Skip to content

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

Technology
151 72 0
  • As a father of teenage girls, I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.

    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.

  • Oh I just assumed that every Conservative jerks off to kids

    Get some receipts and that will be a start.

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

    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.

  • Get some receipts and that will be a start.

    Receipts you say?

    We're at 56 pages of this now for a nice round count of 1400 charges

    So far as I am aware all of these are publicly searchable court cases

  • Receipts you say?

    We're at 56 pages of this now for a nice round count of 1400 charges

    So far as I am aware all of these are publicly searchable court cases

    Alright, now we just need the main stream media to run the story.

    I mean with all the zealotry against drag shows they should be ready to run with this one right?

  • Alright, now we just need the main stream media to run the story.

    I mean with all the zealotry against drag shows they should be ready to run with this one right?

    You'd think so, right?

  • When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.

    For all you have said - "without the consent" - "being sexualised" - "commodifies their existence" - you haven't told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:

    1. if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
    2. if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
    3. I don't know what the "commodification of one's existence" can actually mean - I can't buy or sell "the existence of women" (does buying something's existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don't see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way

    It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,

    I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.

    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.

  • I don't understand fully how this technology works, but, if people are using it to create sexual content of underage individuals, doesn't that mean the LLM would need to have been trained on sexual content of underage individuals? Seems like going after the company and whatever it's source material is would be the obvious choice here

    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.

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

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

  • 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.

    written apology? they'll just use chatgpt for that

  • As a father of teenage girls, I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.

    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.

  • Hey so, at least in the US, drawings can absolutely be considered CSAM

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

  • 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.

  • Canada Drops Digital Tax That Infuriated Trump to Restart Trade Talks

    Technology technology
    17
    80 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    R
    Jesus fuck that’s a lot of days
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • 38 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    D
    Not easy but not hard actually really simple if you had the right energy. Just ignore this so I don't scare you.
  • Affordable Assignments

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 8 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    Meta? Isn't that owned by alleged pedophile Mark Zuckerberg? I heard he was a pedo on Facebook.
  • Palantir’s Idea of Peace

    Technology technology
    12
    22 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    A
    "Totally not a narc, inc."
  • 24 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    toastedravioli@midwest.socialT
    Im all for making the traditional market more efficient and transparent, if blockchain can accommodate that, so long as we can also make crypto more like the traditional market. At least in terms of criminalizing shit that would obviously be illegal to do with securities
  • CrowdStrike Announces Layoffs Affecting 500 Employees

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    242 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    S
    This is where the magic of near meaningless corpo-babble comes in. The layoffs are part of a plan to aspirationally acheive the goal of $10b revenue by EoY 2025. What they are actually doing is a significant restructuring of the company, refocusing by outside hiring some amount of new people to lead or be a part of departments or positions that haven't existed before, or are being refocused to other priorities... ... But this process also involves laying off 500 of the 'least productive' or 'least mission critical' employees. So, technically, they can, and are, arguing that their new organizational paradigm will be so succesful that it actually will result in increased revenue, not just lower expenses. Generally corpos call this something like 'right-sizing' or 'refocusing' or something like that. ... But of course... anyone with any actual experience with working at a place that does this... will tell you roughly this is what happens: Turns out all those 'grunts' you let go of, well they actually do a lot more work in a bunch of weird, esoteric, bandaid solutions to keep everything going, than upper management was aware of... because middle management doesn't acknowledge or often even understand that that work was being done, because they are generally self-aggrandizing narcissist petty tyrants who spend more time in meetings fluffing themselves up than actually doing any useful management. Then, also, you are now bringing on new, outside people who look great on paper, to lead new or modified apartments... but they of course also do not have any institutional knowledge, as they are new. So now, you have a whole bunch of undocumented work that was being done, processes which were being followed... which is no longer being done, which is not documented.... and the new guys, even if they have the best intentions, now have to spend a quarter or two or three figuring out just exactly how much pre-existing middle management has been bullshitting about, figuring out just how much things do not actually function as they ssid it did... So now your efficiency improving restructuring is actually a chaotic mess. ... Now, this 'right sizing' is not always apocalyptically extremely bad, but it is also essentially never totally free from hiccups... and it increases stress, workload, and tensions between basically everyone at the company, to some extent. Here's Forbes explanation of this phenomenon, if you prefer an explanation of right sizing in corpospeak: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/rightsizing/