Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Crime The Courts The Internet

DOJ Makes Its First Known Arrest For AI-Generated CSAM (engadget.com) 98

Posted by BeauHD from the AI-CSAM-is-still-CSAM dept.
In what's believed to be the first case of its kind, the U.S. Department of Justice arrested a Wisconsin man last week for generating and distributing AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Even if no children were used to create the material, the DOJ "looks to establish a judicial precedent that exploitative materials are still illegal," reports Engadget. From the report: The DOJ says 42-year-old software engineer Steven Anderegg of Holmen, WI, used a fork of the open-source AI image generator Stable Diffusion to make the images, which he then used to try to lure an underage boy into sexual situations. The latter will likely play a central role in the eventual trial for the four counts of "producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring obscene material to a minor under the age of 16." The government says Anderegg's images showed "nude or partially clothed minors lasciviously displaying or touching their genitals or engaging in sexual intercourse with men." The DOJ claims he used specific prompts, including negative prompts (extra guidance for the AI model, telling it what not to produce) to spur the generator into making the CSAM.

Cloud-based image generators like Midjourney and DALL-E 3 have safeguards against this type of activity, but Ars Technica reports that Anderegg allegedly used Stable Diffusion 1.5, a variant with fewer boundaries. Stability AI told the publication that fork was produced by Runway ML. According to the DOJ, Anderegg communicated online with the 15-year-old boy, describing how he used the AI model to create the images. The agency says the accused sent the teen direct messages on Instagram, including several AI images of "minors lasciviously displaying their genitals." To its credit, Instagram reported the images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which alerted law enforcement. Anderegg could face five to 70 years in prison if convicted on all four counts. He's currently in federal custody before a hearing scheduled for May 22.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Makes Its First Known Arrest For AI-Generated CSAM More

DOJ Makes Its First Known Arrest For AI-Generated CSAM

Comments Filter:

  • BS headline-arrested for sending, not creating (Score:5, Informative)

    by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @09:18PM (#64489257)
    This guy is being prosecuted for sending porn to an underage boy, not generating AI porn. There's nothing new here. He'd be charged if he was sending pictures of grannies being gangbanged. The AI-generated child porn is irrelevant. Sending porn to children intentionally is illegal, especially since he probably was sending it to the kid with the intention of sexually engaging with him. If the allegations are true, he needs to be taken off the streets.

    • Re:BS headline-arrested for sending, not creating (Score:5, Informative)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @09:27PM (#64489265) Journal
      That's just wrong. The indictment is here [justice.gov]. One of the 4 counts was for transfer of obscene material to minors(section 1470); the other three were related to the generated porn(section 1466A).

      I'd assume that the interaction with an actual minor were most likely to be what initially attracted attention to his case; but he is very much charged for the production and possession of the porn as well.

      • Re:BS headline-arrested for sending, not creating (Score:5, Informative)

        by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @09:47PM (#64489293)

        That's just wrong. The indictment is here [justice.gov]. One of the 4 counts was for transfer of obscene material to minors(section 1470); the other three were related to the generated porn(section 1466A).

        I'd assume that the interaction with an actual minor were most likely to be what initially attracted attention to his case; but he is very much charged for the production and possession of the porn as well.

        All four counts involve interstate transportation or distribution. Only one count is partially for production.

        Count 1: production and interstate transportation
        Count 2: distribution (interstate)
        Count 3: distribution to a minor
        Count 4: possession of material produced via interstate transportation

      • I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like its for sending it?


        Count 1

        knowingly produced at least one visual depiction that depicted a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and was obscene, and attempted to do so, and any visual depiction involved in the offense had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, and was produced using materials that had been mailed, and that had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce by an

    • This guy is being prosecuted for sending porn to an underage boy, not generating AI porn.

      Oh really? Good thing we have you to tell us that.. I guess the Federal Indictment paperwork is full of shit.....

      https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1352606/dl

      Almost everything YOU said is B.S.

    • Doesn't matter. The feds will be more than happy to misrepresent a conviction for sending AI generated porn to a minor as a conviction for using an AI to generate fake CSAM porn. (Which by definition cannot victimize anyone during it's production.)

      After all, their fetish is locking up people in inhumane environments. Or as they would call it "extreme bondage play."

  • Why to its credit? I would say the opposite.

    And why does the use of AI matter here at all? The entire article is focused on the AI aspects even though they are irrelevant, that is when the article is not praising corporate vigilantism.

    "He's currently in federal custody before a hearing scheduled for May 22."
    And yet an ex-President guilty of espionage and treason is not.

    • And yet an ex-President guilty of espionage and treason is not.

      Convicted in the court of MSNBC, I presume?

      • I mean he freely admits to crimes all the time. Like this one. https://newrepublic.com/post/1... [newrepublic.com]
        Or this https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09... [cnn.com]
        Or this https://fortune.com/2023/10/10... [fortune.com]
        Or this https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
        How about inadvertently revealing the resolution of a spy satellite? https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        One doesnt need MSNBC to see that man as treasonous. There are recorded conversations of Trump attempting to subvert our democracy both by trying to get lower officials to "find" votes so he can win and by the lining up of fake electors to vote contrary to the will of the voters. Both crimes are still in the courts so we'll see how they play out but actual recordings seem pretty damning to me.

        • When he said "find" votes he literally meant he thought they had been stolen and he wanted him to find the stolen votes.

          You guys use the most uncharitable, most twisted, most dishonest possible interpretation of every word he utters, and have done so for 8 years now.

          I remember a month ago Trump talking about the 'bloodbath' that in the automotive industry that would happen if Biden got a second term, and how the entire MSM report only "bloodbath" and left out the automotive part, claiming he was threatening

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            When he said "find" votes he literally meant he thought they had been stolen and he wanted him to find the stolen votes.

            Except Trump never had any evidence of stolen votes. It's a fiction he invented, notice all of the massively unsuccessful lawsuits over it. I dont think any of them even went to trial and some were so frivolous the lawyers that brought them were disbarred.

            You're all freaking insane. YOU extremists are the threat to our democracy. At least the right wing conspiratards will never have any serious power.

            Right, I'm an extremist because Trump invented a conspiracy and then acted on his invention.

            I notice you havent touched the fake electors charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] by the way. Cant figure out a way to twist reality to your liking in regards

            • When he said "find" votes he literally meant he thought they had been stolen and he wanted him to find the stolen votes.

              Except Trump never had any evidence of stolen votes. It's a fiction he invented

              No, it's stuff he believed, as he still claims today.

              He was trying to convince the Georgia secretary of state to not certify the election until his claims were investigated, something which he has EVERY right to request. Even if they were wrong, you cannot throw him in jail for exercising his right to free speech.

              You're all freaking insane. YOU extremists are the threat to our democracy. At least the right wing conspiratards will never have any serious power.

              Right, I'm an extremist because Trump invented a conspiracy and then acted on his invention.

              No, you're an extremist for trying to prosecute a man for challenging the validity of an election, and the rest of the insanity of the last 8 years.

        • Also, there are NO 'fake' electors.

          https://thefederalist.com/2023... [thefederalist.com]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            That article is bullshit fringe theory being pushed after the fact by ideologs trying to get him off the hook that even our conservatively stacked supreme court is unlikely to accept. Here's a nice breakdown on the reality Trump is facing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            • That legal analysis was publish on The Federalist, no 'fringe' rag.

              And it was written by Margot Cleveland, graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, recipient of the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor.

              So how is it a 'bullshit fringe theory?'

              Trump's team merely followed to the 'T' the exact approach required by law, one which JFK also employed, appointing his own set of Democrat electors who also cast their votes for him after the Secretary of State in Hawaii already certified the result fo

    • They are legally required to report /suspected/ CSAM material upon discovery. When in doubt, report. Failure to do so implicates the vendor as a participant. They were fully complying with the law, and Instagram is not an expert on AI vs Real imagery. Expecting them to become so creates a larger issue of: Ok, now we just need to make legitimate exploitative material watermarked so it appears generated by AI, and then we are in the clear! It is the responsibility of the FBI and NCMEC to review said materials
  • CLICKBAIT, he was arrested for sending the material to an underage child in an attempt to exploit him, not for generating the image.
    • https://www.justice.gov/opa/me... [justice.gov]

      Read the fucking indictment.....

      • you seem to be reading something other than what you linked too. all about distribution and communication

        • I'm just going to assume you're blind because.....

          knowingly produced at least one visual depiction that depicted a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and was obscene

          Do you see the word "produced"? That is the very first line under the asshole's name.

          produce
          verb
          1. make or manufacture from components or raw materials.

    • 4 out of 5 counts were for the generation of the images. It'll be interesting to see how they prove a drawing is underage.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        They're probably going to pull up whatever "prompt" texts used to create the images. And find words that could be associated with directions on Age.

        And if he threw in some negative prompt words like 'mature' or 'adult'

        Although that is not exactly how Stable Diffusion works... you enter a prompt and the algorithm Infers noise patterns more like X, but if he put some inputs into the prompt that can be seen as Age indicators; they can make an argument that age Hints in the prompt are the Age of the resu

        • Irrelevant. He could draw minors in Photoshop all day long. We're talking about the most disgusting use of free expression here. And the DOJ is trying to criminalize it. I sincerely doubt it's going to fly given the broad, terrifying constitutional implications.

          However, when it comes to distributing the materials to a minor, attempting to lure a minor, really everything relating to his actual contact and conduct with minors, dude ought to burn. But the creation and possession of artificial representations o

        • My point is that is irrelevant. It's still not a depiction of an actual person.

          What if the guy had asked a human to do the drawing, of a hypothetical person who doesn't exist?

        • A bunch of pixels have no age, no feelings and cannot be abused.

          Laws MUST in all cases and for all eternity be restricted to actual humans being affected or endangered. Maybe animals and the planet, too, if you must. But pixels cannot be underage, abused or affected.

          Please for the love of all that is good, do never give in to the temptation of convicting people based on their morality alone. It will be a slippery slope down fast from there, because then everything can be made out of nothing, and people gett

  • Even if no children were used to create the material, the DOJ "looks to establish a judicial precedent that exploitative materials are still illegal,"

    The DOJ says 42-year-old software engineer Steven Anderegg of Holmen, WI, used a fork of the open-source AI image generator Stable Diffusion to make the images, which he then used to try to lure an underage boy into sexual situations. The latter will likely play a central role in the eventual trial for the four counts of "producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring obscene material to a minor under the age of 16."

    It really feels like the supposed child pornography generation crime is being smuggled in here, especially if it's being combined with "attempting to lure a child" (i.e. an actual child, not an image) into (four of) a single crime (and charge).

  • Too much emotion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @10:16PM (#64489327)

    You shouldn't care if a pedo is whacking it to child porn.

    You should care whether real children were harmed in the production.

    You should care whether it is statistically more likely to increase or decrease offense rates against real children.

    Whether AI child porn is illegal should be based on those previous two items and those two items only, if you're really thinking of the children and not just getting a justice boner over the idea of hurting someone. Whatever results in the best net income for children. That's supposed to be the point, right?

    But I never see studies quoted to support these laws, just emotional arguments.

    • The problem is that CSAM is also in LAION (used for Stable Diff) training dataset and in others too most likely.

      • The problem is that CSAM is also in LAION (used for Stable Diff) training dataset and in others too most likely.

        Then you should be arresting the people training the Stable Diffusion datasets who ended up sourcing the material.

    • Re:Too much emotion (Score:4, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @02:37AM (#64489625)

      You shouldn't care if a pedo is whacking it to child porn.

      You shouldn't, but if you don't want it you'll need to get the law changed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu] Words "cartoon" and "sculpture" appear several times here, as does a special non-requirement (c) that says the person in the image doesn't need to exist.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BKX ( 5066 )

        The law does say what it says, but that's not the whole story. There is currently one controlling SCOTUS opinion on the subject, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Currently, fake CP is legal so long as it's not obscene. So as long as it's artsy, you're fine. That is also directly stated in the law you referenced. That law doesn't outlaw everything you think it does. What's illegal must be obscene to be illegal, which means it must have no artistic, literary, or scientific value. That's a pretty low bar for

        • I think you're conflating two things. Fake CP is legal. The Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition focused on COPA, which is a completely different law to the one being discussed here.

          The law here isn't about owning something (which was what SCOTUS's opinion was on). The law was about interstate distribution (which is what this person is being charged with).

    • Re:Too much emotion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @04:25AM (#64489801) Homepage Journal

      The way to deal with it is to offer treatment. Anonymous, and kept out of medical records etc. Give people who are attracted to minors a way to get help that doesn't risk ruining their lives.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

        The way to deal with it is to offer treatment. Anonymous, and kept out of medical records etc. Give people who are attracted to minors a way to get help that doesn't risk ruining their lives.

        Oh ... so treatment can change sexual preferences?

        • Re:Too much emotion (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @07:29AM (#64490125) Homepage Journal

          It's irrelevant if it is a preference or hard wired. Either way, sexual activity with minors is rightly illegal, so it makes sense for people who feel that they want it to get treatment.

          While conversion therapy is harmful, I think even if it were concluded that being attracted to minors is inherent and that the treatment is harmful, it could still be justified on the basis of protecting children and keeping the patient out of an even more harmful situation: prison. And we are nowhere near making that conclusion, by the way.

          Even if we accepted that people should be allowed to indulge any and all fantasies in private, using purely AI generated material, there would be a strong case for offering treatment to help people keep those fantasies separate from real life.

          • There's no present cure for them short of a bullet to the head. Perhaps in the future there will be a way to fix them, but that implies the existence of a technology that will be used for something far more terrible. Totalitarian regimes will have a citizenship that does 100% vote for and agree with the government.

            The government should just give pedophiles realistic sex dolls. It's cheaper than the court costs and incarceration and there is the scarily higher than should be expected correlation between a

        • I don't think anyone argued that it was impossible.

          You can change all sorts of preferences with treatment, depending on how much you loosen the definition of 'treatment'.

          You could enforce treatment of certain political beliefs if you wanted to. Are you eager to give the government that power? Or should we leave it with just things that are illegal. Or do you want to maybe have 'currently illegal plus the one thing that I've been told by the media that I need to be scared of / angry about today'?

    • You shouldn't care if a pedo is whacking it to child porn.

      You should care whether real children were harmed in the production.

      You should care whether it is statistically more likely to increase or decrease offense rates against real children.

      In a society horribly addicted to bad news that has no problem never forgetting even a false accusation, you should also care whether or not reducing the creation of child porn down to a damn script, will increase rates of false accusations as well.

      Particularly in a legal system that barely knows how to spell “technology”.

      If we thought false accusations from the Me Too movement was bad, just imagine.

    • You shouldn't care if a pedo is whacking it to child porn.

      You should care whether real children were harmed in the production.

      You should care whether it is statistically more likely to increase or decrease offense rates against real children.

      Whether AI child porn is illegal should be based on those previous two items and those two items only, if you're really thinking of the children and not just getting a justice boner over the idea of hurting someone. Whatever results in the best net income for children. That's supposed to be the point, right?

      But I never see studies quoted to support these laws, just emotional arguments.

      "You shouldn't"? "You should"?

      But where does this "should" come from, kemo sabe?

      Oh, from your morality? Why "should" I care about that?

      (I do care, of course ... and morality is what we base laws on, not just downstream outcomes. Oh, wait ...)

      • The should and shouldn't were a product of the implied "think of the children" argument. My feelings on the subject are not relevant here, I was discussing the matter of consistency between desired outcomes and the laws supposedly designed to obtain them.

      • > Oh, from your morality?
        > Why "should" I care about that?

        He was making a purely utilitarian argument and explained it well.

        Where did you find morality?

        Or do you mean preventing harm to children is an arbitrary moral stance?

        I hope not - we used to exile people like that.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      I agree in principle, but:

      not just getting a justice boner over the idea of hurting someone.

      The actual reason is that our society is still deeply ingrained with the essentially religious concept of punishing what the majority considers despicable. This is a form of social control, of keeping all individuals within a common framework. It is flexible over time, for example for most of human history slavery was perfectly acceptable, but it changes very slowly.

      Child porn is one of the especially despicable things. Therefore, no amount of rational argument, no matter how corre

  • Better than real kiddie porn. I personally think if that is your mindset that you should be set on fire, nevertheless, fake AI kiddie porn is better than physically carrying it out and maybe there is a way track them down for fuel.

    I blame anime as the latest incarnation of 'acceptable' entertainment that exploits this sickness.

    • In the same way Sunday morning cartoons exploit violence, right?

      Ban Looney Tunes! :D

      • No. Violence was needed to keep the perverts afraid. Little kid might fuck you up if you try to rape them.

        But I commend your attempt at de-focusing. Gives me a clue about your real intentions.

        • No freaking idea what you're going on about. But what are my "real intentions?" Enlighten us, oh clairvoyant one!

    • I personally think if that is your mindset that you should be set on fire

      So burn the (perceived) heretics huh? Not so sure if you're any better than those you accuse.

      maybe there is a way track them down for fuel.

      That's entrapment.....

      I blame anime

      Blames a culture that is different from their own as the root of all evil.

      Yep, no doubt about it. There's something seriously wrong with you.

    • It's possible to give _you_ that mindset by causing just the right interaction with just the right part of your brain. Should you still be set on fire after that has been done to you?

  • Ok, so this guy deserves some time for luring, so let's get that out of the way. I'm not defending his actions at all.

    The images, however, are problematic in that if there isn't a real person. How can they tell the age? I mean, that's the first easy argument..basically prove the age. How is the prosecution going to do that? What legal trickery will be created here? I feel like this is designed to go to the supremes, where those numbskulls who don't even understand double jeopardy, might just go along wit

  • Some things are just wrong in and of themselves. There doesn't always have to be some kind of secondary or downstream harm.

    And all laws are based on morality ... the only question is whose morality.

    • Uh... Off topic, but no. Laws are NOT based on morality. They are based on defining a behavior to be punished after it is committed.

      At no point is the morality of the law promised, nor is the fairness. Many are based on consolidating power.

  • Sounds like this is purely a thought crime. Ugly thoughts, but still just thoughts.

Slashdot Top Deals

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca

Close