Graphics Advances Make Identifying Real Images Difficult

destinyland writes "The FBI's geeks admitted they were nervous over computer-generated images at a recent forensics conference. In court they're now arguing that a jury 'can tell' if an image is real or computer-generated — which marks the current boundary between legal and illegal. But reporter Debbie Nathan argues that that distinction is getting fuzzy, and that geeks will inevitably make it obsolete." Note: some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing.

Comments

Coral Cache for the 1st site

[mariushm]

Here's a coral cache link for the 1st site:

Click me

The last one won't work at all

Re:So SFW, or NSFW?

[mdmkolbe]

The 10 Zen Monkeys is SFW. The only thing that could be objected to is the headline "Is It Legal Porn or Illegal Porn?" which is to say not very objectionable at all.

The other one contains "G-rated" images according to the link to it from the 10 Zen Monkeys article.

Re:with that tagline

[xaxa]

A computer generated baby (clothed ;-)
http://debbienathan.com.nyud.net:8080/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/display_16329441.jpg

I couldn't get the rest of the images into the Corel Cache before the server went down completely.

Here's the text from the blog post:

Child porn: real or virtual? A day in the burbs and the forensics conference

(ALL IMAGES IN THIS POST ARE COMPUTER GENERATED)

To go right to the real or virtual article, skip all the emo in italics. I wont be offended!

A funny thing happened to me this weekend in Huntington, Long Island. Iâ(TM)d taken a commuter train there from Manhattan, to interview someone in a neighborhood thatâ(TM)s walking distance from the local railroad station. (In case youre wondering why I havent posted lately, Im really busy with other work these days. Why else would I go to Huntington?) So I was hoofing it down New York Avenue when a cabbie screeched up and offered me a ride â" for free. âoeThanks,â I said, leaning into his window. âoeBut why?â âoeBecause you have to pass the day-labor site. Thereâ(TM)s lots of men there from Central America. They yell bad words to women going by.â

Iâ(TM)m 57 years old and slowly shrinking, maybe, but people seldom mistake me for a shrinking violet. I can deal with a few catcalls and âoeMamiâ(TM)sâ (assuming my wrinkled old self could evoke them in the first place). I tried to elucidate my philosophy to the driver: Itâ(TM)s always worth a few bad words to learn about stuff â" then communicate the stuff to others.

Well lah-dee-dah, youâ(TM)re probably saying. Nice story, but whatâ(TM)s the point? Especially when the real subject of this post isChild Porn®.

So hereâ(TM)s the point. Lately, when it comes to writing about child pornography issues, I suspect Iâ(TM)ve caught Huntingtonâ(TM)s Taxi Disease from my colleagues in the journalism biz. I notice that whenever I get an urge to report on the subject, I start worrying that if I publish it, Iâ(TM)ll hear âoebad wordsâ from people from âoeCentral-Weirdo Americaâ â" people who actually like child porn. Iâ(TM)ll have to read their emails (some of which make interesting points about free speech, the fourth amendment, government repression, etc.), then decide whether or not to post them. And if I post, the journos of MSM-villeâ"my colleagues! might look askance. After all, some have already told me that they, themselves, will not write about child pornography for precisely this reason: it freaks them out to get follow-up email from the pedos.

Iâ(TM)m also afraid my colleagues will tsk-tsk about why I write about this icky subject in the first place. âoeIs she obsessed or something?â they could be thinking. Perhaps they ask why I donâ(TM)t insert boiler plate into the first paragraphs of my articles. Riffs like, âoeOf course, child porn is the most horrible thing in the world, and the people involved deserve strong punishment.â This is supposed to show everyone the writer is a normal person who does not want to hear from pedos. I try to avoid such verbiage because I think itâ(TM)s knee jerk and stupid. Besides, Iâ(TM)m extremely reluctant to close off communication with anyone. I get some of my best tips about the malfunctioning of our various civic institutions from people close to those institutions â" who are often criminals, both apprehended and as yet uncaught. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/">M is still one of my favorite movies.)

I went to a conference a couple months ago where law enforcement officials gave fascinating presentations

Re:Why does it matter?

[morgan_greywolf]

So they cut out the possibility of an innocent person and make virtual images mean the same thing in the eyes of the law as the real deal.

Read what I wrote. Then go back and RTFA.

Let's say I take a picture of you. Then, I work some magic on the picture and combine it with a naked child.

Then I use a trojan or other malware to put the photo on your laptop.

Then I suggest to the police that you may be carrying child pr0n on your laptop, that's why you fly to China every month.

At the airport, DHS searches your laptop and finds the picture.

That clear enough for you?

Re:Should be criminal anyway

[ArcherB]

If I supply a link, will you change your mind? I doubt it, but here it is anyway. Of course, it is one of many. You know, it took me about 2 minutes to find this on Google. Rather than speaking from your ass, you could do a little research on your own.

The present study examined exposure to and use of pornography in the familial, developmental and criminal histories of 38 rapists and 26 child molesters incarcerated at the Massachusetts Treatment Center. While both groups reported similar exposure to pornography in the home and during development, child molesters indicated significantly more exposure than rapists in adulthood and were significantly more likely both to use such materials prior to and during their offenses and to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act out. The findings are discussed with regards to the "catharsis hypothesis" and the role of pornography in the commission of sexual offenses for certain types of rapists and child molesters. Of course, there is a causation/correlation argument that could be made here, but to someone with tendencies already, this may push them over the edge whereas they may have lived a normal life without it.

Re:Should be criminal anyway

[ArcherB]

Or, to put it another way, this study doesn't in any establish a causal link between pornographic exposure and child molestation, nor does even hint at your suggestion that a lack of exposure to child pornography might prevent a person from acting on their sexual desires for child. This study does:

Photographs, videos, magazines, virtual games, and Internet pornography that depict rape and the dehumanization of females in sexual scenes constitute powerful but deforming tools of sex education. The danger to children stems at least partly from the disturbing changes in attitude that are facilitated by pornography. Replicated studiesx have demonstrated that exposure to significant amounts of increasingly graphic forms of pornography has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general. These studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

        * developed an increased sexual callousness toward women

        * began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all

        * developed distorted perceptions about sexuality

        * developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)

        * devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution

        * viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behaviorxi the actual study is Baron, Larry; Straus, Murray. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In Neil Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 185-209). New York: Academic Press. (can't find on web)

And here

Re:Had to deal with this in a jury

[Darth Maul]

1) In a jury you follow the rule of law. According to the law, he was guilty.

2) The images were manufactured. They included real faces of his daughters and kids on his soccer team that he coached. These were just as damaging as any other "child porn" you can think of.

3) If I'm a "part of the problem" then I don't want to know *your* solution!

Re:Should be criminal anyway

[ArcherB]

The quote you provide is a summary. It is not the actual study. Not to mention that the methodology of the studies cited are completely missing. And without the methodology, it is impossible to judge the quality of the study.

Sorry, try again. I'll look for the studies mentioned, but so far, I still have squat. Here is one study (PDF Warning). However, it's a study that shows that there is evidence that supports both sides, and there is. Also keep in mind that many of these studies were published on printed paper rather than digital HTML format.

If you can't find the actual articles listed in the reference page from this article, then I suggest you google the author's names and/or the title of the publication.

Re:Had to deal with this in a jury

[DeanFox]

1) In a jury you follow the rule of law. According to the law, he was guilty. No. The fist job of a jury is to determine if the law is just (jury nullification). Then you find if the defendant did something wrong enough to be punished.

-[d]-

Re:Had to deal with this in a jury

[jeaton]

1) In a jury you follow the rule of law. According to the law, he was guilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Re:Should be criminal anyway

[NeutronCowboy]

Alright, I did some digging and found the full text behind one of the citations in your original link on protectkids.com: http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm. In order to find this, I had to dig through countless pro-family, anti-sex-ed and bible sites that were referring to it, but never showed the entire article. It's the type of study that's often referenced, as its conclusion is unequivocally anti-porn.

Here's what I found: it's actually not a study, it's an essay. Its main protagonists are single children who committed sexual crimes. There is no study, merely a description of the circumstances of certain sexual crimes, with some generalizations derived from them. Every single time I found myself asking whether the addiction or even exposure to porn caused the crime, as opposed to merely putting context to existing desires, I was left without an answer.

Here's something else I noticed: actual studies were far more circumspect in their conclusions. The closest thing I've seen to the argument that porn desensitizes is references to H.J. Eysenck's study, which is quoted as saying that people can move from soft porn to more deviant and violent porn. Note the qualifier "can" - not "will".

In short, even after some research based on the links that you provided, I find that it is only essays and anecdotes that support the idea that porn leads to sexual violence. Actual studies are unable to establish that link without significant and serious caveats. As a result, I'm forced to conclude that there is still no evidence that a reduction in the availability of porn will lead to a reduction in sexual crimes.