Skip to content

Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up

Technology
149 70 0
  • I agree with the other comments, but wanted to add how deepfakes work to show how simple they are, and how much less information they need than LLMs.

    Step 1: Basically you take a bunch of photos and videos of a specific person, and blur their faces out.

    Step 2: This is the hardest step, but still totally feasable for a decent home computer. You train a neural network to un-blur all the faces for that person. Now you have a neural net that's really good at turning blurry faces into that particular person's face.

    Step 3: Blur the faces in photos/videos of other people and apply your special neural network. It will turn all the blurry faces into the only face it knows how, often with shockingly realistic results.

    Cheers for the explanation, had no idea that's how it works.

    So it's even worse than @danciestlobster@lemmy.zip thinks, the person creating the deep fake has to have access to CP then if they want to deepfake it!

  • Yes, absolutely. But with recognition that a thirteen year old kid isn't a predator but a horny little kid. I'll let others determine what that punishment is, but I don't believe it's prison. Community service maybe. Written apology. Stuff like that. Second offense, ok, we're ratcheting up the punishment, but still not adult prison.

    I did say equitable punishment. Equivalent. Whatever.

    A written apology is a cop-out for the damage this behaviour leaves behind.

    Something tells me you don't have teenage daughters.

  • There is a difference between ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse and no expectations.

    Vs scaring the shit out of them and making them work their ass off doing an ass load of community service for a summer.

    ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse

    And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?

    This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).

    I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.

  • I am just genuinely speechless than you seemingly do not understand how sickening and invasive it is for your peers to create and share sexual content of you without your consent. Yes its extremely harmful. Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they've already decided that you're a sexual experience for them.

    We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal. It should be against the law to turn someone's images into AI generated pornography. It should also be illegal to share those images with others.

    Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they’ve already decided that you’re a sexual experience for them.

    Why is it these things? Why does someone doing something with something which is not your body make it feel like your body doesn't belong to you? Why does it not instead make it feel like images of your body don't belong to you? Several of these things could equally be used to describe the situation when someone is fantasised about without their knowledge - why is that different?
    In Germany there's a legal concept called "right to one's own image" but there isn't in many other countries, and besides, what you're describing goes beyond this.

    My thinking behind these questions is that I cannot see anything inherent, anything necessary about the creation of fake sexual images of someone which leads to these harms, and that instead there is an aspect of our society which very explicitly punishes and shames people - woman far more so than men - for being in this situation, and that without that, we would be having a very different conversation.

    Starting from the position that the harm is in the creation of the images is like starting from the position that the harm of rape is in "defiling" the person raped. Rape isn't wrong because it makes you worthless to society - society is wrong for devaluing rape victims. Society is wrong for devaluing and shaming those who have fake images made of them.

    We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal.

    Can you be more explicit about what it's the same as?

  • Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

    The harm is:

    • Those photos now exist in the world and can lead to direct harm to the victim by their exposure
    • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
    • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
    • your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

    Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

    No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.

    • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
    • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.

    as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.

    your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

    If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don't think there's any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that's different.

  • Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.

    It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.

    That's just called the outside now. Assume you are on camera at all times the moment you step out the front door. To be safe in the surveillance we live in today, best act as though you are being recorded in your own home as well.

  • ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse

    And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?

    This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).

    I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.

    It is not abnormal to see different punishment for people under the age of 18.
    Good education about sex and what sexual assault does with their victims (same with guns, drugs including alcohol etc).

    You can still course correct the behaviour of a 13 year old. There is also a difference between generating the porn and abusing it by sharing it etc.

    The girls should be helped and the boys should be punished, but mainly their behaviour needs to be correcte

  • Cheers for the explanation, had no idea that's how it works.

    So it's even worse than @danciestlobster@lemmy.zip thinks, the person creating the deep fake has to have access to CP then if they want to deepfake it!

    You can probably do it with adult material and replace those faces. It will most likely work on models specific trained like the person you selected.

    People have also put dots on people's clothing to trick the brain into thinking their are naked, you can probably fill those dots in with the correct body parts if you have a good enough model.

  • Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

    probably because there's a rapist in the white house.

  • I'd rather these laws be against abusing and exploiting child, as well as against ruining their lives. Not only that would be more helpful, it would also work in this case, since actual likeness are involved.

    Alas, whether there's a law against that specific use case or not, it is somewhat difficult to police what people do in their home, without a third party whistleblower. Making more, impossible to apply laws for this specific case does not seem that useful.

    There is also a difference between somebody harassing somebody with nude pictures (either real or not) than somebody jerking off to them at home. It does become a problem when an adult masturbated to pictures of children, but children to children. Let's be honest, they will do it anyway.

  • Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.

    It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.

    That's what muslims do with niqabs.

  • Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

    No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.

    • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
    • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.

    as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.

    your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

    If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don't think there's any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that's different.

    Hm. I wasn’t expecting the pro-child porn argument. All I can say is that’s absolutely legally and morally CSAM, and you’re fuckin nasty. Oof. Not really gonna bother with the rest because, well, yikes.

  • God I'm glad I'm not a kid now. I never would have survived.

    In my case, other kids would not have survived trying to pull off shit like this. So yeah, I'm also glad I'm not a kid anymore.

  • ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse

    And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?

    This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).

    I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.

    Parents are responsible for their kids. The punishment, with the full force of the law (and maybe something extra for good measure), should fall upon the parents, since they should have made sure their kids knew how despicable and illegal doing this is.

    Yeah, I agree, we shouldn't ruin the boys life, we should ruins his whole family to many times the extent something like this ruins a teen girl's life.

  • Well, US laws are all bullshit anyway, so makes sense

    Normally yeah, but why would you want to draw sexual pictures of children?

  • Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls?

    Can you please use words by their meaning?

    Also I'll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of "drive", so to say, and their dreams.

    And it's absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don't like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.

    So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.

    However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it's not, and not like sexual exploitation because it's not.

    It's just that your few posts I've seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that's absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn't be made based on such emotions.

    "thought crime"? And you have the balls to talk about using words "by their meaning"?

    This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone's life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim. So, can you please use words by their meaning?

    Edit: I jumped the gun when I read "thought crime", effectively disregarding the context. As such, I'm scratching the parts of my comment that don't apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).

  • I did say equitable punishment. Equivalent. Whatever.

    A written apology is a cop-out for the damage this behaviour leaves behind.

    Something tells me you don't have teenage daughters.

    No kids. That's why I say others should write the punishments. A written apology wasn't meant as the only punishment. It was in addition to community service and other stipulations.

  • "thought crime"? And you have the balls to talk about using words "by their meaning"?

    This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone's life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim. So, can you please use words by their meaning?

    Edit: I jumped the gun when I read "thought crime", effectively disregarding the context. As such, I'm scratching the parts of my comment that don't apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).

    The author of those comments wrote a few times what in their opinion happens in the heads of others and how that should be prevented or something.

    Can you please stop interpreting my words exactly the way you like? That's not worth a gram of horse shit.

  • Normally yeah, but why would you want to draw sexual pictures of children?

    Suppose I'm a teenager attracted to people my age. Or suppose I'm medically a pedophile, which is not a crime, and then I would need that.

    In any case, for legal and moral purposes "why would you want" should be answered only with "not your concern, go eat shit and die".

  • ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse

    And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?

    This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).

    I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.

    Fake pictures do not ruin your life… sorry…

    Our puritanical / 100% sex culture is the problem, not fake pictures…

  • 41 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    M
    Does anybody know of a resource that's compiled known to be affected system or motherboard models using this specific BMC? Eclypsium said the line of vulnerable AMI MegaRAC devices uses an interface known as Redfish. Server makers known to use these products include AMD, Ampere Computing, ASRock, ARM, Fujitsu, Gigabyte, Huawei, Nvidia, Supermicro, and Qualcomm. Some, but not all, of these vendors have released patches for their wares.
  • Resurrecting a dead torrent tracker and finding 3 million peers

    Technology technology
    58
    321 Stimmen
    58 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    M
    donating online Yeah i suppose any form of payment that you have to keep secret for some reason is a reason to use crypto, though I struggle to imagine needing that if you're not doing something dodgy avoiding scams for p2p transactions Wat. Crypto is not good at solving that, it's in fact much much worse than traditional payment methods. There's a reason scammers always want to be paid in crypto boycotting the banking system What specifically are you boycotting? The money that backs your crypto (i.e. that you bought it with) still sits in a bank account somewhere and continues to support the banks. All you're boycotting then are payments, but those are usually free for consumers (many banks lose money on them) so you're not exactly "sticking it to the man" by not using them. Evem if you were somehow hurting banks by using crypto, if you think the people that benefit from you using crypto (crypto exchange owners and billionaires that own crypto etc.) are less evil than goverment regulated banks, you're deluded. What about avoiding international payment fees? You'll spend more money using crypto for that, not less
  • 43 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    C
    From the same source, Blacklight is really good. https://themarkup.org/series/blacklight Blacklight is a Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector. Enter the address of any website, and Blacklight will scan it and reveal the specific user-tracking technologies on the site So you can see what's happening on a site before you visit it
  • 635 Stimmen
    75 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    D
    theyll only stop selling politicians and block that
  • Is Matrix cooked?

    Technology technology
    54
    100 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    W
    Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then. it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs. I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???) if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user
  • 471 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    J
    Copyright law is messy. Thank you for the elaboration.
  • 377 Stimmen
    58 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    avidamoeba@lemmy.caA
    Does anyone know if there's additional sandboxing of local ports happening for apps running in Private Space? E: Checked myself. Can access servers in Private Space from non-Private Space browsers and vice versa. So Facebook installed in Private Space is no bueno. Even if the time to transfer data is limited since Private Space is running for short periods of time, it's likely enough to pass a token while browsing some sites.
  • 13 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    T
    You might enjoy this blog post someone linked in another thread earlier today https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/