Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:17AM   Printer-friendly

Unsolicited nudes detected and deleted by AI

Software that can detect and delete unsolicited penis pictures sent via private messages on Twitter is being developed by researchers in Seattle. The project was started after developer Kelsey Bressler was sent an unsolicited nude photo by a man. She is now helping a friend refine an artificial intelligence system that can detect the unwanted penis pictures and delete them before they are ever seen.

She said social networks could do more to protect users from cyber-flashing. "When you receive a photo unsolicited it feels disrespectful and violating," Ms Bressler told the BBC. "It's the virtual equivalent of flashing someone in the street. You're not giving them a chance to consent, you are forcing the image on them, and that is never OK."

To test and train the artificial intelligence system, Ms Bressler and her team set up a Twitter inbox where men were invited to "send nudes for science". So many volunteered their nude photos that the team has had to close the inbox.

Related: "Deep Nude" App Removed By Developers After Brouhaha
GitHub Censors "Sexually Obscene" DeepNude Code


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by deimios on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:36AM (26 children)

    by deimios (201) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:36AM (#891180) Journal

    Ok, so how do they know if it's unsolicited or not? That would be the algorithm that interests me.

    Image recognition isn't exactly cutting edge.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:42AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:42AM (#891182)

    Wahmen wants to use dating app but doesn't want hundreds of dick pics. They install the app to block the cocks.

    If a nice guy makes it through, she can whitelist him or stop using dating apps.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:54AM (3 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:54AM (#891189) Homepage Journal

      If she doesn't solicit a viewing of the equipment before a date, she deserves to find out he's got the wrong tool for the job.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:59AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:59AM (#891194)

        She should just agree to the date, then decide whether to #MeToo extort him after she sees his tool.

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 08 2019, @01:53PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday September 08 2019, @01:53PM (#891291) Homepage

        The mighty Tommy Gunn penis extender always turns those frowns upside down.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:49AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:49AM (#891186)

    Here is my algorithm: if is_image(obj): del obj

    In all seriousness, they didn't give the specificity. With no measure of that, then anything that has a high enough sensitivity works, which my example satisfies. My guess, judging from the description, is that they are assuming all dick pics without explicit white-listing of the sender by the recipient are violations. The hard part, in that case, is just identifying dick pics from other pics. And in that case, the kind of woman who would use such an app would probably not mind a lower specificity.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:53AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:53AM (#891231)

      Instead of deleting the offending pic, autophotoshop it to shrink the offending content to miniscule proportions, maybe with some VD fungus thrown in for good measure, and return to sender as CC of delivered pic.

      He probably won't send any more.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 08 2019, @08:09PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday September 08 2019, @08:09PM (#891384) Journal

        That's just evil. ...I *like* it. I'd never be able to come up with something so poetic alone.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:59AM (1 child)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:59AM (#891193)

    The real question is whether it's unsollicited or unwanted. You may not have asked for the picture, but it may end up being a keeper.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:36PM (#891414)

      I want an app to automatically delete any nude female parts sent to my phone.

      Said no man ever...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:04AM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:04AM (#891196)

    https://www.insider.com/unsolicited-dick-pic-sending-now-illegal-texas-500-fine-bumble-2019-9 [insider.com]

    No enthusiastic consent? The dick pic is unsolicited, illegal, and you are now a sex offender. Thanks, Bumble.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:21AM (2 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:21AM (#891215) Journal

      That raises a question: Will an automatically deleted picture count as evidence? You can't look at the picture to check whether it really was a penis, or if is was just misidentified as such by the software, since the image was deleted. It would suck to send a completely harmless picture to someone having installed that software, have the software misidentify it at the receiver, and then getting fined and listed as "sex offender".

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:30AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:30AM (#891216)

        That raises a question: Will an automatically deleted picture count as evidence? You can't look at the picture to check whether it really was a penis, or if is was just misidentified as such by the software, since the image was deleted. It would suck to send a completely harmless picture to someone having installed that software, have the software misidentify it at the receiver, and then getting fined and listed as "sex offender".

        Only if you live in Texas. Yet another good reason not to live in that hell hole.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:00AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:00AM (#891220) Journal

          Only if you live in Texas.

          That is probably not correct.
          1. pic was sent FROM Texas
          2. pic was sent TO Texas
          3. pic was routed THROUGH Texas
          4. device the pic was stored on was transported into, through, or even over Texas
          5. someone from Texas inadvertantly stumbled over the pic
          6. pic was stored on a server in Texas

          The US has set a lot of standards by which it can assume jurisdiction globally. Surely Texas can follow the Fed's example.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:00AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:00AM (#891237)

      How is that not unconstitutional? Sending a picture, whether it's a dick pic or not, is speech.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @02:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @02:55PM (#891312)

        Probably just hasn't been challenged in court yet. Or they pulled a "not all speech is speech", which seems to be popular these days.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:45PM (#891325)

        Don't try that with CP.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:41PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @06:41PM (#891361)

        The same way flashing, streaking, and public nudity are illegal. In most contexts, those are not actually speech because they are not intended to convey a message, but are instead done for another purpose. That is why a state can make walking around topless illegal, but cannot ban protesting the fact you can't be topless by walking around topless. It doesn't seem too big of a stretch to conclude that many people that send dick pics know they are unwanted and are doing it for the shock value. Beyond that, they can do content-based laws that meet strict scrutiny, which should also be relatively easy to pass given the fact that they aren't banning such images outright, the sexual nature of the images, the generally unwelcome nature of the images.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:06PM (#891370)

          A state can make whatever it decides illegal by fiat.
          If you disagree, you can spend several years and thousands of dollars to fight it, and just maybe a court will hold it to be free speech instead of dismissing your case as frivolous.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:13PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @09:13PM (#891401)

          The same way flashing, streaking, and public nudity are illegal.

          Wearing certain clothes or even not wearing clothes is a form of expression, and therefore protected by the first amendment. The fact that our Supreme Court, which approved of the blatantly unconstitutional Japanese Internment camps, have failed to recognize this simple fact in no way means it's constitutional.

          Don't fall for the trap of, 'Well, we already violate the Constitution in other ways, so why not this way, too?'

          In most contexts, those are not actually speech because they are not intended to convey a message

          It is still a form of expression. The government has no business whatsoever banning it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @02:20AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @02:20AM (#891501)

            A slight aside: So when you grabbed your shirt (or whatever) this morning, you consciously thought to yourself, "What message do I want my clothing to convey this time?" or was it, "this shirt is clean enough"?

            By extending acts that have ancillary effect, but not express intent, to convey a message means that everything is covered by the First Amendment. What color car you drive, whether you drive at all, when you choose to run over a pedestrian, all are different forms of expression. So is who you choose to have sex with, or what bathroom you use, or raping someone. So is running deceptive advertising for your family planning clinic or getting an abortion. Everything can be a form of expression. Do you really want all of the above to be protected by the First Amendment, as you seem to propose?

            But regardless, none of our rights are unlimited. Even if all of the above were recognized as free expression, that still doesn't mean that you have a blank check to do them. They are always balanced against those of others. That is what the courts have consistently held, hence the strict scrutiny test against for regulation of the forms of expression.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @04:15AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @04:15AM (#891537)

              A slight aside: So when you grabbed your shirt (or whatever) this morning, you consciously thought to yourself, "What message do I want my clothing to convey this time?" or was it, "this shirt is clean enough"?

              That's not relevant. Expression is still expression even without the intent to convey a specific message. You can do it without thinking too much about it, even though it's a way to express yourself. Or are you saying the government should literally have the power to determine what clothes you do or don't wear?

              By extending acts that have ancillary effect, but not express intent, to convey a message means that everything is covered by the First Amendment.

              The alternative is allowing the government to ban whatever it pleases if it decides you just didn't have quite enough intent to express yourself. That just ends up with authoritarians judges deciding that whatever they deem offensive isn't covered by the first amendment (aka "I know it when I see it."), all while pretending that their profoundly subjective standards are actually objective.

              So yes, the first amendment is quite broad. It can cover movies, plays, video games, porn, clothing choices, etc. But, it still doesn't cover acts that directly harm someone in a physical way.

              when you choose to run over a pedestrian

              or raping someone.

              This is especially disingenuous, since you're directly harming someone in a physical way. Making a movie is covered by the first amendment even by your own standards, but if you went around raping and murdering people while filming the movie, those actions wouldn't be protected by it. So, you know these example are absurd.

              So is running deceptive advertising for your family planning clinic or getting an abortion.

              And? Getting an abortion is a fundamental right, but for bodily autonomy reasons. It should in no way be restricted.

              Do you really want all of the above to be protected by the First Amendment, as you seem to propose?

              The ones that don't involve directly harming others, sure.

              But regardless, none of our rights are unlimited. Even if all of the above were recognized as free expression, that still doesn't mean that you have a blank check to do them. They are always balanced against those of others.

              The "balance" is the Constitution. Other people don't have a right to not be offended. Dick pics and someone walking around naked don't violate anyone's rights, so even under this incredibly vague (What 'balance'?) standard, they wouldn't be forbidden.

              That is what the courts have consistently held, hence the strict scrutiny test against for regulation of the forms of expression.

              Ah, yes, the wise, wise courts that upheld Japanese internment camps, obscenity laws, the ever-expanding and all-powerful interpretation of the commerce clause used to justify the federal war on drugs, and other blatantly unconstitutional nonsense. Let's turn to them for guidance.

              I mean, what the courts decide is relevant in practice, but we need to recognize that they are often wrong. And, when they are wrong, they need to be brought to heel by The People by voting in presidents and other politicians who will replace them with judges who will actually respect the Constitution.

              • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 09 2019, @01:17PM (2 children)

                by Pino P (4721) on Monday September 09 2019, @01:17PM (#891666) Journal

                [The US First Amendment] still doesn't cover acts that directly harm someone in a physical way.
                [...]
                Getting an abortion is a fundamental right

                An abortion is an act that directly harms the child in a physical way.

                but for bodily autonomy reasons. It should in no way be restricted.

                A woman has two opportunities to exercise her bodily autonomy: first when consenting to or refusing sexual contact, and second between the first two missed periods. At some point, not directly harming the child in a physical way outweighs her bodily autonomy. This point happens somewhere between 8 weeks, when it looks more like a child than like a well-formed teratoma, and 25 weeks, when the brain shows organized waves. After 25 weeks, the child is no longer clinically brain dead, and a caesarean delivery has less chance of harming the two than an abortion.

                they need to be brought to heel by The People by voting in presidents and other politicians who will replace them with judges who will actually respect the Constitution.

                I doubt the courts will reverse abuse of war powers, obscenity, and the commerce clause, as long as the TV news media on both sides of the aisle prevent someone who could bring about real change from gaining national name recognition.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @10:10PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @10:10PM (#891900)

                  An abortion is an act that directly harms the child in a physical way.

                  Even if you think that the unborn have human rights, there is no human right to use or borrow someone else's organs, even to keep yourself alive. Therefore, women can terminate the pregnancy whenever they please, because the fetus has no right to be there. We can't force people to donate blood, organs, or anything else, so why would anyone think that government thugs should have the power to force women to remain pregnant? There is zero precedent for such a right.

                  And no, it doesn't matter why the woman became pregnant. Again, the only consideration is whether or not people have a human right to use other people's organs. They don't, so terminating the pregnancy is simple body autonomy. Forced birthers are trying to invent rights that do not exist in any other situation.

                  After 25 weeks, the child is no longer clinically brain dead, and a caesarean delivery has less chance of harming the two than an abortion.

                  As long as she can terminate the pregnancy.

                  I doubt the courts will reverse abuse of war powers, obscenity, and the commerce clause, as long as the TV news media on both sides of the aisle prevent someone who could bring about real change from gaining national name recognition.

                  Yes, it will be hard to overturn these, but it's still important to take action against further rights violations.

                  • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 10 2019, @05:49AM

                    by dry (223) on Tuesday September 10 2019, @05:49AM (#892091) Journal

                    Here, where there are no abortion laws, there are still limits when you can't find a Dr to do an abortion, not to mention hospital and clinic guidelines.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @07:10AM (#891221)

    "Ok, so how do they know if it's unsolicited or not? That would be the algorithm that interests me."

    Presumably, she is the one who decides if it is unsolicited or not. Much like the way I decide that solicitations from Nigerian princes for help moving a fortune in money should end up in the spam folder. I don't actually have to see it to know that is where it belongs.

    "Image recognition isn't exactly cutting edge."

    Indeed it isn't. I would recommend you not test the limits if you want to score with her. Just sayin'.