Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/you-really-do-have-some-expectation-privacy-public
"This is where mass surveillance comes in. While it is unreasonable to assume that everything you do in public will be kept private from prying eyes, there is a real expectation that when you travel throughout town over the course of a day—running errands, seeing a doctor, going to or from work, attending a protest—that the entirety of your movements is not being precisely tracked, stored by a single entity, and freely shared with the government."

"Historically, we have not expected the government to secretly catalogue and monitor all of our movements over time, even when we travel in public. Allowing the government to access cell site location information contravenes that expectation. The court stressed that these accumulated records reveal not only a person’s particular public movements, but also their “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”"
#privacy

When I wrote that post for Canada before, not that long ago, I was considering the possibility that nonsense like this might crop up and it did.

Curiously, the same conspiratorial guy from Australia's takes have come up in #Canada this time (although, through C3P). I don't know why anyone there listens to him...

Among other points debunking porn being spooky in my QTed post, there is:

"A 2020 U.S. study analysed 59 studies and failed to find a link between porn and sex crimes (Carr, 2020)(Ferguson & Hartley, 2020).""

...and...

"Dark / taboo fantasies are fairly common and aren't a bad sign (Lehmiller, 2019) (Lehmiller, 2022). As Diamond and Uchiyama (1999) and other pieces of science remind us, this sort of content is not associated with crime, even if the fictional character is like / is a child, or the content is violent."

...and...

"Efrati (2018) shows that moralizing about sex can make matters worse."

...and...

"A 2022 U.S. study looked into studies regarding whether sexualization in video games caused harm to players and found it was not associated with negative outcomes (Ferguson et al., 2022)."

...and "sex dolls"...

"Some argue they reduce child sexual abuse. Finnish therapists who work with sex offenders made such an argument back in 2017 (Sexpo, 2017). Whatever you think of that, there isn't any evidence they increase crime, and studies so far have not supported the possibility they might (Ludden, 2022). While it's not something I generally see people use, I don't see why they should be held to a more restrictive standard than with online porn. Even if there are former / current criminals who use them, there are already laws against the crimes they're committing, and intervening would likely impede reintegration."

When I looking more into how parole works, something which struck me was how algorithmic it seemed, and how it might end up keeping people locked up for superficial reasons. It's disturbing.

I see people raising concerns about the expansion of facial recognition in the U.K.

"with a sexual interest in children" is a new nebulous and undefined term which has surfaced over the past few years.

In a number of cases where it has been used, it has obscured rather than illuminated. It originates from a few forensic psychologists, and it has been used to profile criminals within groups of criminals. On occasion, it might be lazily invoked without really reckoning with how it is not for the general population.

Consequently, when it is used, it might be used as a slur or to dehumanize individuals by alluding to a criminal connection.

The "with" originates from person first language, a purportedly destigmatizing linguistic style where someone might be referred to as, say, "someone with a criminal history" rather than a "criminal". Here it is used primarily to perpetuate stigma thereby mooting it's purpose.

The way it is worded is also prone to misuse and tends to distract rather than add value to discourse. What is "interest"?

I strongly recommend against using it.

Other than that, there also appeared to be, well, unethical therapists, bad therapists who mistreat their clients, because they are criminals and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of scrutiny of that. Naturally, they have some excuses for it but these are dubious.

While doing research into one org, what stood out was how, basically, some therapists didn't want anyone to know that they had worked with criminals. I think that even criminals should have access to mental health care, so that is a bit concerning.

It's what someone might call the "dark field". A sexual offender who hasn't been discovered yet (I'd be wary of conflating teens sexting with each other with that though).

Dealing with sexual offenders carries a certain amount of stigma, so sometimes someone is tempted to use lighter language like this, but it is problematic as it ends up conflating people who aren't engaging in criminality with those who have (guilt by association).

"Adolescents with a sexual interest in children represent an underserved population."

I don't know who needs to hear this but adolescents being "interested" in other minors is not surprising or disturbing. I suspect they might mean a sexual offender, in which case it would be simpler to just say that, rather than beating around the bush with a confusing euphemism.

There are a couple of points where legislation is introduced which leads to an increase in the number of potential cases (this doesn't suggest that there are more incidences but that more potential cases are being uncovered). This is one of the things which Diamond and Uchiyama accounts for.

"As Diamond and Uchiyama (1999) and other pieces of science remind us, this sort of content is not associated with crime, even if the fictional character is like / is a child"
When millions, if not tens of millions, of people do something and the sky hasn't fallen.

It's been long established that weird or disturbing fantasies are fairly common and not something of concern.

When you encounter the antiquated and pseudo-scientific concept of "paraphilias" (which could be considered a form of bigotry) and there is a cursed phrase like "transvestic disorder".

And in the case that someone says that it is about the *tool*, what about tools for making memes (there are a number of websites for this), don't they deal in copyrighted content? Where does someone draw the line here?

One of the problems with framing "AI" generated content as an issue of copyright is that it is fairly common to take a funny still from a show, to add a bit of text, and to post that onto social media. If that is infringing, doesn't that practically ban memes? Does using an "AI" tool to make your meme somehow make that different? Where does someone draw the line?