Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
Schools generally means it involves underage individuals, which makes any content using them csam. So in effect, the “AI” companies are generating a ton of csam and nobody is doing anything about it.
Disagree. Not CSAM when no abuse has taken place.
That’s my point.
If someone put a camera in the girls’ locker room and distributed photos from that, would you consider it CSAM? No contact would have taken place so the kids would be unaware when they were photographed, is it still abuse?
If so, how is the psychological effect of a convincing deepfake any different?
Taking secret nude pictures of someone is quite a bit different than…not taking nude pictures of them.
It’s not CSAM to put a picture of someone’s face on an adult model and show it to your friend. It’s certainly sexual harassment, but it isn’t CSAM.
How is it different for the victim? What if they can’t tell if it’s a deepfake or a real photo of them?
It’s absolutely sexual harassment.
But, to your question: you can’t just say something has underage nudity when the nudity is of an adult model. It’s not CSAM.
Except, you know, the harassment and abuse of said deepfaked individual. Which is sexual in nature. Sexual harassment and abuse of a child using materials generated based on the child’s identity.
Maybe we could have a name for it. Something like Child-based sexual harassment and abuse material… CSHAM, or maybe just CSAM, you know, to remember it more easily.
There’s a thing that was happening in the past. Not sure it’s still happening, due to lack of news about it. It was something called “glamour modeling” I think or an extension of it.
Basically, official/legal photography studios took pictures of child models in swimsuits and revealing clothing, at times in suggestive positions and sold them to interested parties.
Nothing untoward directly happened to the children. They weren’t physically abused. They were treated as regular fashion models. And yet, it’s still csam. Why? Because of the intention behind making those pictures.
The intention to exploit.