5 ms·

The more (or less, who the hell knows) horrible aspect of this is that I foresee a cottage industry springing up where "good enough" digital replicas of childre

by bmelton 13y ago

The more (or less, who the hell knows) horrible aspect of this is that I foresee a cottage industry springing up where "good enough" digital replicas of children are used to provide sex services in the same way that phone sex operators work now -- only, it'll be known (or at least assumed) that the service is being provided by adults pretending to be children with digital avatars, and the quality of the service will be measured by how convincingly they portray their parts. This will lead to all sorts of legal gray areas, wherein "I just assumed she was digital" could well work as a positive defense, or, even more eerily, a faux-pedophile service provider could staff enough adults to cover for the non-adults that they sometimes use.

DanBC 13y ago
The UK has some useful law around this. For some offences it doesn't matter if you thought the person was a certain age or not. Compare this section: Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/8 With this one: Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/15 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/15 See here, where they include both tests- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/abuse-of-children-through-prostitution-and-pornography http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead... > (i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or > (ii)B is under 13. And there's stuff in the photography bit that means pseudo-photographs still count as illegal.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Interesting. > And there's stuff in the photography bit that means pseudo-photographs still count as illegal. That's where America differs. We expressly allow pseudo-imagery under the first amendment. Logic being that the harm comes in the exploitation, but for digital representations of images that are pornographic, nobody was exploited in the process of their creation (at least, assuming nobody was exploited in the process of their creation). The UK laws though seem to both be more tangible than the situation discussed in the article, at least assuming that 'sexual grooming' has been defined and is fairly narrowly interpretable. I'm not the person to say whether or not pretend pedo-porn is a net good or evil for the world; but I can see arguments in either direction, but if they're actually grooming children who they then meet, clearly, that's a net bad. Edit: I had it exactly backwards, and now I'm wondering how in the hell I remember it so wrongly. Apparently we do not condone digital representations of child porn under the PROTECT Act of 2003[1]. I would swear I knew it the other way 'round. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Virtual_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Vi...
  - schoen 13y ago
    I think you were thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... I'm not aware of whether the PROTECT Act (which I believe was a response to this decision) has been challenged in court.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Quite possibly. The only thing I can think of is that there was a potential challenge to the PROTECT act, but cert was denied.
tn13 13y ago
This is called a scale effect. Once you help increase scale of a potentially harmless behavior it also increases scale of the illegalities around it.
Anderkent 13y ago
> This will lead to all sorts of legal gray areas, wherein "I just assumed she was digital" could well work as a positive defense, or, even more eerily, a faux-pedophile service provider could staff enough adults to cover for the non-adults that they sometimes use. Why would they use non-adults at all, if they have software that can cover the visuals? Adults are easier to control and completely legal.
- bmelton 13y ago
  That's a good question actually -- my initial thought was for authenticity, but cost could be another reason. That said, I was only hypothesizing, so it's very possible that kids would be more problematic than they're worth in such an endeavor, not even counting the increased legal risk.

by bmelton 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

The UK has some useful law around this. For some offences it doesn't matter if you thought the person was a certain age or not. Compare this section: Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/8 With this one: Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/15 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/15 See here, where they include both tests- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/abuse-of-children-through-prostitution-and-pornography http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead... > (i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or > (ii)B is under 13. And there's stuff in the photography bit that means pseudo-photographs still count as illegal.

bmelton 13y ago
Interesting. > And there's stuff in the photography bit that means pseudo-photographs still count as illegal. That's where America differs. We expressly allow pseudo-imagery under the first amendment. Logic being that the harm comes in the exploitation, but for digital representations of images that are pornographic, nobody was exploited in the process of their creation (at least, assuming nobody was exploited in the process of their creation). The UK laws though seem to both be more tangible than the situation discussed in the article, at least assuming that 'sexual grooming' has been defined and is fairly narrowly interpretable. I'm not the person to say whether or not pretend pedo-porn is a net good or evil for the world; but I can see arguments in either direction, but if they're actually grooming children who they then meet, clearly, that's a net bad. Edit: I had it exactly backwards, and now I'm wondering how in the hell I remember it so wrongly. Apparently we do not condone digital representations of child porn under the PROTECT Act of 2003[1]. I would swear I knew it the other way 'round. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Virtual_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Vi...
- schoen 13y ago
  I think you were thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... I'm not aware of whether the PROTECT Act (which I believe was a response to this decision) has been challenged in court.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Quite possibly. The only thing I can think of is that there was a potential challenge to the PROTECT act, but cert was denied.

tn13 13y ago

This is called a scale effect. Once you help increase scale of a potentially harmless behavior it also increases scale of the illegalities around it.

Anderkent 13y ago

> This will lead to all sorts of legal gray areas, wherein "I just assumed she was digital" could well work as a positive defense, or, even more eerily, a faux-pedophile service provider could staff enough adults to cover for the non-adults that they sometimes use. Why would they use non-adults at all, if they have software that can cover the visuals? Adults are easier to control and completely legal.

bmelton 13y ago
That's a good question actually -- my initial thought was for authenticity, but cost could be another reason. That said, I was only hypothesizing, so it's very possible that kids would be more problematic than they're worth in such an endeavor, not even counting the increased legal risk.