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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.