Last month, a detective in a small town outside of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, invited dozens of high school girls and their parents to the police station to undertake a difficult task: one by one, the girls were asked to confirm that they were depicted in hundreds of AI-generated deepfake pornographic images seized by law enforcement.

In a series of back-to-back private meetings, Detective Laurel Bair of the Susquehanna Regional Police Department slid each image out from under the folder’s cover, so only the girl’s face was shown, unless the families specifically requested to see the entire uncensored image.

“It made me a lot more upset after I saw the pictures because it made them so much more real for me,” one Lancaster victim, now 16, told Forbes. “They’re very graphic and they’re very realistic,” the mother said. “There’s no way someone who didn’t know her wouldn’t think: ‘that’s her naked,’ and that’s the scary part.” There were more than 30 images of her daughter.

The photos were part of a cache of images allegedly taken from 60 girls’ public social media accounts by two teenage boys, who then created 347 AI-generated deepfake pornographic images and videos, according to the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office. The two boys have now been criminally charged with 59 counts of “sexual abuse of children,” and 59 counts of “posession of child pornography,” among other charges, including “possession of obscene materials depicting a minor.”

    • shani66@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yes. Let’s not pretend children aren’t people too, they are going to take pictures of themselves or their partners and that is both normal and illegal right now.

      • iAmTheTot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That’s not what happened here, though.

        • shani66@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah, but charging these kids for that means any kid can be changed for it. This would be better covered by some kind of SA charge.