Close Menu
    Man found with AI child pornographic material fined €400
    Ireland

    Man found with AI child pornographic material fined €400

    Share.
    View 22 Comments

    22 Comments

    1. mind_thegap1 on

      Wow I’m sure that’s a deterrent, can he not get 400 years in prison instead

    4. Margrave75 on

      >fined €400

      I’m sure that’ll teach him and we’ll never read of him again.

      >Defence solicitor Pat Mann told the court that Buckley had no previous convictions.

      >He said the matter had had a devastating effect on his client.

      Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

      Edit:

      Very impressed witb this bit. Great to know there’s people out there doing this work!

      >Two years ago, the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children alerted detectives in the Garda Online Exploitation Unit in Dublin to suspicious activity on his phone.

    5. Beginning-Shock1520 on

      Should have been jailed instead, cause the likelihood is it’ll progress to darker stuff,

    6. Rulmeq on

      They’re all happy to wear face masks these days. We should probably start photographing them like the do in the USA, this scum don’t deserve anonymity

    9. Ok-Iron8789 on

      With the 100’s of billions of euros and dollars invested into AI development and infrastructure – there seems to be zero willingness or interest by Big Tech or government to develop technology or policy to combat this type of material but of the virtual or real variety. Women and children are the victims of this deviant type of behaviour- very telling what society values and what we allow to be collateral damage. What an insult €400.00. 

    13. TheBatmanIRL on

      It’s mad that theres apps or sites that allow this.

      Was at a talk about online safety held by the primary school and one speaker spoke about this sort of thing and I thought I was up to date on internet and AI stuff but I was wrong. Seems there’s any number of sites that will allow the generation of AI images based on an uploaded photo.

    14. Leading_Insurance529 on

      so it costs €400 to have ai csam is what is essentially being communicated here

    15. Dry-Mud2470 on

      Crazy conviction and shocking outcome. What happens now with his name and address publicised like that? Would a prison sentence not be “safer” for him and the community. Are these types of sentences not leading to vigilanty outcomes?

    16. Dave1711 on

      Honestly pretty impressive they US flagged this two years ago, AI was still in its infancy of image generation at least at public access.

    17. SquarePhilosopher108 on

      That ridiculous fine is an open invitation to like minded sickopaths to carry on in their paedophile ways, just make sure you keep the evidence away from your home. The fine should have been around €25000 and a year community service, with revenue in charge of repayments.

    18. SquarePhilosopher108 on

      Never forget about Judge Brian Curtin who was an Irish circuit court judge,….in Tralee……. who was tried for possessing images of child pornography. After the case collapsed, the question of whether Curtin could continue as a judge became the focus of political and legal dispute. An impeachment motion was proposed in the Dáil in 2004 by Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell. Curtin resigned in 2006 on grounds of ill health, and the motion lapsed……from wiki

    19. GlorEUW on

      seems fair enough decision (well i don’t like fines since it means that your income changes the severity but that’s a separate issue).

      the negative social effects of “photorealistic AI child pornographic material” are probably bad enough that it should be illegal even if “nobody was actually harmed”. i would assume it’s much more likely to have a connection to actual chance of contact offences, difficult to verify whether it’s real or fake, takes away the ability of people caught with actual CSAM to say “oh i thought it was AI”, and makes it easier to convict people who plan to use it for malicious reasons (coercion, blackmail).

      >He also pleaded guilty to possessing three animation or cartoon-like videos in which teenagers were depicted in sexual acts.

      not sure if this should be a crime tho? like… i think it might depend if it was actually people he knew and used AI to “create” it (“here is a picture, use it to create a cartoon of….”), vs just generic “art” he found online. but a tougher question.