> This shows that the database can be tainted with non-CSAM material by an entity that can submit entries to it.
Actually, it can easily be tainted by anybody. Take your massaged hash-colliding image, which remember is still visually child porn, and post it on some pedos-R-us forum. The people who maintain the database actively troll those forums. They'll see the image and add the hash to the database for you.
This is definitely true. Good old “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access” in the CFAA. It’s so vague as to be able to make almost _anything_ the government doesn’t like involving computers illegal.
Just being accused of having CSAM is a life ruining event. Even if someone is eventually cleared of charges their life is forever altered. The "We Got Him!!" headlines are front page news, retractions are filed in a basement filing cabinet with a sign that says "Beware of Leopard".
In many jurisdictions worldwide, producing/distributing/possessing "very realistic AI generated" child pornography is a crime.
According to Wikipedia, [0] it is criminal in these jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
Furthermore, Wikipedia says it is in somewhat of a legal grey area in Argentina, Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United States.
Regarding the US in particular: the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [1] that the child pornography exception to the First Amendment does not include "virtual child pornography", so long as it does not involve images of real children (i.e. using AI to take a non-pornographic image of a real child and turning it into a pornographic image of that child). However, while this bars prosecuting AI-generated child pornography under child pornography laws, it does not bar prosecuting it under obscenity laws. In the US, obscenity laws are much narrower than child pornography laws, so it is more difficult to get convictions, but people have gone to prison for violating them (e.g. Ira Isaacs [2] in 2012/2013, Paul F Little aka Max Hardcore [3] in 2008/2009). It can be difficult to convince a jury to convict, but realistic AI-generated child pornography may be one of those cases in which many juries would. Furthermore, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is not set in stone–given technological developments since then, and the changed composition of the Supreme Court, it is possible that some prosecutor might seek to overturn it, and you can't say for certain they would fail. Given all this, I think Wikipedia is right to say it is a "legal grey area" in the US.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs#Further_charges,_re...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#2005_arrest_and_p...