3 ms·

Child psychiatrist jailed after using AI to make pornographic deep-fakes of kids

12 points by CharlesW 3y ago

throw310822 3y ago
40 years in prison for digitally altering some pictures and videos. I can't help thinking that what is punished here is the sexual deviance per se, much more than any actual harm done.
- mhitza 3y ago
  The headline is clickbait. Based on the article he possesed videos of one child (his cousin?) undressing and taking a shower (his production, by secretely recording), and videos of sexual content involving children. The deepfake side of the story is mentioned and I'm sure it had impact to at least some level in the trial. But acting on that fact alone would be legal abuse itself, because who was abused when creating those deepfakes? 40 years is beyond ridiculous for the possesion of child sexual material, and a video of a child taking a shower. But that's 'murica I guess.
elmerfud 3y ago
It seems like there's a significant first amendment question to be answered here. If a person was to do the same by painting a picture from a photograph this would already be considered protected by the first amendment. There's likely other crimes with secret recording, abuse of position, etc... but as for the alteration I'm curious how it will hold up.
- nh23423fefe 3y ago
  to do the same? >Trial evidence also established that in or about July 2016, Dr. Tatum secretly recorded a minor while the minor was undressing and showering. I don't think you can produce child porn by hand. Why would painting be protected? Why is the method of production important? It is illegal to make bombs, the method is irrelevant. >The jury convicted Dr. Tatum of one count production of child pornography,
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    Building bombs is not protected by the first amendment as expressive speech. You're making a false comparison there. Building a replica of a bomb is protected by the first amendment having AI draw you pictures of bombs is protected by the first amendment. Using those resulting images as credible threats to someone is not protected. The violation is not the picture the violation is the threat. You should look up case law on drawings for child pornography. It is considered art and it is considered protected. Which is why having an AI do this for you raises a first amendment question.
    - nh23423fefe 3y ago
      No I think you are wrong and your arguments are bad.

12 points by CharlesW 3y ago

40 years in prison for digitally altering some pictures and videos. I can't help thinking that what is punished here is the sexual deviance per se, much more than any actual harm done.

mhitza 3y ago
The headline is clickbait. Based on the article he possesed videos of one child (his cousin?) undressing and taking a shower (his production, by secretely recording), and videos of sexual content involving children. The deepfake side of the story is mentioned and I'm sure it had impact to at least some level in the trial. But acting on that fact alone would be legal abuse itself, because who was abused when creating those deepfakes? 40 years is beyond ridiculous for the possesion of child sexual material, and a video of a child taking a shower. But that's 'murica I guess.

elmerfud 3y ago

It seems like there's a significant first amendment question to be answered here. If a person was to do the same by painting a picture from a photograph this would already be considered protected by the first amendment. There's likely other crimes with secret recording, abuse of position, etc... but as for the alteration I'm curious how it will hold up.

nh23423fefe 3y ago
to do the same? >Trial evidence also established that in or about July 2016, Dr. Tatum secretly recorded a minor while the minor was undressing and showering. I don't think you can produce child porn by hand. Why would painting be protected? Why is the method of production important? It is illegal to make bombs, the method is irrelevant. >The jury convicted Dr. Tatum of one count production of child pornography,
- elmerfud 3y ago
  Building bombs is not protected by the first amendment as expressive speech. You're making a false comparison there. Building a replica of a bomb is protected by the first amendment having AI draw you pictures of bombs is protected by the first amendment. Using those resulting images as credible threats to someone is not protected. The violation is not the picture the violation is the threat. You should look up case law on drawings for child pornography. It is considered art and it is considered protected. Which is why having an AI do this for you raises a first amendment question.
  - nh23423fefe 3y ago
    No I think you are wrong and your arguments are bad.