4 ms·

CSAM does not have a universal definition. In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexu

CSAM does not have a universal definition. In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response. If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM. No abuse of a real minor is needed.

worthless-trash 8mo ago
As good as Australia's little boobie laws.
- chrisjj 8mo ago
  https://www.theregister.com/2010/01/28/australian_censors/ https://www.theregister.com/2010/01/28/australian_censors/
chrisjj 8mo ago
> CSAM does not have a universal definition. Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning. > In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response. No corroboration found on web. Quite the contrary, in fact: "Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)" https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-children-against-sexual-exploitatio/1680acdef9 https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-childr... > If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM. > No abuse of a real minor is needed. Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is considered a record of a crime, emphasizing that its existence represents the abuse of a child." Putting a bikini on a photo of a child may be distasteful abuse of a photo, but it is not abuse of a child - in any current law.
- lava_pidgeon 8mo ago
  " Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning. " Are you from Sweden? Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? Or is it some USDefaultism where Americans assume their definition was universal?
  - chrisjj 8mo ago
    > Are you from Sweden? No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk. > Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. And I said that because I saw only agreement. CSAM == child sexual abuse material == a record of child sexual abuse.
    - lava_pidgeon 8mo ago
      "No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk." So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition? " I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. " Sorry, there are lots of different judical definitions about CSAM in different countries, each with different edge cases and how to handle them. I very doubt it, there is a disaggrement. But my guess about your post is, that an American has to learn again there is a world outside of the US with different rules and different languages.
      - chrisjj 8mo ago
        > So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition? I guess you didn't read the doc. It is in English. I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. The dubious definitions I'm referring to are the non-judicial fabrications behind accusations such as the root of this subthread.
        8mo ago
logicchains 8mo ago
You don't see a huge difference between abusing a child (and recording it) vs drawing/creating an image of a child in a sexual situation? Do you believe they should have the same legal treatment? In Japan for instance the latter is legal.
- ffsm8 8mo ago
  He made no judgement in his comment, he just observed the fact that the term csam - in at least the specified jurisdiction - applies to generated pictures of teenagers, wherever real people were subjected to harm or not. I suspect none of us are lawyers with enough legal knowledge of the French law to know the specifics of this case
  - yafinder 8mo ago
    This comment is a part of the chain that starts with a very judgemental comment and is an answer to a response challenging that starting one. You don't need legal knowledge of the French law to want to distinguish real child abuse from imaginary. One can give arguments why the latter is also bad, but this is not an automatic judgment, should not depend on the laws of a particular country and I, for one, am deeply shocked that some could think it's the same crime of the same severity.

worthless-trash 8mo ago

As good as Australia's little boobie laws.

chrisjj 8mo ago
https://www.theregister.com/2010/01/28/australian_censors/ https://www.theregister.com/2010/01/28/australian_censors/

chrisjj 8mo ago

> CSAM does not have a universal definition. Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning. > In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response. No corroboration found on web. Quite the contrary, in fact: "Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)" https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-children-against-sexual-exploitatio/1680acdef9 https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-childr... > If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM. > No abuse of a real minor is needed. Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is considered a record of a crime, emphasizing that its existence represents the abuse of a child." Putting a bikini on a photo of a child may be distasteful abuse of a photo, but it is not abuse of a child - in any current law.

lava_pidgeon 8mo ago
" Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning. " Are you from Sweden? Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? Or is it some USDefaultism where Americans assume their definition was universal?
- chrisjj 8mo ago
  > Are you from Sweden? No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk. > Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. And I said that because I saw only agreement. CSAM == child sexual abuse material == a record of child sexual abuse.
  - lava_pidgeon 8mo ago
    "No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk." So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition? " I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. " Sorry, there are lots of different judical definitions about CSAM in different countries, each with different edge cases and how to handle them. I very doubt it, there is a disaggrement. But my guess about your post is, that an American has to learn again there is a world outside of the US with different rules and different languages.
    - chrisjj 8mo ago
      > So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition? I guess you didn't read the doc. It is in English. I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. The dubious definitions I'm referring to are the non-judicial fabrications behind accusations such as the root of this subthread.
      - 8mo ago

logicchains 8mo ago

You don't see a huge difference between abusing a child (and recording it) vs drawing/creating an image of a child in a sexual situation? Do you believe they should have the same legal treatment? In Japan for instance the latter is legal.

ffsm8 8mo ago
He made no judgement in his comment, he just observed the fact that the term csam - in at least the specified jurisdiction - applies to generated pictures of teenagers, wherever real people were subjected to harm or not. I suspect none of us are lawyers with enough legal knowledge of the French law to know the specifics of this case
- yafinder 8mo ago
  This comment is a part of the chain that starts with a very judgemental comment and is an answer to a response challenging that starting one. You don't need legal knowledge of the French law to want to distinguish real child abuse from imaginary. One can give arguments why the latter is also bad, but this is not an automatic judgment, should not depend on the laws of a particular country and I, for one, am deeply shocked that some could think it's the same crime of the same severity.