this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
218 points (98.7% liked)

News

23397 readers
3500 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
218
Cops lure pedophiles with AI pics of teen girl. Ethical triumph or new disaster? (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 months ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

New Mexico is seeking an injunction to permanently block Snap from practices allegedly harming kids. That includes a halt on advertising Snapchat as "more private" or "less permanent" due to the alleged "core design problem" and "inherent danger" of Snap's disappearing messages. The state's complaint noted that the FBI has said that "Snapchat is the preferred app by criminals because its design features provide a false sense of security to the victim that their photos will disappear and not be screenshotted."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don’t understand how this would be fine but pedophiles generating them at home without distributing them would be illegal.

Cause the cops are creating CSAM and putting it out there in some shape or form, which you could argue would encourage pedophiles same way circulating ai images would as well.

Either generating under age sensitive material is always wrong or it’s not.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Federal law is creating fictional CSAM at home without transmitting it is legal.

The few AI arrests I've seen they transmitted them.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Huh, that’s very different from what other people have said before

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors

Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.

Specifically: distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations

By the statute's own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[135]

Edit: So it has to be 100% locally generated and never transmitted. You still wouldn't want to try and fight this in court though, I'm sure they'd do their best to throw you in jail, or fabricate an intent to distribute if you'd made a lot, even with all the images you generated to try and get the images you actually wanted.

Edit: Also this is federal, there may be other state laws.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean with the intent just means that possession is illegal cause all it takes is the judge to decide there was intent.

I guess I was right that possession is essentially illegal too.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The prosecutor needs to convince the jury there was intent. Intent is one of the hardest things to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court without evidence and motive. It's not a guarantee especially with no history.

Edit: And in this case, a history means you've probably already been convicted as thats what the history would lead to.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If it gets to a trial instead of a plea deal, but fair enough, that is a rather reasonable guardrail.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ya, I imagine many of these highly specific cases would plead out to something not involving jail and/or pedophile record. Stakes are pretty high and that's a big gamble. A case like this it'd be hard to have a sympathetic jury.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The article didn't say the cops generated AI CSAM. It said they created a profile pic, which was shown in the article.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So if someone generates a minor’s image and it’s not nude, is that not CSAM?

I’m genuinely asking, I always thought it was about sexualizing children, not whether they are nude or not.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think so. People keep throwing that acronym around but I suspect they didn't read the article and find out that it was one normal picture of a high school-aged girl.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I actually read it and then made a comment because even though it’s a profile picture, the intent is to have a viewer sexual the picture and thereby sexualizing a minor.

I do get how it’s a normal picture, but it made me think of this slippery slope and where the line is.