Couldn't you just match the noise profile of the camera with the video?

How do you find the camera?

"I extracted and added the noise profile to the AI generated video with a goPro to make it look legitimate"

>With ongoing tensions between Greenland and the United States, the .gl registry may not be eager to subject itself to U.S. court jurisdiction.

Danish courts goes really hard at piracy, so they might have played themselves there.

Isn't Asimov mistaking the Party's self rationalization and use of war (that might not even still be going on) as a statement of Orwell beliefs?

Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources.

Its always funny how people draw their categories. Italians weren't white when my father was growing up, Finns neither. Turns out race is amorphous excuse to overlook the actual socioeconomic forces at play.

people who share the values of millennia of Western Civilization

Keep up.

Good old HN. Users losing their collective minds over rule of law and CSAM being bad.

extremely cursed userbase sometimes

HN is capable of a better discussion without personal attacks.

Found the cheese pizza enjoyer.

HN is capable of a better discussion without personal attacks.

> CSAM being bad.

Agreed. It's why it's difficult to support France who has sheltered Roman Polanski for decades.

It's strange how people like you only think it's bad when it suits your political agenda.

"Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"

Because that is up to the courts to interpret. You cant use your common law experience to interpret the law in other countries.

> You cant use your common law experience to interpret the law in other countries.

That interpretation wasn't mine. It came from the Court of Europe doc I linked to. Feel free to let them know its wrong.

So aggressive and rude, and over... CSAM? Weird.

chrisjj has some atrocious takes. But supporting CSAM is the worst he has done by far.

I'm not supporting CSAM. I'm supporting the defence of the term CSAM from attempts at dilution and diminution which downplay the true severity of this appaling crime.

In what world is generating CSAM a speech issue? Its really doing a disservice to actual free speech issues to frame it was such.

The point of banning real CSAM is to stop the production of it, because the production is inherently harmful. The production of AI or human generated CSAM-like images does not inherently require the harm of children, so it's fundamentally a different consideration. That's why some countries, notably Japan, allow the production of hand-drawn material that in the US would be considered CSAM.

If libeling real people is a harm to those people, then altering photos of real children is certainly also a harm to those children.

I'm strongly against CSAM but I will say this analogy doesn't quite hold (though the values behind it does)

Libel must be as assertion that is not true. Photoshopping or AIing someone isn't an assertion of something untrue. It's more the equivalent of saying "What if this is true?" which is perfectly legal

“ 298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

    Marginal note:Mode of expression

    (2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony

        (a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or

        (b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.”

It doesn't have to be an assertion, or even a written statement.

You're quoting Canadian law.

In the US it varies by state but generally requires:

A false statement of fact (not opinion, hyperbole, or pure insinuation without a provably false factual core).

Publication to a third party.

Fault

Harm to reputation

----

In the US it is required that it is written (or in a fixed form). If it's not written (fixed), it's slander, not libel.

The relevant jurisdiction isn't the US either.

Pictures are statement of fact: what is depicted exists. Naked pictures cause harm to reputation

That's not what we are discussing here. Even less when a lot of the material here is edits of real pictures.

> The point of banning real CSAM is to stop the production of it, because the production is inherently harmful. The production of AI or human generated CSAM-like images does not inherently require the harm of children, so it's fundamentally a different consideration.

Quite.

> That's why some countries, notably Japan, allow the production of hand-drawn material that in the US would be considered CSAM.

Really? By what US definition of CSAM?

https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abus...

"Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is not “child pornography.” It’s evidence of child sexual abuse—and it’s a crime to create, distribute, or possess. "

if pictures are speech, then either CSAM is speech, or you have to justify an exception to the general rule.

CSAM is banned speech.

Freedom of one starts where it confirms freedom of others.

Of course everybody is going to find a point when freedom of speech have to be limited. Otherwise, anyone can justify that cutting the head of their neighbour with a katana while dancing is part of an artistic performance, and absolute free speech is only possible if all artistic expression is given complete license. Those who pretend otherwise will have no ground to defend themselves on legal basis from being wiped out of existence by the very same logic.

I don't know, Europe related things get a lot of US comments here. All the classics about lacking freedoms, tech sector, ease of founding, etc.