• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    You can’t prove a negative

    You can show how existing solutions work and demonstrate that the solution used works like those other solutions. That takes a lot more work than “see, it looks like a child therefore it’s CSAM,” but it’s necessary to protect innocent people.

    You assume it can, prove that it can.

    That’s guilty until proven innocent. There’s a reason courts operate on the assumption of innocence and force the prosecution to prove guilt. I am not interested in reversing that.

    • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      You better believe when the cops come knocking, the burden of proof to be ethical is wholly on you.

      All existing solutions are based on real life images. There’s no ethically way to acquire thousand upon thousands of images of naked children to produce anything resembling real.

      That’s how existing solutions work.

      So again, how can it be done ethically?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        when the cops come knocking

        When the cops come knocking, your best bet is to comply under duress (be clear that it’s under duress). Fighting the police will just add more charges, the right place to fight is in the courts. If your country’s justice system is corrupt, then I guess you might as well fight the police, but in most developed countries, the courts are much more reasonable than the police.

        how can it be done ethically?

        The burden of proof is on showing that it was done unethically, not that it was done ethically. Force the prosecution to actually do their job, don’t just assume someone is guilty because the thing they made looks illegal.