Cops lure pedophiles with AI pics of teen girl. Ethical triumph or new disaster?
(arstechnica.com)24 points by PaulHoule 10 months ago
24 points by PaulHoule 10 months ago
> Is there any legal precedent about AI CSAM yet?
Is there specific case law concerning AI depictions? Maybe not, but it is already a federal crime to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possesses with intent to distribute "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" that (in simple terms) are both obscene and depict or appear to depict minors in sexually explicit scenarios, and there is very little reason to think that courts would carve out AI from this general prohibition.
18 USC Sec. 1446A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
> This was struck down in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition
No, it wasn't.
> A new bill, the PROTECT Act, came about.
This is a section added by the PROTECT Act. (The link includes reference to the law by which the section was added to the US code; one of the great things about LII is that it has added/amended information, not just the text.) It has nearly identical coverage to what was struck down, except that where what was struck down was struck down on the basis of not being limited strictly to obscene material, this added obscenity (by name in one place, and using the exact language of the Supreme Court standard for obscenity in another) to the former rule.
> But it only bans CP artwork that is "virtually indistinguishable" from real photos.
You are invited to read the text, this is simply false. (The PROTECT Act also added the “virtual identical” limitation you describe to the definitions applicable to the original offense, as well as adding this new one with the obscenity limitation, as a belt-and-suspenders approach — basically, the Supreme Court said that they could prohibit things that either meet the case law standard for obscenity or which has a sufficient nexus to actual come abuse, so the PROTECT Act took the original single prohibition and replaced it with two, one which was limited to be targeted on obscenity (18 USC §1446A) and one which was narrowed to what they felt might pass muster as sufficiently related to actual child abuse (the original prohibition with definitions at 18 USC § 2556, amended with the “virtually indistinguishable” restriction. The latter is the Constitutionally weaker of the two; that obscenity is not protected is well-established.)
Are there other sexually explicit scenarios which are federal crimes? I guess all of them will be a problem soon.
> Try reading the most fucked up part of Naked Lunch in a Walmart Subway sometime
I've read Naked Lunch, but I don't remember any descriptions of child abuse. Not saying I don't believe you, just wondering why I wouldn't remember the most fucked up part of a book.
Trigger warning NSFW..
. . . .
>The Mugwump slips the noose over the boy's head and tightens the knot caressingly behind the left ear. The boy's penis is retracted, his balls tight. He looks straight ahead breathing deeply. The Mugwump sidles around the boy goosing him and caressing his genitals in hieroglyphs of mockery. He moves in behind the boy with a series of bumps and shoves his cock up the boy's ass. He stands there moving in circular gyrations. The guests shush each other, nudge and giggle. Suddenly the Mugwump pushes the boy forward into space, free of his cock. He steadies the boy with hands on the hip bones, reaches up with his stylized hiero- glyph hands and snaps the boy's neck. A shudder passes through the boy's body. His penis rises in three great surges pulling his pelvis up, ejaculates immediately.
--- Via https://www.electroniclibrary21.ru/literature/burroughs/nake...
And other way around, you generate a image that you explicitly prompt to be under age but to appear adult. By definitions this would also be illegal image to store or spread. And anyone not immediately destroying or reporting it on receiving it could be prosecuted.
Some people argue that you need actual CSAM to produce AI CSAM. I don't think that's true, but in that case, it'd be different because it's a result of abuse, while books are not (directly).
I thought entrapment was illegal (that car dude that wanted to deal coke to save his company).
Entrapment is the process by which police ask or induce you to commit a crime. For instance, if a police officer gives you 20$ to assault someone, then that is entrapment. However, if the police simply stand on a likely corner and you assault them, or ask them to buy drugs you are boned. Same thing if you steal a bait car that is left running with the door open.
This is kind of like leaving a bait car parked and running with the doors open. Oh look I'm a child online! This is what I look like. They cannot attempt to seduce the pedophile. However, they can let them do what pedophiles do. Then, when the pedophile makes an attempt to meet with the "Child" they can arrest them for attempting since they have demonstrated intent and action to make good on that intent.
In this case, they do the same with Snapchat.
If New Mexico wins, will any person be held responsible? Or will Snapchat pay a fine and move on?
It doesnt appear as if the cops generated any sexually explicit AI images of an underage girl. Is this accurate? Is there any legal precedent about AI CSAM yet? While that sort of content is of no interest to me I've been wondering about the ethics of it. How is it different than reading Marquis de Sade or William S. Burroughs (both have written very explicit scenes of violent and sexual abuse of children). Try reading the most fucked up part of Naked Lunch in a Walmart Subway sometime. It's a hoot.