• Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      51·
      16 days ago

      Realistically if its private no one will know about it anyway. IIRC the UK goes with private is also illegal and the realistic reason for that is so that if its leaked and you have it they don’t need to prove that it was you who leaked it and “i was hacked though!” isn’t a valid defence.

        • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          21·
          15 days ago

          I know what you mean, not saying its right but that is how it apparently works here. Law often struggles when you go down what if scenarios with technology.

          Technically I am not allowed to cut back some nettles on a path because I don’t have the land owners permission. In reality no one gives a shit and people may appreciate not getting stung when walking down the path.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          21·
          15 days ago

          That’s kinda how the law works in general. If you don’t get caught you don’t get punished, because how could you be punished if nobody knows you did something illegal?

      • survirtual@lemmy.world
        4·
        15 days ago

        There are a lot of problems with that stance and I do not have the energy to point them all out, but here is the main one I see.

        If you say something in private is illegal, how do you enforce it? Many harmful drugs are illegal, for example, so we justify invasions of privacy with searches of a suspect because the harm of the drugs is so great we are okay with violating people like that.

        When you say digital content is illegal in private it justifies searching digital content for enforcement. But the trouble with this is it is digital content and programs can be used to search it…continuously. This sort of search needs to scan EVERYTHING of yours in private. Once you have that, they can add more search criteria and you won’t even know it’s happening.

        You have no idea how bad this can get. I hope that you don’t find out.

    • LoveCanada@lemmy.ca
      31·
      16 days ago

      But as a thought experiment: AI images are usually derivative, even faces dont look exactly like the original, they take it and alter it a bit. So if someone takes an image and alters it, and then displays it publicly is it AI generated porn or is it art? Because obviously not all nudes are porn and some erotic art is still art. So a lawyer would have to prove that a) the original person is recognizable enough and therefore an offense has been committed and b) that the image is pornographic and not erotic art. That could be one heck of a challenge.

      • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
        3·
        15 days ago

        I was going to agree with him but you have a good point. The source should not be real people . The person should have to put in prompts to get something that looks similar like hair color or whatnot. If they can’t get it just the way they want it than boo hoo.