Rendered at 00:20:11 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
mplanchard 8 hours ago [-]
The newsworthy thing here, IMO, is that they don’t even seem to be checking images against the NCMEC database
> The U.S. national center shares digital fingerprints with major technology companies so they can scan and remove the imagery. The center’s list is used by Google and Meta, among others. About a third of the images found by The Times were from that list.
mitxela 8 hours ago [-]
NCMEC won't share that database with almost anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if they denied it to Elon.
23 minutes ago [-]
RockRobotRock 22 minutes ago [-]
I just got access to the NCMEC's hashlists for my startup. It was fairly easy.
It also has a fairly high false positive rate, and due to the nature of the content paying someone to verify false positives is near impossible both legally and morally.
dragonwriter 6 hours ago [-]
“We can’t fight child porn on our platform because it is less moral to run a scanner that may produce false positives and either accept that this may result in blocking some content that isn’t child porn OR pay someone to look at content and verify whether or not it is child porn, so instead we just do the far more moral thing of allowing and profiting from the distribution of child porn" is an interesting, if not exactly convincing, argument.
mitxela 1 hours ago [-]
Intentionally viewing what you think is child porn is a crime, but not catching it is not a crime. If you think it's stupid, lobby Congress to change the law.
dragonwriter 54 minutes ago [-]
> Intentionally viewing what you think is child porn is a crime
The entire argument for why verification was even an issue is that the allegedly the scan is not sufficient reason to actually believe that something is child pornoography. But whether or reviewing such a report may or may not be a crime in some jurisdiction somewhere on Earth, the certainty that arguments like that would detract from the point is the reason that of the two (moral and legal) issues raised in the post I responded to, I only said that one of them was ridiculous, and it wasn't the legal one.
londons_explore 5 hours ago [-]
In quite a few countries, a false positive can lead to someone getting put in prison, entirely without any human viewing said image.
It's all a matter of 'the image hash was on the database, therefore OP is guilty. 10 years incarceration'.
I wouldn't want to be enabling such a system.
dragonwriter 1 hours ago [-]
> In quite a few countries, a false positive can lead to someone getting put in prison
That can only happen if it is either (1) used by government, or (2) used by private entities in a process flow that includes reports to government.
"There exist countries with criminal justice systems with weak enough standards of proof that a false positive on a scan alone would result in prison", even if 100% true, is not a justification for a firm not making efforts to block child porn distribution on its networks. (It is, OTOH, a justification for working to reform the criminal justice systems in those countries, but that is rather far from the topic here.)
mr_woozy 7 hours ago [-]
I worked for a startup almost a decade ago that automated this process entirely (reducing the need for human oversight / comparing).
It worked, no one wanted to pay for it. Or were completely locked into Microsoft or other large companies solutions that half worked.
rationalist 7 hours ago [-]
I'm surprised Twitter didn't implement it earlier (before it was bought and rebranded to X).
Also, is The Times admitting they were in possession of the illegal pictures? Does Freedom of the Press protect against that?
mplanchard 5 hours ago [-]
From TFA:
> The Times conducted its own scan for child sexual abuse material on X by writing an automated computer program that searched for related terms without displaying the images, which are illegal to view. Links to the images were sent to a Microsoft service that checked whether they were included on lists of known abusive material compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other child safety groups. Matches were verified by analysts at the Canadian Center for Child Protection.
rationalist 5 hours ago [-]
TFA is paywalled and the archive link someone else used didn't work.
Thank you for copy-and-pasting how they did it.
mplanchard 5 hours ago [-]
Try turning off VPN for the archive link? It worked for me, but I had to turn off the VPN
6 hours ago [-]
iAMkenough 6 hours ago [-]
I think they’re saying Elon is in possession of it, and they were able to verify it via file hashing compared against the national database.
Are you suggesting the national database maintainers are in possession of illegal pictures and should also have their rights questioned?
brewcejener 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
5 hours ago [-]
mulemisterX 7 hours ago [-]
The only conclusion I can come to at this point is that it's a honeypot.
kelseyfrog 7 hours ago [-]
POSIWID.
OroPla 6 hours ago [-]
Can someone explain why the goal is only to remove the images and not go after whoever posted them? You'd think the pool of posters would eventually shrink to zero.
happymellon 6 hours ago [-]
> not go after whoever posted them?
What makes you think they aren't?
OroPla 6 hours ago [-]
Because it's not mentioned anywhere who posted the images in the first place and which prison he or she is now living in.
The complaint in the article is about not taking down the images faster than within an hour.
mplanchard 5 hours ago [-]
The point is more that these images should not be uploadable in the first place, since they are trivially validated against the national DB to be CSAM.
And, from TFA:
> The program The Times wrote reported the images to the authorities. The images were removed, but some had been viewed hundreds of times.
NDlurker 7 hours ago [-]
Off topic, but gore should be treated the same way legally
mplanchard 5 hours ago [-]
Im curious, why?
The argument against CSAM is easy: the creation of the content is clearly harmful to the victims, its viewing and distribution furthers that harm, and its availability has the potential to increase demand.
How do we get to a similar place for gore?
NDlurker 4 hours ago [-]
The argument is that the child is revictimized with each viewing. Wouldn't it be the same for a murder victim?
The argument is that distributing child sex abuse material creates a demand for more of it. Wouldn't it be the same for murder videos?
There was a series of photos going around when I was a kid. A girl who died in a car accident. Horrible, gruesome, nightmare inducing photos of the aftermath were shared. The family was victimized by those photos being shared.
We live in a time where vore, nude photos shared without the subject's permission, and AI nudification software are all illegal. Why should it be legal to share photos and videos of violent crimes and accidents? How is that any different?
wyrdcurt 3 hours ago [-]
What precisely is your definition of gore? Could you define it in a way that makes it illegal to share images of murders and car crashes as entertainment, without criminalizing, say, journalists documenting a war?
NDlurker 47 minutes ago [-]
CNN covered the Daniel Pearl story just fine without showing the video. There's no good reason to share a murder video for entertainment just like there's no good reason to share a rape video for entertainment.
mplanchard 5 hours ago [-]
This thread is so weird. Several people asking why gore should be as illegal as child porn, but with no followup from anyone so far with reasons. I am not trying to be sarcastic in asking why. I am legitimately curious.
NDlurker 4 hours ago [-]
I'm at work and also don't like typing on my phone. I replied with my reasoning now
ZpJuUuNaQ5 6 hours ago [-]
Because? Death is an inevitable part of life. If anything, it reminds you appreciate you feeble existence a little more.
NDlurker 4 hours ago [-]
Rape is a very common crime. Doesn't mean it's ok to film and share it. So why is it ok to share murder videos?
UltraSane 6 hours ago [-]
Why? What about surgical videos?
ShinyLeftPad 6 hours ago [-]
What about them?
UltraSane 6 hours ago [-]
They are very gory.
NDlurker 7 hours ago [-]
I get downvoted whenever I bring this up but nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal.
singleshot_ 5 hours ago [-]
Well, you probably haven’t asked anyone who knows. The government doesn’t have a compelling interest. Banning it wouldn’t be narrowly targeted.
ticulatedspline 5 hours ago [-]
Can you provide a compelling argument for why it should be illegal?
ZpJuUuNaQ5 6 hours ago [-]
Anybody has a good argument why it should be illegal?
throwaway85825 6 hours ago [-]
Arguably the average person needs to be exposed to more gore lest they become dangerously detached from the real world. People who live in sanitized bubbles end up creating systems that kill far more people because they cannot see the results of their actions. China censors all violent crime, it's basically illegal to report on. How do you think that's working out?
It took me a bit to realize you mean "MAPs" (so-called "Minor Attracted Persons") and not cartographical instruments.
r_lee 7 hours ago [-]
I don't think that "label" even applies if they're posting such content
hightrix 7 hours ago [-]
It shouldn't be a label at all. Pedofiles should be called as such, or worse.
iAMkenough 6 hours ago [-]
Americans give them the label “Commander in Chief”
2OEH8eoCRo0 7 hours ago [-]
Twitter/X should be held liable.
bigyabai 6 hours ago [-]
*taps the sign*
Repealing Section 230 When You Disagree With It Creates An Even Bigger Incentive For Abuse
6 hours ago [-]
ath3nd 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
gamblor956 6 hours ago [-]
Not surprising.
Musk displayed uncommonly detailed knowledge of the Southeast Asian child sex trade in the aftermath of the Thai Cave Crisis. It's not a big stretch to allowing CSAM on his own social media network.
cyanydeez 7 hours ago [-]
Surely, X should be shut down by some act of god.
bigyabai 7 hours ago [-]
For the government to subsequently reopen it?
There has never been a more blatant honeypot in the history of American social media.
> The U.S. national center shares digital fingerprints with major technology companies so they can scan and remove the imagery. The center’s list is used by Google and Meta, among others. About a third of the images found by The Times were from that list.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-01-31_-_...
The entire argument for why verification was even an issue is that the allegedly the scan is not sufficient reason to actually believe that something is child pornoography. But whether or reviewing such a report may or may not be a crime in some jurisdiction somewhere on Earth, the certainty that arguments like that would detract from the point is the reason that of the two (moral and legal) issues raised in the post I responded to, I only said that one of them was ridiculous, and it wasn't the legal one.
It's all a matter of 'the image hash was on the database, therefore OP is guilty. 10 years incarceration'.
I wouldn't want to be enabling such a system.
That can only happen if it is either (1) used by government, or (2) used by private entities in a process flow that includes reports to government.
"There exist countries with criminal justice systems with weak enough standards of proof that a false positive on a scan alone would result in prison", even if 100% true, is not a justification for a firm not making efforts to block child porn distribution on its networks. (It is, OTOH, a justification for working to reform the criminal justice systems in those countries, but that is rather far from the topic here.)
It worked, no one wanted to pay for it. Or were completely locked into Microsoft or other large companies solutions that half worked.
Also, is The Times admitting they were in possession of the illegal pictures? Does Freedom of the Press protect against that?
> The Times conducted its own scan for child sexual abuse material on X by writing an automated computer program that searched for related terms without displaying the images, which are illegal to view. Links to the images were sent to a Microsoft service that checked whether they were included on lists of known abusive material compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other child safety groups. Matches were verified by analysts at the Canadian Center for Child Protection.
Thank you for copy-and-pasting how they did it.
Are you suggesting the national database maintainers are in possession of illegal pictures and should also have their rights questioned?
What makes you think they aren't?
The complaint in the article is about not taking down the images faster than within an hour.
And, from TFA:
> The program The Times wrote reported the images to the authorities. The images were removed, but some had been viewed hundreds of times.
The argument against CSAM is easy: the creation of the content is clearly harmful to the victims, its viewing and distribution furthers that harm, and its availability has the potential to increase demand.
How do we get to a similar place for gore?
The argument is that distributing child sex abuse material creates a demand for more of it. Wouldn't it be the same for murder videos?
There was a series of photos going around when I was a kid. A girl who died in a car accident. Horrible, gruesome, nightmare inducing photos of the aftermath were shared. The family was victimized by those photos being shared.
We live in a time where vore, nude photos shared without the subject's permission, and AI nudification software are all illegal. Why should it be legal to share photos and videos of violent crimes and accidents? How is that any different?
Musk displayed uncommonly detailed knowledge of the Southeast Asian child sex trade in the aftermath of the Thai Cave Crisis. It's not a big stretch to allowing CSAM on his own social media network.
There has never been a more blatant honeypot in the history of American social media.