cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/privacy/p/717792/massive-leak-shows-erotic-chatbot-users-turned-womens-yearbook-pictures-into-ai-porn
Chatbot roleplay and image generator platform SecretDesires.ai left cloud storage containers of nearly two million of images and videos exposed, including photos and full names of women from social media, at their workplaces, graduating from universities, taking selfies on vacation, and more.
If it is public it should be illegal,
If you do it privately, it should not be illegal.
edit: and i think any other stance on this issue would litteraly just be oppression and the actual loss of freedom
Realistically if its private no one will know about it anyway. IIRC the UK goes with private is also illegal and the realistic reason for that is so that if its leaked and you have it they don’t need to prove that it was you who leaked it and “i was hacked though!” isn’t a valid defence.
There are a lot of problems with that stance and I do not have the energy to point them all out, but here is the main one I see.
If you say something in private is illegal, how do you enforce it? Many harmful drugs are illegal, for example, so we justify invasions of privacy with searches of a suspect because the harm of the drugs is so great we are okay with violating people like that.
When you say digital content is illegal in private it justifies searching digital content for enforcement. But the trouble with this is it is digital content and programs can be used to search it…continuously. This sort of search needs to scan EVERYTHING of yours in private. Once you have that, they can add more search criteria and you won’t even know it’s happening.
You have no idea how bad this can get. I hope that you don’t find out.
i mean i get the idea, but i dont agree with it. It like saying “its fine aslong as you dont get caught”
That’s kinda how the law works in general. If you don’t get caught you don’t get punished, because how could you be punished if nobody knows you did something illegal?
I know what you mean, not saying its right but that is how it apparently works here. Law often struggles when you go down what if scenarios with technology.
Technically I am not allowed to cut back some nettles on a path because I don’t have the land owners permission. In reality no one gives a shit and people may appreciate not getting stung when walking down the path.
just to add to this tho, i think your example would not be a crime, but like a misdemeanor. Which gets treated differently (a small fine and its not documented basically, not jail and a criminal record)
atleast that is how it is in my country, i would be suprised if it is much different in the uk tho
Pretty sure a misdemeanor is an American specific thing. I know I have never heard about it other than from Americans.
i ment another country misdemeanor is just the translation haha ^^
but nevermind then, if misdemeanor and crime is the same in the uk, then it all is very different i guess
But as a thought experiment: AI images are usually derivative, even faces dont look exactly like the original, they take it and alter it a bit. So if someone takes an image and alters it, and then displays it publicly is it AI generated porn or is it art? Because obviously not all nudes are porn and some erotic art is still art. So a lawyer would have to prove that a) the original person is recognizable enough and therefore an offense has been committed and b) that the image is pornographic and not erotic art. That could be one heck of a challenge.
I was going to agree with him but you have a good point. The source should not be real people . The person should have to put in prompts to get something that looks similar like hair color or whatnot. If they can’t get it just the way they want it than boo hoo.
i mean in principle i dont even think people should be allowed to bully me with even a drawing of me publicly
(i do think that the rules for ‘public’ figures and non should be different in this case tho)