this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024

125 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

59555 readers

3774 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

125

Explicit deepfake scandal shuts down Pennsylvania school (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I have mixed feelings about this prosecution of ai deepfakes.

Like obviously people should have protection against becoming a victim of such and perpetrators should be held accountable.

But the line “feds are currently testing whether existing laws protecting kids against abuse are enough to shield kids from AI harms” would be a incredibly dangerous precedent because those are mostly designed for actual physical sex crimes.

As wrong as it is to create and distribute ai generated sex imagery involving non consenting people it is not even remotely as bad as actual rape and distributing real photos.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

I'm some jurisdictions, public urination can put you on a sex offender registry.

It wouldn't even matter if you're trying to be discreet and just have to go but there's no public washrooms around.

[+] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -31 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Creating and distributing anything should be legal if no real person suffers during its creation and if it's not intended at defamation, forgery, such things.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Bruh how is creating and distributing a non-consensual nude-ified picture of a young girl not a cause for suffering for the victim? Please, explain that to the class.

Did you just not go to school as a kid? If so, that would explain your absolute ineptitude on this topic. Your opinion is some real "your body, my choice" kind of energy.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There's a legitimate discussion to be had about harm reduction here. You're approaching this topic from an all-or-nothing mindset but there's quite a bit of research indicating that's not really how it works in practice. Specifically as it relates to child pornography the argument goes that not allowing artificial material to be created leads to an increase in production of actual child pornography which obviously means more real children are being harmed than would be if other forms were not controlled in the same fashion. The same sort of logic could be applied to revenge porn, stolen selfies, or whatever else we're calling the kind of thing this article is referring to. It may not be an identical scenario but I still think it would be fair to say that an AI generated image is not as damaging as a real one.

That is not to say that nothing should be done in these situations. I haven't decided what I think the right move is given the options in front of us but I think there's quite a bit more nuance here than your comment would indicate.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think this is probably a really good point. I have no issue with AI generated images, although obviously if they are used to do an illegal thing such has harassment or defamation, those things are still illegal.

I'm of two minds when it comes to AI nudes of minors. The first is that if someone wants that and no actual person is harmed, I really don't care. Let me caveat that here: I suspect there are people out there who, if inundated with fake CP, will then be driven to ideation about actual child abuse. And I think there is real harm done to that person and potentially the children if they go on to enact those fantasies. However I think it needs more data before I am willing to draw a firm conclusion.

But the second is that a proliferation of AI CP means it will be very difficult to tell fakes from actual child abuse. And for that reason alone, I think it's important that any distribution of CP, whether real or just realistic, must be illegal. Because at a minimum it wastes resources that could be used to assist actual children and find their abusers.

So, absent further information, I think whatever a person whats to generate for themselves in private is just fine, but as soon as it starts to be distributed, I think that it must be illegal.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago

That's a fairly decent and nuanced take.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

It may not be an identical scenario but I still think it would be fair to say that an AI generated image is not as damaging as a real one.

"The deepfakes are often used to extort, harass or bully minors, she says, and are easy to make because of the many sites and apps that will "nudify" an image."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/deepfake-minors-porn-explicit-images-1.7385099

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can you share a full-body shot of yourself please? Don't worry, you won't suffer while it gets used to create other content that we'll distribute to your friends, family, classmates, coworkers, etc.

[+] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You first.

EDIT: Also I weren't talking about pics of real people.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Deepfakes" are edited pictures of real people. I'd be more inclined to agree with you on completely AI generated images but not something specifically intended to deceive others into thinking they're viewing a real person's image.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Deepfakes are, however the top-level comment I was answering was not limited to deepfakes. And as my further discussion with its author shows, they too didn't mean only deepfakes.

Their opinion was that any kind of pornography portraying children, even if it's not shared with others and not based on pics of real people, should be prosecuted just like making real child pornography.

You know, this thread has once again reinforced me in my opinion that the best system of government is Aspie Reich. Only people with Aspergers should be allowed to make laws and judge and hold public posts. The rest of fucking chimps just don't have what it takes to override their chimp instincts.

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, so "anything" doesn't mean what it used to mean?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I said "defamation". If you are not capable of reading, that's not my fault.

That's why I'm ancap, you can't deal with such chimp crowds without private tanks.

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

K dude.

[–] emr@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

How do you litigate 'intention' in this way?

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 1 day ago

intention is litigated every day. Intention is what differentiates murder from manslaughter. Intention is what differentiates free speech from defamation.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago

My understanding is that intention is not uncommonly litigated; I believe the question of "intent to deceive" is central to trademark law, for example. That's also what the the "degrees" of murder etc are about.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I do read an awful lot of contacts and talk to lawyers.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is not a legal text, you little cheat.

This is a sentence in natural language, want me to start asking such questions about everything you write?

If you make a deepfake of someone and share it, then it's defamation. Taking a picture voluntarily shared and editing it is not a crime.

[–] emr@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 20 hours ago

By litigate I mean, if a person is creating something and says they don't plan to distribute it, do we take their word for it?

If it ends up getting distributed anyway, should we take their word that it was an accident?

We consider people's private data important enough that if you leak it even by mistake you are on the hook for that. You have a responsibility.

I think that rather than framing this as something harmless unless distributed and therefore intent to distribute matters, we should treat it as something you have a responsibility not to create because it will be harmful when it is inevitably distributed.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You would be fine with AI-gen porn images of your teenage daughter being distributed around the internet?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I take it, the word "defamation" is not part of your lexicon.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The issue being discussed does not fall under defamation.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Title is misleading?

An AI-generated nude photo scandal has shut down a Pennsylvania private school. On Monday, classes were canceled after parents forced leaders to either resign or face a lawsuit potentially seeking criminal penalties and accusing the school of skipping mandatory reporting of the harmful images.

Classes are planned to resume on Tuesday, Lancaster Online reported.

So the school is still in operation.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Shut down for one day at least.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Arstechnica doesn't cite its sources? All it has are links to more Arstechnica articles.

The above article says,

In the US, the feds are currently testing whether existing laws protecting kids against abuse are enough to shield kids from AI harms.

..but doesn't cite any sources. There's an embedded link, back to Arstechnica. What the fuck?

[–] Cyteseer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

It's the first link in the article https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-country-day-parents-take-first-step-in-suing-school-leaders-over-deepfakes-of-students/article_bfb6066e-a2c7-11ef-af86-df31e3bc5b86.html

[–] DelightfullyDivisive@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

In the article refers to "cops" and "feds". The overall tone of the writing sounds like a high school student wrote it.

[+] Cornpop@lemmy.world -8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Nobody was “abused” this is out of hand. suspend the kid or whatever that did it, some kind of school punishment, but jail? And lawsuits over some ai images? Crazy.

[–] hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The lawsuit was about the fact the school knew for months about the problem and did nothing to address it. If they plausibly couldn't know, it wouldn't have been their fault but this was reported to the admin repeatedly and they did nothing.

[–] Eranziel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Exactly this, and rightly so. The school's administration has a moral and legal obligation to do what it can for the safety of its students, and allowing this to continue unchecked violates both of those obligations.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Is in-person harassment not abuse anymore?

[+] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -30 points 2 days ago (3 children)

researchers concluded that "outlawing all deepfakes is unrealistic and unfeasible"—especially since all the harmful AI-generated images that are already out there are likely to "remain online indefinitely."

Just think a little bigger:

It must be a crime to have the harmful material.

Have it on your PC or phone —> goto jail.
Have it in your online account —> goto jail.
Be a service provider and have it on your server —> goto jail.

This will reduce the stuff.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 days ago

This will also make it trivial to target someone and have them sent to jail. I could literally post an image, right now, and it would be on your current device. Using your logic, you’d be liable and on your way to jail.

[–] mEEGal@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

yuppp, exactly like in North Korea.

nice !

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You really haven't thought this through. What happens if I email you a bunch of illegal pictures? Guess we're both going to jail.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Oh but I don't need to think too much through it. It is pretty much the legal situation in Germany (and probably several other European countries). There may be some edge cases that I don't know.

Of course, if you send stuff to me, then you are the first of the evil ones :) and if I can convince the judge that I did not know and did not want (!) the stuff (and by the way, how did they even know about it? Even before I had the chance to delete it?), there will be room for a reasonable decision.