Danish Supreme Court Finds That AI CSAM Is CSAM(domstol.fe1.tangora.com)
9 pointsby delusional6 hours ago2 comments
  • tick_tock_tick37 minutes ago
    Shit like this is why I can't take any of the "freedom indexes" seriously. Europe is constantly ranked highly but then you get shit like oh you're fake picture looks a little too real jail.
  • delusional6 hours ago
    The court was asked to annul the previous judgment since the defendant did not think that the pictures in question were CSAM, since the children depicted were fictional. The court found the pictures similar to photography and therefore rejected the appeal.

    In my mind, this is pretty substantial technology news, at least in Denmark, since it rejects the notion that AI generated pictures are substantially different from other pictures, and therefore has to abide by the same laws.

    I will be interested in seeing if anybody charges the big AI providers for producing these photos.

    • andsoitis6 hours ago
      A fictional, generated image seems quite different to me than a photo of a real thing that exists.

      So I think one has to find other logic to contain this crap.

      • delusional5 hours ago
        I might to you. They are not different as they relate to CSAM as a matter of Danish law.
        • andsoitis5 hours ago
          I recognize that. I think my point is one about internal consistency of a legal framework.

          For instance, what if we're NOT talking about CSAM, are generated images ALSO considered equivalent to photos of real things in other domains? Or is CSAM a special carve out and based on what principles? Legal frameworks are stronger when they limit arbitrary rules.

          (to be clear, there might be a good logic argument, e.g. it isn't about protecting children, it is about protecting adults - so it doesn't matter how the image came into being).

          • altairprime2 hours ago
            The generalization proposed is invalid. Most other photographic domains do not rise to the level of censure levied at CSAM, for social and cultural reasons. Generalizing a CSAM-context outcome to non-CSAM contexts would be inappropriate, as there is no causal relationship between outcomes on either side of that chasm. One must instead judge if actions taken to prevent CSAM will present undue harms in non-CSAM contexts. This is the ‘carve-out’ you consider the existence of, and its boundaries are as much defined by each culture as they are by each legal system.

            So, then: What specific and immediate — not potential, but actual — harms does this CSAM-context decision impose on non-CSAM contexts?

            At a glance, I don’t see any such harms imposed. One could perhaps argue that AI must take more care now, and that this is a harm; plausible enough, but is that an undue harm? Not likely: the cultural and legal hostility to crossing from non-CSAM contexts into CSAM-context has no reason to yield to the AI operations difficulties imposed by restricting generation of CSAM-context materials.

          • delusional40 minutes ago
            The relevant danish law and procedural texts state an intention to align with the UNCRC (Rights of the child), danish law therefore doesn't contain a substantive claim for why fictive (and therefore also generated) images of CSAM should be equated to non-fictive CSAM.

            The answer to if it generalizes is, as with all new law, that we just don't know. In this case, the procedural for the passing of the last amendment to the relevant section includes the specific point that fictive CSAM should be included. It seems doubtful that other such procedurals would contain the same language. That doesn't rule out that this case is used as a basis for claiming that AI generated images should be treated similarly to real photographs when the two are indistinguishable.