New Mexico sued Snapchat after using AI to reveal child safety risks.

New Mexico is seeking an injunction to permanently block Snap from practices allegedly harming kids. That includes a halt on advertising Snapchat as “more private” or “less permanent” due to the alleged “core design problem” and “inherent danger” of Snap’s disappearing messages. The state’s complaint noted that the FBI has said that “Snapchat is the preferred app by criminals because its design features provide a false sense of security to the victim that their photos will disappear and not be screenshotted.”

  • @[email protected]
    12•2 months ago

    I don’t understand how this would be fine but pedophiles generating them at home without distributing them would be illegal.

    Cause the cops are creating CSAM and putting it out there in some shape or form, which you could argue would encourage pedophiles same way circulating ai images would as well.

    Either generating under age sensitive material is always wrong or it’s not.

    • @[email protected]
      2•2 months ago

      Federal law is creating fictional CSAM at home without transmitting it is legal.

      The few AI arrests I’ve seen they transmitted them.

        • @[email protected]
          2•2 months ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors

          Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.

          Specifically: distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations

          By the statute’s own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[135]

          Edit: So it has to be 100% locally generated and never transmitted. You still wouldn’t want to try and fight this in court though, I’m sure they’d do their best to throw you in jail, or fabricate an intent to distribute if you’d made a lot, even with all the images you generated to try and get the images you actually wanted.

          Edit: Also this is federal, there may be other state laws.

          • @[email protected]
            1•2 months ago

            I mean with the intent just means that possession is illegal cause all it takes is the judge to decide there was intent.

            I guess I was right that possession is essentially illegal too.

            • @[email protected]
              1•2 months ago

              The prosecutor needs to convince the jury there was intent. Intent is one of the hardest things to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court without evidence and motive. It’s not a guarantee especially with no history.

              Edit: And in this case, a history means you’ve probably already been convicted as thats what the history would lead to.

              • @[email protected]
                1•2 months ago

                If it gets to a trial instead of a plea deal, but fair enough, that is a rather reasonable guardrail.

                • @[email protected]
                  1•2 months ago

                  Ya, I imagine many of these highly specific cases would plead out to something not involving jail and/or pedophile record. Stakes are pretty high and that’s a big gamble. A case like this it’d be hard to have a sympathetic jury.

    • @[email protected]OP
      2•2 months ago

      The article didn’t say the cops generated AI CSAM. It said they created a profile pic, which was shown in the article.

      • @[email protected]
        4•2 months ago

        So if someone generates a minor’s image and it’s not nude, is that not CSAM?

        I’m genuinely asking, I always thought it was about sexualizing children, not whether they are nude or not.

        • @[email protected]OP
          2•2 months ago

          I don’t think so. People keep throwing that acronym around but I suspect they didn’t read the article and find out that it was one normal picture of a high school-aged girl.

          • @[email protected]
            1•2 months ago

            I actually read it and then made a comment because even though it’s a profile picture, the intent is to have a viewer sexual the picture and thereby sexualizing a minor.

            I do get how it’s a normal picture, but it made me think of this slippery slope and where the line is.