• PotatoKat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The images were created using photos of real children even if said photos weren’t CSAM (which can’t be guaranteed they weren’t). So the victims were are the children used to generate CSAM

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sure, but isn’t the the perpetrator the company that trained the model without their permission? If a doctor saves someone’s life using knowledge based on nazi medical experiments, then surely the doctor isn’t responsible for the crimes?

      • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        So is the car manufacturer responsible if someone drives their car into the sidewalk to kill some people?

        Your analogy doesn’t match the premise. (Again assuming there is no csam in the training data which is unlikely) the training data is not the problem it is how the data is used. Using those same picture to generate photos of medieval kids eating ice cream with their family is fine. Using it to make CSAM is not.

        It would be more like the doctor using the nazi experiments to do some other fucked up experiments.

        (Also you posted your response like 5 times)

        • dev_null@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry, my app glitched out and posted my comment multiple times, and got me banned for spamming… Now that I got unbanned I can reply.

          So is the car manufacturer responsible if someone drives their car into the sidewalk to kill some people?

          In this scenario no, because the crime was in how someone used the car, not in the creation of the car. The guy in this story did commit a crime, but for other reasons. I’m just saying that if you are claiming that children in the training data are victims of some crime, then that crime was committed when training the model. They obviously didn’t agree for their photos to be used that way, and most likely didn’t agree for their photos to be used for AI training at all. So by the time this guy came around, they were already victims, and would still be victims if he didn’t.

          • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I would argue that the person using the model for that purpose is further victimizing the children. Kinda like how with revenge porn the worst perpetrator is the person who uploaded the content, but every person viewing it from there is furthering the victimization. It is mentally damaging for the victim of revenge porn to know that their intimate videos are being seen/sought out.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Let’s do a thought experiment, and I’d look to to tell me at what point a victim was introduced:

      1. I legally acquire pictures of a child, fully clothed and everything
      2. I draw a picture based on those legal pictures, but the subject is nude or doing sexually explicit things
      3. I keep the picture for my own personal use and don’t distribute it

      Or with AI:

      1. I legally acquire pictures of children, fully clothed and everything
      2. I legally acquire pictures of nude adults, some doing sexually explicit things
      3. I train an AI on a mix of 1&2
      4. I generate images of nude children, some of them doing sexually explicit things
      5. I keep the pictures for my own personal use and don’t distribute any of them
      6. I distribute my model, using the right to distribute from the legal acquisition of those images

      At what point did my actions victimize someone?

      If I distributed those images and those images resemble a real person, then that real person is potentially a victim.

      I will say someone who does this creepy and I don’t want them anywhere near children (especially mine, and yes, I have kids), but I don’t think it should be illegal, provided the source material is legal. But as soon as I distribute it, there absolutely could be a victim. Being creepy shouldn’t be a crime.

      • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think it should be illegal to make porn of a person without their permission regardless of if it was shared or not. Imagine the person it is based off of finds out someone is doing that. That causes mental strain on the person. Just like how revenge porn doesn’t actively harm a person but causes mental strafe (both the initial upload and continued use of it). For scenario 1 it would be at step 2 when the porn is made of the person. For scenario 2 it would be a mix between step 3 and 4.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Thanks for sharing! I’m going to disagree with pretty much everything, so please stop reading here if you’re not interested.

          Imagine the person it is based off of finds out someone is doing that. That causes mental strain on the person…

          Sure, and there are plenty of things that can cause mental strain, but that doesn’t make those things illegal. For example:

          • public display of affection - could cause mental stain people who recently broke up or haven’t found love
          • drug use - recovering addicts could experience mental strain
          • finding out someone is masturbating to a picture of you

          And so on. Those things aren’t illegal, but someone could experience mental strain from them. Experiencing that doesn’t make you a victim, it just means you experience it.

          revenge porn doesn’t actively harm a person but causes mental strafe

          Revenge porn damages someone’s reputation, at the very least, which is a large part of why it’s illegal.

          Someone keeping those images for private use doesn’t cause harm, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal.

          Someone doing something creepy for their own use should never be illegal.

          • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Thanks for sharing! I’m going to disagree with pretty much everything, so please stop reading here if you’re not interested.

            I’m not one to stop because of disagreement. You’re in good faith and that’s all that matters imo

            Revenge porn damages someone’s reputation, at the very least, which is a large part of why it’s illegal.

            Someone keeping those images for private use doesn’t cause harm, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal.

            I believe consent is a larger factor. The person who made it consented to have their photos/videos seen by that person but did not consent to them sharing it.

            That’s why it’s not illegal to call someone a slut (even though that also damages reputation)

            Someone doing something creepy for their own use should never be illegal.

            What if the recording was made without the person’s consent. Say someone records their one night stand without the other person’s knowledge but they don’t share it with anyone. Should that be illegal?

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Consent is certainly important, but they don’t need your consent if the image was obtained legally and thus subject to fair use, or if you gave them permission in the past.

              That’s why it’s not illegal to call someone a slut (even though that also damages reputation)

              It can be, if that constitutes defamation or libel. A passing statement wouldn’t, but a post on a popular website absolutely could. It all comes down to the damages that (false) statement caused.

              What if the recording was made without the person’s consent. Say someone records their one night stand without the other person’s knowledge but they don’t share it with anyone. Should that be illegal?

              That depends on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it’s in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.

              In general, I’d say intimacy likely occurs somewhere with a reasonable expectation of privacy, at which point it would come down to consent (whether implied or explicit).

              • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                It can be, if that constitutes defamation or libel. A passing statement wouldn’t, but a post on a popular website absolutely could. It all comes down to the damages that (false) statement caused.

                If the person is a slut it wouldn’t be libel but it would still damage reputation. The person being a slut is true but calling them one still damages their reputation. If you release a home made video of a pornstar it would still be illegal even though it’s not something that would damage their reputation.

                The reason for the illegality is the lack of consent not the reputation damage.

                That depends on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it’s in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.

                Even in a 1 party consent state recording someone while you are having intercourse with them is illegal without their consent, because we make exceptions for especially sensitive subjects such as sex.

                To go along with that I also believe that people who uploaded photos of themselves/their children did not consent to having their photos used to make sexual content. If they did it would be another matter to me entirely.

                Edit: I also would like to say (and I really am sorry for bringing them into this) but from what you said you think it would be okay (not socially acceptable but okay/fine) for someone to take pictures of your kids while they’re at the park and use that to make porn. Really think about that. Is that something you think should be allowed? Imagine someone taking pictures of them at walmart and you ask what they’re doing and they straight up tell you “I like how they look I’m going to add them to my training data to make porn, don’t worry though I’m not sharing it with anyone” and you could do jack shit about it without facing legal consequences yourself. You think that is okay?

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  If the person is a slut it wouldn’t be libel but it would still damage reputation

                  Sure, in which case the person wouldn’t legally be a victim. It’s completely legal to tell the truth.

                  But that strays a bit from the point. Making fake porn of someone is a false reputation of that person’s character, and thus illegal, but only if it actually causes damages to reputation (i.e. you distribute it). Or at least that’s the line of argumentation I think someone would use in states where “revenge porn” isn’t explicitly illegal.

                  Even if the person is a porn star, the damage is that the porn is coming from somewhere other than the approved channels, thus the damages. Or maybe it’s lost sales. Regardless, there are actual, articulable damages.

                  The reason for the illegality is the lack of consent not the reputation damage.

                  Maybe in states where it’s expressly illegal. I’m talking more from a theoretical standpoint where there isn’t an explicit law against it.

                  If there’s no explicit law, tht standard is defamation/libel or violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

                  we make exceptions for especially sensitive subjects such as sex.

                  That’s the reasonable expectation of privacy standard (that applies inside houses when in bedrooms, bathrooms, etc, even if it’s not your house). If you’re doing it in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, so I think a court would consider filming in that context to be legal.

                  Then again, this could certainly vary by jurisdiction.

                  I also believe that people who uploaded photos of themselves/their children did not consent to having their photos used to make sexual content

                  They don’t need to consent for any use, if it’s made available for personal use, then any individual can use it for personal use, even if that’s sexual content. As long as they don’t distribute it, they’re fine to use it as they please.

                  If you want control over how how content is used, don’t make it available for personal use.

                  but from what you said you think it would be okay

                  Yes. I certainly don’t want them to do that, but I really don’t want to live in a society with the surveillance necessary to prosecute such a law. Someone being creepy with pictures of my kids is disgusting, but it honestly doesn’t hurt me or my kids in any way, provided they don’t share those images with anyone.

                  So yes, I think it’s a necessary evil to have the kinds of privacy protections I think are valuable to have in a free society. Freedom means letting people do creepy things that don’t hurt anyone else.

                  • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Even if the person is a porn star, the damage is that the porn is coming from somewhere other than the approved channels, thus the damages

                    The damages would be the mental harm done to the victim. Most porn stars have content available for free so that wouldn’t be a reason for damages

                    That’s the reasonable expectation of privacy standard (that applies inside houses when in bedrooms, bathrooms, etc, even if it’s not your house). If you’re doing it in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, so I think a court would consider filming in that context to be legal.

                    The expectation of privacy doesn’t apply to one party consent States but they still can’t record sexual activities of someone without their consent

                    If you want control over how how content is used, don’t make it available for personal use.

                    I don’t think people who uploaded pictures on Facebook consider that making it available for personal use

                    I really don’t want to live in a society with the surveillance necessary to prosecute such a law.

                    Did i say anything about surveillance? Just because something is made illegal doesn’t make it actively pursued, it just makes it so if someone gets caught doing it or gets reported doing it they can be stopped. Like you’d be able to stop the person from doing that to your children. Or if someone gets their house raided for something else they can be charged for it. Not every person who has real csam creates it or shares it, many times they just get caught by another charge then it gets found. Or the geek squad worker sees it on their computer and reports them.

                    It would give people avenues to stop others from using photos of their children in such a way. You wouldn’t need any extra surveillance

                    Freedom means letting people do creepy things that don’t hurt anyone else.

                    Do you think it’s okay for someone to have real csam? Let’s say the person who made it was properly prosecuted and the person who has the images/videos don’t share it, they just have it to use. Do you think that’s okay?