5 ms·

Did we ever stop to consider the theory of harm of CSAM circulating in private communications? Because I don't see how bytes being copied around in secret actua

Did we ever stop to consider the theory of harm of CSAM circulating in private communications? Because I don't see how bytes being copied around in secret actually hurts children in any meaningful way. Obviously it is wrong to create child porn intentionally. But that's already illegal and people who do this are laughably bad at ITSEC. Like seriously, read the stories of CSAM making "studios" who got caught. Either law enforcement is so bad that any remotely shrewd criminal defeats them, either the criminals are just not all that technically savvy. Either way, the tools to catch actual child molesters are effective and adequate.

omginternets 3y ago
I think you're right that we should be able to debate this question, but I also have a hard time believing that circulating CSAM has no detrimental effect whatsoever. I find it quite credible that the production and distribution of original child-abuse content can earn a social reward for pedophiles, and in so doing, encourage them to continue or expand their practice. I also find it credible that it can form the basis of a "street cred" system that binds online communities of child abusers together. On car forums, you're cool if you're the first to do a particular mod. In pedo communities, I'd expect you to be "cool" if you violate a new, hitherto-unseen kid, or violate one in a new and creative way. >But that's already illegal and people who do this are laughably bad at ITSEC. Like seriously, read the stories of CSAM making "studios" who got caught. Separately, this doesn't follow. Catching criminals with laughably bad OPSEC doesn't exclude the existence of successful criminals with very good OPSEC.
- falserum 3y ago
  Rhetorical, but relevent, question: Will new measures help catch people with good opsec capabilities? I have doubts, that new measures will move the needle much.
- naasking 3y ago
  > but I also have a hard time believing that circulating CSAM has no detrimental effect whatsoever Some studies have shown that availability of animated CSAM reduced recidivism among child molesters. That we treat these two categories of CSAM the same, along with the assumption that it encourages more harm, are some of those conversations that need to happen.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    That's fair, but if you'd gander a look at another comment of mine in this thread (the long one), I'm not sure what to do with that. This is a very utilitarian argument, and I suppose I need convincing that the benefits really do outweigh the cost, because we're about to gamble with child rape victims. I am aware of the purported benefits of decriminalizing certain kinds of CSAM, but utilitarian arguments are suspiciously silent on the subject of costs. Have you thought of any dangers in this approach, and how they can be avoided? I mean this in the gentlest way possible. I'm really trying to think this through, and would appreciate your input.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      > I suppose I need convincing that the benefits really do outweigh the cost I suppose that the government needs to do the actual research first, and only then introduce new surveillance measures and prohibitions, not vice versa.
    - tremon 3y ago
      that the benefits really do outweigh the cost So let's start by enumerating the cost of cartoons and comics depicting CSA (e.g. some hentai, which is usually ambiguous about age). Other than the cost of production and distribution which is the same as any other form of comics, I'm drawing a blank here.
      - omginternets 3y ago
        Why are you focusing on cartoons instead of what’s actually troubling?
    - naasking 3y ago
      > I am aware of the purported benefits of decriminalizing certain kinds of CSAM, but utilitarian arguments are suspiciously silent on the subject of costs. The reason they're suspiciously silent is because there is little to no evidence for the existence of such costs. The harms of CSAM with real children is clear as the victim is on camera, but who is victimized by animated CSAM? The allegation is that exposure to porn encourages deviant thoughts that eventually culminate in molestation. This is contradicted by lots of sex research in ordinary people and porn, and the small studies of child molesters suggests that it reduces recidivism too, like I said. So the situation we're in is that the government has banned something with little to no evidence of actual harm. It's the obscenity laws against porn all over again. Shouldn't the government ideally have to demonstrate actual harm before regulating behaviours? I understand the impulse to the precautionary principle, but it doesn't seem warranted here.
- gambiting 3y ago
  >>I'd expect you to be "cool" if you violate a new, hitherto-unseen kid, or violate one in a new and creative way. Simple posession of videos of rape and murder is not illegal(in most places) and yet it would be hard to imagine anyone making an argument that it should be illegal because someone might get internet fame for producing them. Or rather - we know that people produce this kind of thing "on order" and we still don't think that banning the posession of this material is going to stop the actual crimes behind them being commited. Why is this any different?
  - omginternets 3y ago
    I think you may be reading into my position on a separate, but related question: what exactly should be illegal with respect to CSAM possession? You've pointed out exactly the kind of incoherences in law that I was hoping to bring to mind. Agreed, on the surface there is little difference between possession of snuff vs CSAM. I'm not sure what to do with that observation, though, because I have trouble assessing: 1. Is surface-level analysis is correct? Or is there something bigger at play? 2. What is the appropriate level of punishment vs rehabilitation? To the first question, there are obvious differences between child abuse and murder, but I can't think of an example in which one of those differences would also lead to a different conclusion about the nature of the recording. Similarly, I don't think the act of recording the crime is significantly changed by any of the differences between child abuse and murder. With that in mind, what do we do? Do we consider video-taping murder as bad as video-taping child abuse? My own gut-check reveals that I rationally think murder is worse than rape, but then again, rape somehow seems more taboo. If I consider the taboo element, I reach the opposite conclusion: that rape is worse than murder. Adding in the "child" element, I observe a main effect of making everything worse, but the interaction of "rape" getting disproportionately worse than "murder". Again, this is just me, but I would like to understand where these conflicting feelings come from. My sense is that rape triggers us on a symbolic level... something about Man betraying Woman. I'm old-fashioned enough to think archetypes matter, so I'd like to get a bead on this before formulating any policy opinions.
xcdzvyn 3y ago
Supply and demand dictates that more CSAM is made the more it is watched, no?
- falserum 3y ago
  Usually it is the opposite mr. Cunningham.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    So you're saying that if we flood the market with CSAM that the demand will go down?
aqme28 3y ago
This has nothing to do with criminalizing the creation of CSAM. It's fingerprints on existing material that has been identified by law enforcement. "New" material won't have been fingerprinted yet.
soulofmischief 3y ago
Any argument not addressing the fundamental issue which is the general right to private communication and storage in the digital age, concedes that argument. Instead of debating smokescreens and planted arguments, we should be forcing the conversation to stay on the topic of fundamental privacy and avoid the entire gamut of CSAM/piracy/terrorism arguments typically employed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sneak 3y ago
None of this is actually about CSAM. That’s just the unassailable cover story for implementing society-wide surveillance.
qingcharles 3y ago
Yes, there is definitely harm. If I was abused as a child, I don't want those images continuing to circulate and be seen by anyone. This is like the revenge porn laws. I want control over my naked image. I still don't agree with these laws, though. The good outweighs the bad. Besides, I suspect that AI CSAM will probably be more interesting and more satisfying in the future to those that desire it, and that creates a whole separate conversation.
danuker 3y ago
My guess is induced demand. A CSAM user will want more, the more they get. Same as any addiction.
AzzyHN 3y ago
[dead]
rany_ 3y ago
> Obviously it is wrong to create child porn intentionally. But that's already illegal and people who do this are laughably bad at ITSEC. That's because you're reading about the dumb CP producers that got caught.... who by definition messed up with their ITSEC or in some other way.
qwertox 3y ago
> Because I don't see how bytes being copied around in secret actually hurts children in any meaningful way. Isn't this probably the biggest source of revenue for criminals? Money for bytes, which creates more incentives to commit more crimes?
- SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
  Um, bytes can be copied for free. I think his point was that if there was no restriction on the distribution of existing content, then it would quickly be made freely available by those who purchase or otherwise acquire it from the producers, cutting off their revenue (think of onlyfans leaks, except in this case because the production was criminal, there would likely be no legal avenue for the producer to have the free redistributions taken down).
hansvm 3y ago
If your only goal is reducing incidence/severity of hurt children, at least two arguments still quickly spring to mind: (1) Removing the buyers has different macroscopic effects from imprisoning the producers. In a world where private circulation is legal but production is not, the expected result is less production (great!), high prices and incentives for the remaining content (uh-oh), and more creative, intelligent, risk-taking, impoverished (whatever differences make taking the new risks worth it) producers. That long tail is had to crack down on because the high incentives will almost certainly lure in some unsavory individuals. It's a lot like the global ivory trade. (2) The truth of the following matter is murky to me (and as I understand it, to experts as well; I'd love for somebody else to chime in), but there's an argument that exposure to material at best doesn't help the addiction and is likely to make it worse. CSAM is a bit hard to study, but to the extent that it's comparable to other vices, proxies for murder and rape (movies, games, ...) there's some body of evidence that the substitute behaviors strengthen the addiction and make actual offenses more likely, rather than satiating a need and making real-world offenses less frequent (this is a bit different from the video_games->violence argument because the sample is different and small enough that you wouldn't have necessarily expected that deviant behavior to show up in macro-level stats for a society-wide study). It's probably worth debating that sort of thing to ensure we're actually going to do some good in the world, but IMO it's a lot more damning that the majority of tech-related CSAM laws are unlikely to help in the manner described, are prone to increasing CSAM issues massively in their secondary effects, have significant other negative collateral, and appear only to be introduced as a Trojan horse for less savory motives. Even if stopping distribution is worthwhile (I think it probably is), the proposed laws are at best totally worthless for the stated goals.

omginternets 3y ago

I think you're right that we should be able to debate this question, but I also have a hard time believing that circulating CSAM has no detrimental effect whatsoever. I find it quite credible that the production and distribution of original child-abuse content can earn a social reward for pedophiles, and in so doing, encourage them to continue or expand their practice. I also find it credible that it can form the basis of a "street cred" system that binds online communities of child abusers together. On car forums, you're cool if you're the first to do a particular mod. In pedo communities, I'd expect you to be "cool" if you violate a new, hitherto-unseen kid, or violate one in a new and creative way. >But that's already illegal and people who do this are laughably bad at ITSEC. Like seriously, read the stories of CSAM making "studios" who got caught. Separately, this doesn't follow. Catching criminals with laughably bad OPSEC doesn't exclude the existence of successful criminals with very good OPSEC.

falserum 3y ago
Rhetorical, but relevent, question: Will new measures help catch people with good opsec capabilities? I have doubts, that new measures will move the needle much.
naasking 3y ago
> but I also have a hard time believing that circulating CSAM has no detrimental effect whatsoever Some studies have shown that availability of animated CSAM reduced recidivism among child molesters. That we treat these two categories of CSAM the same, along with the assumption that it encourages more harm, are some of those conversations that need to happen.
- omginternets 3y ago
  That's fair, but if you'd gander a look at another comment of mine in this thread (the long one), I'm not sure what to do with that. This is a very utilitarian argument, and I suppose I need convincing that the benefits really do outweigh the cost, because we're about to gamble with child rape victims. I am aware of the purported benefits of decriminalizing certain kinds of CSAM, but utilitarian arguments are suspiciously silent on the subject of costs. Have you thought of any dangers in this approach, and how they can be avoided? I mean this in the gentlest way possible. I'm really trying to think this through, and would appreciate your input.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    > I suppose I need convincing that the benefits really do outweigh the cost I suppose that the government needs to do the actual research first, and only then introduce new surveillance measures and prohibitions, not vice versa.
  - tremon 3y ago
    that the benefits really do outweigh the cost So let's start by enumerating the cost of cartoons and comics depicting CSA (e.g. some hentai, which is usually ambiguous about age). Other than the cost of production and distribution which is the same as any other form of comics, I'm drawing a blank here.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      Why are you focusing on cartoons instead of what’s actually troubling?
  - naasking 3y ago
    > I am aware of the purported benefits of decriminalizing certain kinds of CSAM, but utilitarian arguments are suspiciously silent on the subject of costs. The reason they're suspiciously silent is because there is little to no evidence for the existence of such costs. The harms of CSAM with real children is clear as the victim is on camera, but who is victimized by animated CSAM? The allegation is that exposure to porn encourages deviant thoughts that eventually culminate in molestation. This is contradicted by lots of sex research in ordinary people and porn, and the small studies of child molesters suggests that it reduces recidivism too, like I said. So the situation we're in is that the government has banned something with little to no evidence of actual harm. It's the obscenity laws against porn all over again. Shouldn't the government ideally have to demonstrate actual harm before regulating behaviours? I understand the impulse to the precautionary principle, but it doesn't seem warranted here.
gambiting 3y ago
>>I'd expect you to be "cool" if you violate a new, hitherto-unseen kid, or violate one in a new and creative way. Simple posession of videos of rape and murder is not illegal(in most places) and yet it would be hard to imagine anyone making an argument that it should be illegal because someone might get internet fame for producing them. Or rather - we know that people produce this kind of thing "on order" and we still don't think that banning the posession of this material is going to stop the actual crimes behind them being commited. Why is this any different?
- omginternets 3y ago
  I think you may be reading into my position on a separate, but related question: what exactly should be illegal with respect to CSAM possession? You've pointed out exactly the kind of incoherences in law that I was hoping to bring to mind. Agreed, on the surface there is little difference between possession of snuff vs CSAM. I'm not sure what to do with that observation, though, because I have trouble assessing: 1. Is surface-level analysis is correct? Or is there something bigger at play? 2. What is the appropriate level of punishment vs rehabilitation? To the first question, there are obvious differences between child abuse and murder, but I can't think of an example in which one of those differences would also lead to a different conclusion about the nature of the recording. Similarly, I don't think the act of recording the crime is significantly changed by any of the differences between child abuse and murder. With that in mind, what do we do? Do we consider video-taping murder as bad as video-taping child abuse? My own gut-check reveals that I rationally think murder is worse than rape, but then again, rape somehow seems more taboo. If I consider the taboo element, I reach the opposite conclusion: that rape is worse than murder. Adding in the "child" element, I observe a main effect of making everything worse, but the interaction of "rape" getting disproportionately worse than "murder". Again, this is just me, but I would like to understand where these conflicting feelings come from. My sense is that rape triggers us on a symbolic level... something about Man betraying Woman. I'm old-fashioned enough to think archetypes matter, so I'd like to get a bead on this before formulating any policy opinions.

xcdzvyn 3y ago

Supply and demand dictates that more CSAM is made the more it is watched, no?

falserum 3y ago
Usually it is the opposite mr. Cunningham.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  So you're saying that if we flood the market with CSAM that the demand will go down?

aqme28 3y ago

This has nothing to do with criminalizing the creation of CSAM. It's fingerprints on existing material that has been identified by law enforcement. "New" material won't have been fingerprinted yet.

soulofmischief 3y ago

Any argument not addressing the fundamental issue which is the general right to private communication and storage in the digital age, concedes that argument. Instead of debating smokescreens and planted arguments, we should be forcing the conversation to stay on the topic of fundamental privacy and avoid the entire gamut of CSAM/piracy/terrorism arguments typically employed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sneak 3y ago

None of this is actually about CSAM. That’s just the unassailable cover story for implementing society-wide surveillance.

qingcharles 3y ago

Yes, there is definitely harm. If I was abused as a child, I don't want those images continuing to circulate and be seen by anyone. This is like the revenge porn laws. I want control over my naked image. I still don't agree with these laws, though. The good outweighs the bad. Besides, I suspect that AI CSAM will probably be more interesting and more satisfying in the future to those that desire it, and that creates a whole separate conversation.

danuker 3y ago

My guess is induced demand. A CSAM user will want more, the more they get. Same as any addiction.

AzzyHN 3y ago

[dead]

rany_ 3y ago

> Obviously it is wrong to create child porn intentionally. But that's already illegal and people who do this are laughably bad at ITSEC. That's because you're reading about the dumb CP producers that got caught.... who by definition messed up with their ITSEC or in some other way.

qwertox 3y ago

> Because I don't see how bytes being copied around in secret actually hurts children in any meaningful way. Isn't this probably the biggest source of revenue for criminals? Money for bytes, which creates more incentives to commit more crimes?

SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
Um, bytes can be copied for free. I think his point was that if there was no restriction on the distribution of existing content, then it would quickly be made freely available by those who purchase or otherwise acquire it from the producers, cutting off their revenue (think of onlyfans leaks, except in this case because the production was criminal, there would likely be no legal avenue for the producer to have the free redistributions taken down).

hansvm 3y ago

If your only goal is reducing incidence/severity of hurt children, at least two arguments still quickly spring to mind: (1) Removing the buyers has different macroscopic effects from imprisoning the producers. In a world where private circulation is legal but production is not, the expected result is less production (great!), high prices and incentives for the remaining content (uh-oh), and more creative, intelligent, risk-taking, impoverished (whatever differences make taking the new risks worth it) producers. That long tail is had to crack down on because the high incentives will almost certainly lure in some unsavory individuals. It's a lot like the global ivory trade. (2) The truth of the following matter is murky to me (and as I understand it, to experts as well; I'd love for somebody else to chime in), but there's an argument that exposure to material at best doesn't help the addiction and is likely to make it worse. CSAM is a bit hard to study, but to the extent that it's comparable to other vices, proxies for murder and rape (movies, games, ...) there's some body of evidence that the substitute behaviors strengthen the addiction and make actual offenses more likely, rather than satiating a need and making real-world offenses less frequent (this is a bit different from the video_games->violence argument because the sample is different and small enough that you wouldn't have necessarily expected that deviant behavior to show up in macro-level stats for a society-wide study). It's probably worth debating that sort of thing to ensure we're actually going to do some good in the world, but IMO it's a lot more damning that the majority of tech-related CSAM laws are unlikely to help in the manner described, are prone to increasing CSAM issues massively in their secondary effects, have significant other negative collateral, and appear only to be introduced as a Trojan horse for less savory motives. Even if stopping distribution is worthwhile (I think it probably is), the proposed laws are at best totally worthless for the stated goals.