5 ms·

Seems like you want to bring all the success of the war on drugs to the war on generated images.

chatmasta 3y ago
No, I don't support any automated scanning system or really any sort of "going out of our way" to find new criminals. The reason I think it's a bad idea to differentiate between real or AI is similar to the arguments against "means testing" for distributing benefits. You don't want to put real victims in a situation where they're deprived of justice because they can't prove that their victimization was "real." Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Do you want to give them that out? If protecting those victims comes at a cost of punishing criminals possessing AI-generated CSAM with sentences equally as harsh as those for "real" CSAM, then it's a worthwhile cost to pay. They are still criminals, and they are definitely not innocent (unless they're being framed, but that's a risk with both real and AI images).
- Hizonner 3y ago
  It's already a strict liability offense in many places, meaning that you don't even have to know that you possessed the image at all. You could apply the same strict liability standard and say that it doesn't matter that you didn't think it was real as long as it actually was real. "I thought she was 18" doesn't work for physical sex either.
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    This is the only reasonable comment in the entire thread. Make CP possession a matter of strict liability and all problems are solved.
- gambiting 3y ago
  >> Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Saying "I thought this heroin was fake" is not a defense when caught with a bag of heroin, I don't see how this would be any different. It's not a magic out for anyone.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    Sure it is. The bag of "heroin" on the movie set turns out to be real, think the actors are going to be convicted of possession?
    - gambiting 3y ago
      I'm not sure what is the point that you are making here. An actor who was given a fake bag of heroin as a prop which then turns out to be real is no more guilty than a courier moving a package that happens to contain drugs or guns or fake money or anything else - neither would be found guilty of posession. These are situational circumstances, and no prosecutor in the world would choose to prosecute those - but there is 0% chance you could get away with saying "oh I thought it was fake" if caught with CP on your phone.
      - LorenPechtel 3y ago
        I was simply providing an example of where "I thought it was fake" would be a reasonable defense.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    That isn’t the argument at all. It’s that you have a bag of fake heroin, you are then arrested for it because someone thinks that by you having fake heroin you are encouraging real heroin users to do more real heroin.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      Well yes, which is why my argument(sorry if it wasn't clear) is that having fake heroin shouldn't be illegal.

No, I don't support any automated scanning system or really any sort of "going out of our way" to find new criminals. The reason I think it's a bad idea to differentiate between real or AI is similar to the arguments against "means testing" for distributing benefits. You don't want to put real victims in a situation where they're deprived of justice because they can't prove that their victimization was "real." Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Do you want to give them that out? If protecting those victims comes at a cost of punishing criminals possessing AI-generated CSAM with sentences equally as harsh as those for "real" CSAM, then it's a worthwhile cost to pay. They are still criminals, and they are definitely not innocent (unless they're being framed, but that's a risk with both real and AI images).

Hizonner 3y ago
It's already a strict liability offense in many places, meaning that you don't even have to know that you possessed the image at all. You could apply the same strict liability standard and say that it doesn't matter that you didn't think it was real as long as it actually was real. "I thought she was 18" doesn't work for physical sex either.
- chatmasta 3y ago
  This is the only reasonable comment in the entire thread. Make CP possession a matter of strict liability and all problems are solved.
gambiting 3y ago
>> Imagine a real CSAM criminal claiming a defense that they "thought it was AI generated." Saying "I thought this heroin was fake" is not a defense when caught with a bag of heroin, I don't see how this would be any different. It's not a magic out for anyone.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  Sure it is. The bag of "heroin" on the movie set turns out to be real, think the actors are going to be convicted of possession?
  - gambiting 3y ago
    I'm not sure what is the point that you are making here. An actor who was given a fake bag of heroin as a prop which then turns out to be real is no more guilty than a courier moving a package that happens to contain drugs or guns or fake money or anything else - neither would be found guilty of posession. These are situational circumstances, and no prosecutor in the world would choose to prosecute those - but there is 0% chance you could get away with saying "oh I thought it was fake" if caught with CP on your phone.
    - LorenPechtel 3y ago
      I was simply providing an example of where "I thought it was fake" would be a reasonable defense.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  That isn’t the argument at all. It’s that you have a bag of fake heroin, you are then arrested for it because someone thinks that by you having fake heroin you are encouraging real heroin users to do more real heroin.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Well yes, which is why my argument(sorry if it wasn't clear) is that having fake heroin shouldn't be illegal.