• BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I have trouble with this because it’s like 90% grey area. Is it a pic of a real child but inpainted to be nude? Was it a real pic but the face was altered as well? Was it completely generated but from a model trained on CSAM? Is the perceived age of the subject near to adulthood? What if the styling makes it only near realistic (like very high quality CG)?

    I agree with what the FBI did here mainly because there could be real pictures among the fake ones. However, I feel like the first successful prosecution of this kind of stuff will be a purely moral judgement of whether or not the material “feels” wrong, and that’s no way to handle criminal misdeeds.

    • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      If not trained on CSAM or in painted but fully generated, I can’t really think of any other real legal arguments against it except for: “this could be real”. Which has real merit, but in my eyes not enough to prosecute as if it were real. Real CSAM has very different victims and abuse so it needs different sentencing.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Everything is 99% grey area. If someone tells you something is completely black and white you should be suspicious of their motives.