Skip to content

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

Technology
148 70 0
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Could Windows and installed apps upload all my personal files?

    Technology technology
    2
    1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    rikudou@lemmings.worldR
    Yes, every application has access to everything. The only exception are those weird apps that use the universal framework or whatever that thing is called, those need to ask for permissions. But most of the apps on your PC have full access to everything. And Windows does collect and upload a lot of personal information and they could easily upload everything on your system. The same of course applies for the apps as well, they have access to everything except privileged folders (those usually don't contain your personal data, but system files).
  • Are Voice Assistants Becoming Family Members?

    Technology technology
    9
    1
    3 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    D
    A family member with no inherent moral compass or empathy, whose eyes, ears, thoughts and agency belong to teams of trained profit-seekers in a different country. I disapprove of this humanization of software.
  • Adaptive Keyboards & Writing Technologies For One-Handed Users

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    112 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    T
    Came here to say this.
  • CBDC Explained : Can your money really expire?

    Technology technology
    4
    6 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    S
    CBDCs could well take the prize for most dangerous thing in our lifetime, similar to nuclear weapons during the Cold War. I'm thinking of that line from the song in Les Mis. Look down, look down. You'll always be a slave. Look down, look down. You're standing in your grave.
  • France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    142 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    C
    TBH, age verification services exist. If it becomes law, integrating them shouldn't be more difficult than integrating a OIDC login. So everyone should be able to do it. Depending on these services, you might not even need to give a name, or, because they are separate entities, don't give your name to the platform using them. Other parts of regulation are more difficult. Like these "upload filters" that need to figure out if something shared via a service is violating any copyright before it is made available.
  • 18 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    M
    Business Insider was founded in 2007.
  • Hands-On: EufyMake E1 UV Printer

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    38 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    S
    I watched a bit of Michael Alm's video on this, but noped out when I saw all of the little boxes of consumables appearing. If regular printer ink is already exorbitant, I can only imagine what these proprietary cartridges will cost.
  • 0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    P
    Outlook.... Ok Pretty solid Bahaha hahahahaha Sorry. Outlook is a lot of things. "Gooey crap" would be one way to describe it, but "solid"? Yeah, no. Gmail is (well, was) pretty solid. There are a lot of other webmail providers out there, including self hosted options and most are pretty solid, yeah. Outlook, though? It's a shit show, it's annoying. Do you love me? Please love me, please give feedback, please give feedback again, please look at this, hey am I the best? Am I.. STFU YOU PIECE OF CRAP! Can you PLEASE just let me do my email without being an attention whore every hour? Even down to the basics. Back button? "What is that? Never heard of it, can't go back to the message I just was on because I'm Microsoft software and so half baked." Having two tabs open? "Oh noes, now I get scawed, now I don't know how to manage sessions anymore, better just sign you out everywhere." What is it with Microsoft and not being able to do something basic as sessions normal? I'm not even asking for good, definitely not "awesome", just normal, and that is already too much to ask. Try running it in Firefox! I'm sure it's totally not on purpose, just "oopsie woopsie poopsie" accidentally bwoken. Maybe it's working again today, who knows, tomorrow it'll be broken again. I run everything on Firefox except the Microsoft sites, they have to be in chrome because fuck you, that's why. Seriously, I can't take any Microsoft software seriously at this point, and all of it is on its way out in our company, I'm making sure of that