Child Sexual Abuse Material Persists on X
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> The U.S. national center shares digital fingerprints with major technology companies so they can scan and remove the imagery. The center’s list is used by Google and Meta, among others. About a third of the images found by The Times were from that list.
It worked, no one wanted to pay for it. Or were completely locked into Microsoft or other large companies solutions that half worked.
It's all a matter of 'the image hash was on the database, therefore OP is guilty. 10 years incarceration'.
I wouldn't want to be enabling such a system.
That can only happen if it is either (1) used by government, or (2) used by private entities in a process flow that includes reports to government.
"There exist countries with criminal justice systems with weak enough standards of proof that a false positive on a scan alone would result in prison", even if 100% true, is not a justification for a firm not making efforts to block child porn distribution on its networks. (It is, OTOH, a justification for working to reform the criminal justice systems in those countries, but that is rather far from the topic here.)
The entire argument for why verification was even an issue is that the allegedly the scan is not sufficient reason to actually believe that something is child pornoography. But whether or reviewing such a report may or may not be a crime in some jurisdiction somewhere on Earth, the certainty that arguments like that would detract from the point is the reason that of the two (moral and legal) issues raised in the post I responded to, I only said that one of them was ridiculous, and it wasn't the legal one.
Also, is The Times admitting they were in possession of the illegal pictures? Does Freedom of the Press protect against that?
Are you suggesting the national database maintainers are in possession of illegal pictures and should also have their rights questioned?
> The Times conducted its own scan for child sexual abuse material on X by writing an automated computer program that searched for related terms without displaying the images, which are illegal to view. Links to the images were sent to a Microsoft service that checked whether they were included on lists of known abusive material compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other child safety groups. Matches were verified by analysts at the Canadian Center for Child Protection.
Thank you for copy-and-pasting how they did it.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-01-31_-_...
What makes you think they aren't?
The complaint in the article is about not taking down the images faster than within an hour.
And, from TFA:
> The program The Times wrote reported the images to the authorities. The images were removed, but some had been viewed hundreds of times.
The argument against CSAM is easy: the creation of the content is clearly harmful to the victims, its viewing and distribution furthers that harm, and its availability has the potential to increase demand.
How do we get to a similar place for gore?
The argument is that distributing child sex abuse material creates a demand for more of it. Wouldn't it be the same for murder videos?
There was a series of photos going around when I was a kid. A girl who died in a car accident. Horrible, gruesome, nightmare inducing photos of the aftermath were shared. The family was victimized by those photos being shared.
We live in a time where vore, nude photos shared without the subject's permission, and AI nudification software are all illegal. Why should it be legal to share photos and videos of violent crimes and accidents? How is that any different?
I asked a specific question about your definition of gore, so I could try to engage with your opinion in good faith without making assumptions. But instead of answering the question, you dodged it with a cherry-picked example that doesn't represent every scenario that I'm considering. That makes me inclined to believe that your position isn't particularly well-considered.
Maybe the reason you get downvoted whenever you bring this up while "nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal" is because you don't provide enough substance for anyone to argue against...
Yesterday morning I watched, as I was weeding, a mobile abattoir operator stun, drain blood, skin, gut and hang in a portable cool room eight full weight sheep, turning them over at about 12 minutes per sheep - pretty decent pace.
Later I helped make a bonfire to burn the eight sets of skins, heads, guts, trotters (which we shovelled and slung from a single axle trailer onto the wood pallets on top of the stacked wood underneath).
Some of this was filmed and posted to my 91 year old father (by the land owner) - is that "gore" ?
I'm thinking this is more about what you personally find disgusting and seeking to impose that PoV on everyone; butchers, nurses, first responders, farmers, etc.
Which is understandable, but wrong headed.
Yes, I do believe that killing animals is morally wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about.
As an aside: I'm in the "victims of crime should be shielded from publication, especially prior to trial" camp - I'm even prepared to support the notion that perpetrators of crime should be largely scrubbed rather than glorified by the obsessive.
You're still not clear on where your proposed boundaries lie; Daniel Pearl was filmed being killed - that's a snuff video and quite distinct from "photos of people who have been murdered" - eg: I could link to a photo of Martin Luther King and I would assume that would be fine for you.
Perhaps work on sharpening your language about what is and isn't to be allowed in your new world order.
For example, my father, in his prime working for the St John's Volunteer Ambulance in remote areas, would likely have wanted at various times to have sent video of an impaled accident victim, still alive and in pain, to various doctors / fire responders, etc. in order to get pragmatic advice on how to stabilise and extract them.
This would effectively be transmitted torture porn.
I haven’t really thought about this before, so I don’t know where I’d personally draw the line, if at all, but I understand better where y’all are coming from now.
Repealing Section 230 When You Disagree With It Creates An Even Bigger Incentive For AbuseThere has never been a more blatant honeypot in the history of American social media.
Musk displayed uncommonly detailed knowledge of the Southeast Asian child sex trade in the aftermath of the Thai Cave Crisis. It's not a big stretch to allowing CSAM on his own social media network.