convicted under federal obscenity statues, which are....fuzzy to say the least. As Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart said, it's a "i know it when i see it" thing. Which in effect is basically a "you can go to jail if we think you're too gross" law.

> Specifically, this ruling does not make that kind of content illegal.

I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but if you can get a 40 year prison sentence for "that kind of content", then it is illegal.

> This person was convicted under federal obscenity statues, which are....fuzzy to say the least.

So are child pornography statutes. Canada's [0] has lots of subjective clauses open to judicial interpretation, such as whether the content "has a legitimate purpose related to.. science, medicine, education or art". How do you draw that line? Potter Stewart’s famous quip applies here too

[0] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1....

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#76

Post by skissane »

danaris wrote: post #30

If it's AI-generated, it is fundamentally not CSAM. The reason we shifted to the terminology "CSAM", away from "child pornography", is specifically to indicate that it is Child Sexual Abuse Material: that is, an actual child was sexually abused to make it. You can call it child porn if you really want, but do not call something that never involved the abuse of a real, living, flesh-and-blood child "CSAM". (Or "CSEM"—…

This is a rather US-centric perspective. Under US law, there is a legal distinction between child pornography and child obscenity (see e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”). The first is clearly CSAM; whether the second is, is open to dispute. But, in Canada, UK (and many other European countries), Australia, New Zealand, that legal distinction doesn’t exist, both categories are subsumed under child pornography (or equivalent terms-Australian law now prefers the phrase “child abuse material”), and the authorities in those jurisdictions aren’t going to say some child pornography is CSAM and the rest isn’t - they are going to say it is all CSAM

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#77

Post by danaris »

skissane wrote: post #76
danaris wrote: post #30

If it's AI-generated, it is fundamentally not CSAM. The reason we shifted to the terminology "CSAM", away from "child pornography", is specifically to indicate that it is Child Sexual Abuse Material: that is, an actual child was sexually abused to make it. You can call it child porn if you really want, but do not call something that never involved the abuse of a real, living, flesh-and-blood child "CSAM". (Or "CSEM"—…

This is a rather US-centric perspective. Under US law, there is a legal distinction between child pornography and child obscenity (see e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”). The first is clearly CSAM; whether the second is, is open to dispute. But, in Canada, UK (and many other European countries), Australia, New Zealand, that legal distinction doesn’t exist, both c…

You are speaking of legality, not terminology.

The terminology is universal, as it is simply for talking about What People Are Doing, not What The Law Says.

Many people will—and do, and this is why I'm taking pains to point it out—confuse and conflate CSAM and child pornography, and also the terminology and the law. That doesn't change anything about what I've said.

Fundamentally, there are two basic reasons we outlaw or otherwise vilify these things:

1) Because the creation of CSAM involves the actual sexual abuse of actual children, which causes actual harm.

2) Because we think that child pornography is icky.

Only the former has a basis in fundamental and universal principles. The latter is, effectively, attempting to police a thoughtcrime. Lots of places do attempt to police thoughtcrime, in various different ways (though they rarely think of it as such); that does not change the fact that this is what they are doing.

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#78

Post by lazyasciiart »

spwa4 wrote: post #71
lazyasciiart wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then all image generation models should be considered inherently harmful, no?

But this is the dream for the supposed protectors of children. You see, just because child porn production stops, does not mean those children disappear. Usually, of course, they go into youth services (in practice most don't even make it to the front door and run away to resume the child abuse, but let's ignore that). That is how the situation of those children changes when CSAM is persecuted. From the situation the…

Yea, the nonprofit for commercially sexually abused children that I volunteer at is a much better way to know about reality. But conspiracies are a comforting way to understand why things can't just be fixed, sure.

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#79

Post by skissane »

danaris wrote: post #77
skissane wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rather US-centric perspective. Under US law, there is a legal distinction between child pornography and child obscenity (see e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”). The first is clearly CSAM; whether the second is, is open to dispute. But, in Canada, UK (and many other European countries), Australia, New Zealand, that legal distinction doesn’t exist, both c…

You are speaking of legality, not terminology. The terminology is universal, as it is simply for talking about What People Are Doing, not What The Law Says. Many people will—and do, and this is why I'm taking pains to point it out—confuse and conflate CSAM and child pornography, and also the terminology and the law. That doesn't change anything about what I've said. Fundamentally, there are two basic reasons we outla…

> The terminology is universal

Is it? The US Department of Homeland Security defines "CSAM" as including generative AI images: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/24_0408_k2p_...

So does the FBI: https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA240329

You want to define the "CSAM" more narrowly, so as to exclude those images.

I'm not aware of any "official" definition, but arguably something hosted on a US federal government website is "more official" than the opinion of a HN commenter

Re: Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated CSAM

#80

Post by 6ix8igth »

loeg wrote: post #68
6ix8igth wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws like this impede everyone while providing little tangible benefit for actual children. It's silly to imply that generating an image with a model hurts anyone. In general I don't like legislation that tries to criminalize abstract depictions of something that would otherwise be a crime. It's too intangible, and opens the opportunity for abusing the legal system to persecute undesirables. We have to be really care…

I don’t feel remotely impeded by this and neither do most other people. No one needs to generate CSAM.

You don't feel impeded right now, but let enough stupid stuff like this through and you'll slowly drip feed your rights away. I explained in my post above why this is bad - if you make it a crime to do a simple thing, it becomes very easy to falsely accuse a person of a crime, and act in other authoritarian ways.

I already have personal experience facing strong arm measures under the pretext of "protecting the kids". Last time I returned to my home country of Australia, the policy forcibly did a digital search of my phone, on the pretext of looking for child porn. I have my banks details and pics of my girlfriend on that thing. In no first world country should I have to surrender it to authorities without a warrant. No one would tolerate this bullshit for any other reason then the moral panic around children.

I'm anti-pedophilia, but the legislation the article is talking about is incredibly stupid. We don't accept invasive police-state tactics to combat any other crime, we shouldn't accept them here.

Post reply on HN