6 ms·

In the future, I hope we can use existing AI to create fake child porn images so these brave officers wouldn’t have to feed these motherfucking-sickshitbag-fuck

In the future, I hope we can use existing AI to create fake child porn images so these brave officers wouldn’t have to feed these motherfucking-sickshitbag-fuckers real child porns (although the police stated the pictures they used already exist else where). Bravo to all the people crackingndown in human trafficking and protecting children from harms

Waterluvian 9y ago
This is like some sort of awful Black Mirror episode. What if we could generate infinite "new" content without harming another human to do so?
- yorwba 9y ago
  I say do it. I'm already ok with Loli Hentai existing, although I find it revolting to look at. If artificial child porn indistinguishable from the real thing becomes available, it will devalue its production. Given the risks, it seems likely that much fewer children will be raped.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    But what if it's artificial child porn that looks like your child? Do you really want to enable that? Currently, in the USA it is clearly illegal to produce porn that resembles a real child, even if no child was exploited to produce it -- despite the fact that purely fictional (e.g., drawn) erotica featuring underage characters is still only of dubious legality. There are justifiable reasons for this.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      It looks like it would be legal if it is distinguishable as being purely fictional, where what a reasonable person would believe is taken into account. For those who do not want this type of search query to be in their history, have a link: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede... If my reading is correct, images that are fictional, and appear fictional to a reasonable person - inferred by me through a number of law courses and not directly stated in the link, are not illegal. Drawings should be fine. CGI, maybe, depending on how easily it is distinguished as being fictional.
      - etplayer 9y ago
        The PROTECT Act specifically had provisions against even drawings of any kind, however those parts to my knowledge were ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, there are various state laws against the material; I don't have a better source than Wikipedia at the moment, but: >Currently, such depictions are in a legal grey area due to parts of the PROTECT Act being ruled unconstitutional on a federal level; however, laws regulating lolicon and shotacon differs between states; several states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions (such as video games in the state of New Jersey), while others usually have only vague laws on such content; in some states, such as California, such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws,[70] while the state of Utah explicitly bans it.[71] From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors#18_USC_1466A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornogra...
        KGIII 9y ago
        I'm not qualified to speculate how well those laws will stand up to a challenge as a 1st amendment issue. The SCOTUS tends to take a strong protective of the 1st view. My inexpert opinion would be that those laws would be ruled unconstitutional, but my opinion is absolutely not an expert opinion. While I have taken numerous legal courses and have a decent familiarity with law, I am not a lawyer. I will also add that not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer and the above isn't legal advice. Consult a qualified legal representative, in the appropriate jurisdiction, if you need to. That said, some areas have some pretty tough obscenity laws that are still on the books. When challenged as a free speech issue, they tend to fall - even though the law may still remain on the books and people still get prosecuted. Florida has at least one such law and they have lost in front of the SCOTUS but still use the law. More recently, it was used to charge the folks who make the overtly degrading porn. They actor does stuff like write on then with lipstick, spit on them, etc... They used the law to charge them, though people have previously appealed that law to the higher courts and won their appeal. I'm not actually sure how they get away with that?
    - yorwba 9y ago
      I don't think artificial porn made to look like my child would be much worse than artificial porn made to look like me. (Maybe because I don't have children yet.) I would find it kind of creepy and indicative of an unhealthy obsession, but I don't think it needs to be illegal. For all I know, someone has already masturbated to actual pictures of me, or imagined me naked or whatever. So long as they don't feel the need to rub it in my face and don't want to rape me, I think they should be free to do that, even though I'd prefer if they didn't.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      >But what if it's artificial child porn that looks like your child? I don't understand the problem. Let's assume that no real images are used as input to the artificial child image creation process. So what if it looks like your child? That is mere coincidence, and doesn't seem to me to be reason why it should be illegal to possess or produce. >There are justifiable reasons for this. Can you please elaborate on what these are, or where I can read about what they are? So far, the reasons I have been given and those that I have seen used for example in England when laws were being created (the CAJA 2009 law) have been poor reasons and unjustifiable restriction of freedom of expression in my view.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    In Australia it would still be illegal, here's the link for NSW[1]. Maybe it should be reformed to match your idea. But there's a reason why the law is written to make things that are "implied to be" child abuse material to still be child abuse material. [1]: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91fb.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/conso...
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Then we use that to prevent children from being raped at no cost to civil liberties, or risk for the innocent. And if anyone has a moral problem with that, because it feels wrong, well fuck them.
discordance 9y ago
This idea raises an interesting question - what if all child porn in the future was artificially generated. Would it be illegal to consume or share that material?
- atdt 9y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede...: "Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. "
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    I am glad there are laws like that. Unfortunately, the hardware and software keeps improving. That means that someday a person sitting at home will be able to produce all the realistic child porn they want, and the police will have no way to detect it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- abecedarius 9y ago
  I think I read in the 90s that made-up child porn (such as drawings from imagination) had recently become illegal in the U.S. It doesn't seem like that could've survived a first-amendment challenge, but IANAL and I don't know what's the status now.
- randomdata 9y ago
  Probably. Child porn is illegal today because consumption incentivizes production of even more material. If you could somehow guarantee that production would only come from artificial sources then there would be no reason for it to be illegal, but making that guarantee in the real world is unrealistic. Once you create demand for artificial content then someone is going to try and slip the real thing in, bringing us back to square one. Artificial depictions of child porn are already illegal in many jurisdictions for that reason.
shirro 9y ago
I hope they got signed releases from the grown up victims whose non-consensual images were being posted. If not, then they are increasing the harm. If an a adult who valued privacy had a sex video stolen and then distributed by the police they would be livid. For it to happen to someone who was abused as a child is unconscionable. From that perspective artificial might be preferable.
- etplayer 9y ago
  Out of interest, in what way is harm increased? Does the same harm occur in cases in which the image is only being viewed?
cyphar 9y ago
That would actually still be illegal in Australia (at least, in all the states I've checked). For NSW in particular the The Crimes Act (1900) s91fb[1] states that materials that "appears or are implied to be" child abuse material are legally defined to be child abuse material. The criterion is further expanded by saying that the judgement of whether something qualifies is by "the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults" (among other restrictions). Though, as this article proves, Australian police are particularly well-known for being allowed to break laws for the purposes of an investigation. Given that loli isn't legal in Australia, I doubt that photorealistic artificial child pornography would fare better. [1]: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91fb.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/conso...
fiblye 9y ago
Agreed with the crackdown, but not with the "brave" methods. Someone is getting paid to not only look but distribute this all day, everyday. We need to take measures to demolish government institutions that post and distribute this content under the guise of "law enforcement." I read far more articles about police-run sites and forums being shutdown than I read about wild sites being taken down. This is no better than the "brave" arms smuggling operations of the ATF.
snakeanus 9y ago
> to create fake child porn images It's funny because I am pretty sure that these are also illegal in most western countries. > these brave officers What bravery did they commit? What heroic act did they commit? I fail to see how arresting people for a thoughtcrime is heroic. It is disgusting and slimy at best, especically if done in the shady - sting-operation way that this one was done. > motherfucking-sickshitbag-fuckers How can someone who has never raped a child but just views CP on an online forum be a "motherfucking-sickshitbag-fucker"? Who was the victim of this person? Why do you feel the need to insult people who haven't done anything wrong? >(although the police stated the pictures they used already exist else where). I bet that this was probably also the case with most of the images in that forum. > and protecting children from harms How do you exactly "protect children from harms" by catching people that simply view CP?
- synicalx 9y ago
  Please tell me you're joking, snakeanus. There is no way you could seriously be trying to make out paedo's as the victim here? > I fail to see how arresting people for a thoughtcrime is heroic. Thoughtcrime? No, viewing or possessing CP is an actual crime. > How can someone who has never raped a child but just views CP on an online forum be a "motherfucking-sickshitbag-fucker"? Who was the victim of this person? Quite obviously, the child/children in the pictures they're viewing. > Why do you feel the need to insult people who haven't done anything wrong? They have done something that isn't just illegal, but unquestionably morally reprehensible. How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'? > How do you exactly "protect children from harms" by catching people that simply view CP? What are you asking here? How do you protect children from paedophiles by arresting paedophiles?
  - snakeanus 9y ago
    > Thoughtcrime? No, viewing or possessing CP is an actual crime. Who is the victim in this case? This is the definition of a thought/victimless crime. > the child/children in the pictures they're viewing. How so? They are not affected in any way. > but unquestionably morally reprehensible I will have to question that. > How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'? There is no victim nor is anybody harmed by possession nor viewing. Thus it is not wrong. > How do you protect children from paedophiles * from child rapists Just like not every straight/homosexual person is a rapist, not every paedophile is a rapist.
woodandsteel 9y ago
But what if looking at AI-generated child porn inspires a pedophile to do something similar with a real child?

Waterluvian 9y ago

This is like some sort of awful Black Mirror episode. What if we could generate infinite "new" content without harming another human to do so?

yorwba 9y ago
I say do it. I'm already ok with Loli Hentai existing, although I find it revolting to look at. If artificial child porn indistinguishable from the real thing becomes available, it will devalue its production. Given the risks, it seems likely that much fewer children will be raped.
- bitwize 9y ago
  But what if it's artificial child porn that looks like your child? Do you really want to enable that? Currently, in the USA it is clearly illegal to produce porn that resembles a real child, even if no child was exploited to produce it -- despite the fact that purely fictional (e.g., drawn) erotica featuring underage characters is still only of dubious legality. There are justifiable reasons for this.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It looks like it would be legal if it is distinguishable as being purely fictional, where what a reasonable person would believe is taken into account. For those who do not want this type of search query to be in their history, have a link: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede... If my reading is correct, images that are fictional, and appear fictional to a reasonable person - inferred by me through a number of law courses and not directly stated in the link, are not illegal. Drawings should be fine. CGI, maybe, depending on how easily it is distinguished as being fictional.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      The PROTECT Act specifically had provisions against even drawings of any kind, however those parts to my knowledge were ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, there are various state laws against the material; I don't have a better source than Wikipedia at the moment, but: >Currently, such depictions are in a legal grey area due to parts of the PROTECT Act being ruled unconstitutional on a federal level; however, laws regulating lolicon and shotacon differs between states; several states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions (such as video games in the state of New Jersey), while others usually have only vague laws on such content; in some states, such as California, such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws,[70] while the state of Utah explicitly bans it.[71] From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors#18_USC_1466A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornogra...
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I'm not qualified to speculate how well those laws will stand up to a challenge as a 1st amendment issue. The SCOTUS tends to take a strong protective of the 1st view. My inexpert opinion would be that those laws would be ruled unconstitutional, but my opinion is absolutely not an expert opinion. While I have taken numerous legal courses and have a decent familiarity with law, I am not a lawyer. I will also add that not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer and the above isn't legal advice. Consult a qualified legal representative, in the appropriate jurisdiction, if you need to. That said, some areas have some pretty tough obscenity laws that are still on the books. When challenged as a free speech issue, they tend to fall - even though the law may still remain on the books and people still get prosecuted. Florida has at least one such law and they have lost in front of the SCOTUS but still use the law. More recently, it was used to charge the folks who make the overtly degrading porn. They actor does stuff like write on then with lipstick, spit on them, etc... They used the law to charge them, though people have previously appealed that law to the higher courts and won their appeal. I'm not actually sure how they get away with that?
  - yorwba 9y ago
    I don't think artificial porn made to look like my child would be much worse than artificial porn made to look like me. (Maybe because I don't have children yet.) I would find it kind of creepy and indicative of an unhealthy obsession, but I don't think it needs to be illegal. For all I know, someone has already masturbated to actual pictures of me, or imagined me naked or whatever. So long as they don't feel the need to rub it in my face and don't want to rape me, I think they should be free to do that, even though I'd prefer if they didn't.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    >But what if it's artificial child porn that looks like your child? I don't understand the problem. Let's assume that no real images are used as input to the artificial child image creation process. So what if it looks like your child? That is mere coincidence, and doesn't seem to me to be reason why it should be illegal to possess or produce. >There are justifiable reasons for this. Can you please elaborate on what these are, or where I can read about what they are? So far, the reasons I have been given and those that I have seen used for example in England when laws were being created (the CAJA 2009 law) have been poor reasons and unjustifiable restriction of freedom of expression in my view.
- cyphar 9y ago
  In Australia it would still be illegal, here's the link for NSW[1]. Maybe it should be reformed to match your idea. But there's a reason why the law is written to make things that are "implied to be" child abuse material to still be child abuse material. [1]: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91fb.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/conso...
tomjen3 9y ago
Then we use that to prevent children from being raped at no cost to civil liberties, or risk for the innocent. And if anyone has a moral problem with that, because it feels wrong, well fuck them.

discordance 9y ago

This idea raises an interesting question - what if all child porn in the future was artificially generated. Would it be illegal to consume or share that material?

atdt 9y ago
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede...: "Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. "
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  I am glad there are laws like that. Unfortunately, the hardware and software keeps improving. That means that someday a person sitting at home will be able to produce all the realistic child porn they want, and the police will have no way to detect it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
abecedarius 9y ago
I think I read in the 90s that made-up child porn (such as drawings from imagination) had recently become illegal in the U.S. It doesn't seem like that could've survived a first-amendment challenge, but IANAL and I don't know what's the status now.
randomdata 9y ago
Probably. Child porn is illegal today because consumption incentivizes production of even more material. If you could somehow guarantee that production would only come from artificial sources then there would be no reason for it to be illegal, but making that guarantee in the real world is unrealistic. Once you create demand for artificial content then someone is going to try and slip the real thing in, bringing us back to square one. Artificial depictions of child porn are already illegal in many jurisdictions for that reason.

shirro 9y ago

I hope they got signed releases from the grown up victims whose non-consensual images were being posted. If not, then they are increasing the harm. If an a adult who valued privacy had a sex video stolen and then distributed by the police they would be livid. For it to happen to someone who was abused as a child is unconscionable. From that perspective artificial might be preferable.

etplayer 9y ago
Out of interest, in what way is harm increased? Does the same harm occur in cases in which the image is only being viewed?

cyphar 9y ago

That would actually still be illegal in Australia (at least, in all the states I've checked). For NSW in particular the The Crimes Act (1900) s91fb[1] states that materials that "appears or are implied to be" child abuse material are legally defined to be child abuse material. The criterion is further expanded by saying that the judgement of whether something qualifies is by "the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults" (among other restrictions). Though, as this article proves, Australian police are particularly well-known for being allowed to break laws for the purposes of an investigation. Given that loli isn't legal in Australia, I doubt that photorealistic artificial child pornography would fare better. [1]: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91fb.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/conso...

fiblye 9y ago

Agreed with the crackdown, but not with the "brave" methods. Someone is getting paid to not only look but distribute this all day, everyday. We need to take measures to demolish government institutions that post and distribute this content under the guise of "law enforcement." I read far more articles about police-run sites and forums being shutdown than I read about wild sites being taken down. This is no better than the "brave" arms smuggling operations of the ATF.

snakeanus 9y ago

> to create fake child porn images It's funny because I am pretty sure that these are also illegal in most western countries. > these brave officers What bravery did they commit? What heroic act did they commit? I fail to see how arresting people for a thoughtcrime is heroic. It is disgusting and slimy at best, especically if done in the shady - sting-operation way that this one was done. > motherfucking-sickshitbag-fuckers How can someone who has never raped a child but just views CP on an online forum be a "motherfucking-sickshitbag-fucker"? Who was the victim of this person? Why do you feel the need to insult people who haven't done anything wrong? >(although the police stated the pictures they used already exist else where). I bet that this was probably also the case with most of the images in that forum. > and protecting children from harms How do you exactly "protect children from harms" by catching people that simply view CP?

synicalx 9y ago
Please tell me you're joking, snakeanus. There is no way you could seriously be trying to make out paedo's as the victim here? > I fail to see how arresting people for a thoughtcrime is heroic. Thoughtcrime? No, viewing or possessing CP is an actual crime. > How can someone who has never raped a child but just views CP on an online forum be a "motherfucking-sickshitbag-fucker"? Who was the victim of this person? Quite obviously, the child/children in the pictures they're viewing. > Why do you feel the need to insult people who haven't done anything wrong? They have done something that isn't just illegal, but unquestionably morally reprehensible. How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'? > How do you exactly "protect children from harms" by catching people that simply view CP? What are you asking here? How do you protect children from paedophiles by arresting paedophiles?
- snakeanus 9y ago
  > Thoughtcrime? No, viewing or possessing CP is an actual crime. Who is the victim in this case? This is the definition of a thought/victimless crime. > the child/children in the pictures they're viewing. How so? They are not affected in any way. > but unquestionably morally reprehensible I will have to question that. > How could that ever be considered 'not wrong'? There is no victim nor is anybody harmed by possession nor viewing. Thus it is not wrong. > How do you protect children from paedophiles * from child rapists Just like not every straight/homosexual person is a rapist, not every paedophile is a rapist.

woodandsteel 9y ago

But what if looking at AI-generated child porn inspires a pedophile to do something similar with a real child?