4 ms·
> It does not protect children from being newly exploited by people using these services unless the services are also doing things they claim not to be doing.
by pvarangot 5y ago
> It does not protect children from being newly exploited by people using these services unless the services are also doing things they claim not to be doing.
While I only know about this through anecdotes people share, I understand this systems generate leads so that agents (usually federal) can infiltrate groups and catch people uploading new material, thus preventing them for further victimizing minors.
- washadjeffmad 5y agoThat smacks of those harebrained terrorist entrapment plots where the federal and undercover agents are the only members of groups they've "infiltrated". Scaling up detection also makes it more tempting for bad actors to seed more content to fabricate the appearance of an epidemic. We already have inaccurate gunshot detection systems, field drug tests, and expert bite mark analysis being used to convict people. Would a jury even be able to examine the evidence if it involved CSAM?
- heavyset_go 5y ago> Would a jury even be able to examine the evidence if it involved CSAM? The prosecutor will hire expert witnesses who will explain that their extensive training and education has led them to believe that the evidence is certainly illegal material.
- pvarangot 5y agoYeah it's pretty bad where this is headed. It also weaponizes digital images that are very easy to find. Not sure if you are honestly asking about the jury thing but judges do have the legal superpower to see illegal images and they will usually instruct the jury to vote based on what they saw. The US federal prison system being one of the biggest bullies on earth though, this cases rarely go to trial.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]