Rendered at 13:17:45 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
delichon 16 hours ago [-]
> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery
Grok Imagine has been considerably locked down in terms of intimate imagery over the last few weeks. E.g. Harley Quinn used to be one of the easiest characters to manipulate, with or without any resemblance to Margot Robbie. No more. X still serves up explicit hardcore, and Imagine used to get at least in that neighborhood, but that has been squelched. For prurient purposes, nerfed. Not at all limited to CSAM or real people. The pressure they're getting from all over seems to explain it.
WatchDog 12 hours ago [-]
Whatever you think about X's image generation models, I don't see how it is related to the petition that the EFF is opposing.
Is generation of non-consensual imagery really a privacy issue?
If someone publishes a real naked photo of you, that was acquired without your consent, that would be a privacy issue.
If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
totetsu 10 hours ago [-]
I think the terminology here can confuse the issue a bit. And because its such a socially pernicious and stigmatized topic, it's hard to even talk about the phrasing without without raising doubts as to why you would get caught up in the weeds on such an issue. But, I would say there is use in making the distinction between something that is CSAM, where its a record of abuse that has happened to a real child, and sexualized depictions of children, or content promoting the sexualization of children. The social and personal harms are distinct, and if we are to firmly understand the arguments for/against guardrails on generative AI, then it's a distinction that needs to be made I think.
kg 10 hours ago [-]
A problem you'd probably run into here is that it would be rather difficult to prove that no real CSAM was involved in the process of making the somehow-okay fake CSAM. Image generation models require training sets, after all. Do the companies training these models have the necessary data and evidence to prove every individual in every training image was over 18? Is generating fake CSAM okay if you trained the model on non-CSAM photos of real kids? I don't think so.
There are of course situations where being aggressive about this can hinder people's freedoms - like an adult who looks 'too young' having their freedoms curtailed because any photos or videos would Look Like CSAM - but I don't think they're common enough harms to justify holding back on regulation here.
numpad0 10 hours ago [-]
> like an adult who looks 'too young' having their freedoms curtailed because any photos or videos would Look Like CSAM - but I don't think they're common enough harms
It is extremely common in some parts of the world. Age from visual appearance basically doesn't work inter-culturally, with or without AI, and ... there are people amassing something like 1/3 of the world that look like kids until they must retire from all work including use of gas stoves to boil water. Said people just literally look like kids, attracts wrong kinds of the rest 2/3, wrongly reject them if others come over, and gets banned on social media as being underaged, all the time.
edit: I have feeling that the concept of "adults by appearance" might be the case of suspicious discontinuities created by industrial revolution; it is often said that the modern concept of binary child/adults dichotomy is the result of industrialization though the concept of child always existed. For this reason, there might have been selective pressure towards attaining "definitely adult" appearances at younger ages in forerunner regions, and less such pressure at regions that followed it. IMO that makes more sense than assuming people from some regions are obsessed with certain things.
marcus_holmes 7 hours ago [-]
We used to have "coming of age" ceremonies that were more based around the individual person in question than a simple age number. But that would be too hard for a law to make a rule on.
doodlesarefun 4 hours ago [-]
>there are people amassing something like 1/3 of the world that look like kids until they must retire from all work including use of gas stoves to boil water.
What are you talking about?
totetsu 10 hours ago [-]
Personally I think that even if the training data, is made of images of people who are over 18, the state of the adult industry is that there is a lot of harm and exploitation involved in that even. Do we have the evidence necessary to prove every over 18 person who's images are in the training data are okay with that use? So there is no somehow-okay anything. But if were dealing with models that can combine concepts .. then "adult" + "sex" = "sexualized adult" so "child" + "sex" = "sexualized child" .. this is just a fundamental capability of the technology. Without even getting into nudity where its easy to see how non CSAM, non-sexualize medical images etc, can fill in the gaps for the model.
This is why I think just calling it CSAM is confusing the arguments. I see the base harm as being the promotion of sexualization of children. And this is more a harm and risk to society and to people consuming these images. Of course if you extend this to "real childs image" + "sex" to get a sexualized deepfake then there is a kind of harm to that individual too, but its still a disctint thing from physical abuse..
This is just my instincts on this but I'd be really interested to see some real discussion between people with actual extensive understand and experience of all these areas.
kevin_thibedeau 9 hours ago [-]
Hand drawings and photoshopping a minor's face onto an adult body are already illegal. Having a machine do the work automatically doesn't change that.
6 hours ago [-]
camgunz 5 hours ago [-]
Frankly, I don't think anyone cares that these images are generated using CSAM or non-consensual imagery. If I generate a perfectly ordinary picture of a person and the model somehow used CSAM or non-consensual imagery to do it, no one would care. Conversely, if we could prove a model generated gross ass images using nothing gross ass, everyone currently objecting would still object. So, let's just say what we mean here: we have a moral problem with people generating, storing, and sharing these images.
xracy 7 hours ago [-]
> If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."
I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.
Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.
chrisjj 5 hours ago [-]
> Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words,
Perhaps try reading "your private data" again - slowly.
xracy 4 hours ago [-]
What do you think my comment was responding to? Literally those are the words that I was responding to.
Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."
chrisjj 2 hours ago [-]
> What do you think my comment was responding to?
Your misunderstanding of "private data". This is not lawyered words.
> Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself
It is not a naked image of yourself.
An image of someone else's naked body does not become a reflection of an image of you just because your face is pasted on it. Object if you wish, but when it comes to privacy, the only possible breach is of the privacy of the body, not the face.
> is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image
It is not your image.
shakna 1 hours ago [-]
You do, in fact, have rights over your 'likeness'. In most jurisdictions. [0]
In the US, that would fall under Prosser's Four Torts, "appropriation of name and likeness".
The law, currently, doesn't care if you think its a new image. Likeness is protected. Similarity is enough.
Please don't tell me you think you have rights over the image of another's naked body because it looks similar to yours.
dualvariable 12 hours ago [-]
In an ideal world, generated non-consensual imagery should be illegal through invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness, but I think only a limited number of states have those laws.
neuroticnews25 4 hours ago [-]
Should it apply also to drawings? Detailed descriptions? Strong mental visualisations?
8 hours ago [-]
righthand 12 hours ago [-]
Is it private data if it was scraped from my social media profile marked private but leaked through a shared party? My expectation was that image would only be shared with those I wanted to see it (form of privacy).
WatchDog 12 hours ago [-]
That's fair. Is there any indication as to if xAi trains on private profiles?
numpad0 11 hours ago [-]
"CSAM" is a codeword for anime. Users of this term routinely reject focusing on real kids and abuses. I assume "privacy" must be therefore a codeword too, especially considering that nonconsensual shocking images can be handled by defamation laws than privacy laws and principles.
kg 10 hours ago [-]
I would hope we can agree that aggressive policing of anime and cartoons is a bad thing without denying the real existence of CSAM - the actual thing - or denying the bad things that have to occur for it to exist
numpad0 10 hours ago [-]
I never denied the real existence of CSAM, I'm just saying that there are people who use "CSAM" to specifically mean anime and anime related photos and avoids discussion of actually detecting or preventing sexual abuses. I think I've seen it blatantly said on organizational blog posts somewhere that trying to move focus to kids is disingenuous or something.
meheleventyone 6 hours ago [-]
Just so were clear here the CSAM acronym stands for Child Sexual Abuse Material. Some Anime gets caught up because there is a lot of dubious visual depictions of that.
camgunz 5 hours ago [-]
Which is a moral affront, not an offense against a person. The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse. A cartoon is evidence of nothing. We should treat them differently.
neuroticnews25 4 hours ago [-]
> The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse
This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent?
Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person? Other than potential second-order effects that may or may not occur like increase in demand for abuse?
I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being sexually interested in kids.
4 hours ago [-]
vitally3643 10 hours ago [-]
You'd probably enjoy life a lot more if you go touch some grass once in a while. See a squirrel or something.
thinkcontext 16 hours ago [-]
But they did resist locking it down, recall Musk making fun of concerns? They clearly don't take governance seriously, its whatever Musk is gravitating to in his filter bubble.
CSMastermind 14 hours ago [-]
Reddit did the same. Tumblr died when it banned porn. There seems to be a very perverse incentive for social media platforms to be as permissive as possible.
Personally, I'd be in favor of banning all sexual content on X, but it really feels like a legislative solution applying to all social media platforms might be the best solution.
And yes I realize the slippery slope that could put us on.
hgoel 13 hours ago [-]
The issue wasn't specifically allowing NSFW content, it was allowing anyone to get grok to openly make NSFW deepfakes of anyone without even an attempt at policing things.
It's not up to the peanut gallery to disprove easily falsifiable statements from easily found public evidence.
15 hours ago [-]
sieabahlpark 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
vlian2088 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jimbooonooo 11 hours ago [-]
Yes and we should stop at elsewhere too. " it happened elsewhere n times" is a terrible excuse for inaction.
vlian2088 11 hours ago [-]
your iPhone can be used to film non-imaginary CSAM and securely distribute it with Signal over the Internet. think of the children and throw it into a blender.
numpad0 10 hours ago [-]
There was a small number of crazy anime nerds rotating accounts tokenmaxxing Grok image generation to generate anime and cosplayer porn shorts with egregiously low yields and no intention of even publishing the results let alone monetizing, something like <1 result per daily quota across few accounts. Grok was briefly focused on adult usage, and they took advantage of that, until it was too much for even xAI. It seems British online advocacy groups tend to use "CSAM" as circumlocution for "anime", perhaps inspired by the fact that both imagined and real figures seen in anime related content always look to be below legal ages to some to the point that said some thinks it can be banned as willfully depicting underaged entities, so maybe this is a push coming from that direction.
vlian2088 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
numpad0 9 hours ago [-]
I don't necessarily find people generating porn shorts with AI literally wrong(I'm not compatible with AI generated images), but I can see why it can be a problem if the cohort that specifically seek anime style photorealistic videos were absolutely pinning the system at capacity while the rest of the users remained disinterested in it.
I actually have the same opinion about hand drawn arts on social media, it completely exhausts all available resources and simply wins the attention economy, and it _can_ be "problematic" that it does, in some contexts, not necessarily that it concerns me personally. I guess it's always had been that way considering that they used ground up gemstones given by monarchs in medieval biblical life sized nude paintings, just turned up to 1000.
appplication 11 hours ago [-]
Politely, what on earth point are you trying to make? Whatever it is it really is not coming across well.
vlian2088 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Stefan-H 11 hours ago [-]
"We only build and operate the orphan crushing machine, it's people that line up to turn the crank".
ssl-3 9 hours ago [-]
There's a lot of machines in the world that can be used to crush orphans, but I'm not aware of any that are designed for that purpose.
vlian2088 10 hours ago [-]
your phone, your browser, and the Internet itself are orphan crushing machines too, then.
chrisjj 6 hours ago [-]
> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM
A myth. CSAM is evidence of real-world abuse. Grok fakes are by definition not that.
Our response[^1] to X’s petition debunks many claims the company uses in its arguments. For example, there’s little evidence the order placed an undue financial burden on X. In our letter, we note that the compliance cost is merely “a rounding error against the $200 billion valuation of X Corp. following the xAI merger.”
The letter is more interesting than the cover, undersigned by Center for Digital Democracy, Check My Ads Institute, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress Education Fund (“DPEF”), Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), National Consumers League (“NCL”), Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Public Citizen, Travelers United and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, and drafted by DPEF's Special Advisor Kate Oh (kate@demandprogress.org),
EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).
ChrisArchitect 16 hours ago [-]
Can update the link to the blog post; no need for this to be an arstechnica PDF
The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.
schoen 5 hours ago [-]
The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology.
When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do not have a duty to restrict users in order to deter some kind of unlawful behavior.
We said that about copyright infringement (again and again and again, including before the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster), about counterfeiting, about housing discrimination, about distribution of existing child porn, about manufacture of weapons, about evading law enforcement surveillance, and about every kind of tort in content moderation (the intermediaries do not have a duty to prevent people from publishing content that civilly harms others). Oh, also money laundering with cryptocurrency mixer code. And prostitution.
In every case EFF's position was that there might be unlawful ways to use technology but the technology developer or operator didn't have a duty to prevent or discourage it, or to design the technology to prevent or discourage it, or to help the government or private parties catch people doing something unlawful.
I know there are several different legal doctrines in play there and some of them may have limitations in terms of actual knowledge (although EFF usually also argued for defining this narrowly!), so maybe one could argue that if Grok obtains actual knowledge of some improper use that it might have a duty to prevent that use in that case. But it would have been historically exceptional for EFF to say that there was a general duty to design technology to deter or detect any form of unlawful use.
There may also be a distinction in several of the relevant legal doctrines between inventing a technology (or making it available to others to use themselves on their own devices) versus hosting it on a cloud service, where the operator has more knowledge and more control than in other settings. EFF still historically preferred in basically every case to try to minimize the technology creator's or operator's liability for what users did.
someonebaggy 4 hours ago [-]
When they oppose AB1043 (California parental controls act) it seems like they are taking that stance, that the government must not regulate computers because they are computers. What's different about the Grok situation?
Y-bar 5 hours ago [-]
Privacy is a facet of freedom.
It gives the ability to speak and communicate without fear of being censored or surveillance (edit to add: and when there is censorship & surveillance it gives helps regain some of said freedom). It supports other freedoms like voting and freedom of association. It reduces the ability of others to harass or threaten or stalk you, making your daily life easier. It allows for whistleblowing against illegal acts of companies or government entities. Journalists and their sources often need it as part of their ability to freely do their jobs.
Jabrov 16 hours ago [-]
The letter is more about privacy, not freedom.
They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
charcircuit 14 hours ago [-]
>EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
majormajor 11 hours ago [-]
Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice?
It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.)
So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
charcircuit 7 hours ago [-]
>And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
Which is why I would like the EFF to support freedom.
WCSTombs 14 hours ago [-]
As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
camgunz 5 hours ago [-]
Privacy is a requirement for freedom. You would act differently if everyone/the government knew everything you were thinking/saying/doing. The watchers would also act differently (think about all the accusations of incompetence when people post violent things on Facebook and then go on shooting sprees).
dimator 16 hours ago [-]
i don't know how you're equating "computing freedom" with regulation of privacy guards. should FTC not care about that? can you elaborate?
croes 10 hours ago [-]
Their are two kinds of freedoms, freedom to and freedom from.
And they often contradict.
People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them
Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031
Alpha3031 9 hours ago [-]
Not really that important but I think the latter is more commonly referred to as "freedom from" rather than "freedom of"? I'm not 100% sure if I parsed that correctly.
reaperducer 16 hours ago [-]
Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.
Grok Imagine has been considerably locked down in terms of intimate imagery over the last few weeks. E.g. Harley Quinn used to be one of the easiest characters to manipulate, with or without any resemblance to Margot Robbie. No more. X still serves up explicit hardcore, and Imagine used to get at least in that neighborhood, but that has been squelched. For prurient purposes, nerfed. Not at all limited to CSAM or real people. The pressure they're getting from all over seems to explain it.
Is generation of non-consensual imagery really a privacy issue?
If someone publishes a real naked photo of you, that was acquired without your consent, that would be a privacy issue.
If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
There are of course situations where being aggressive about this can hinder people's freedoms - like an adult who looks 'too young' having their freedoms curtailed because any photos or videos would Look Like CSAM - but I don't think they're common enough harms to justify holding back on regulation here.
It is extremely common in some parts of the world. Age from visual appearance basically doesn't work inter-culturally, with or without AI, and ... there are people amassing something like 1/3 of the world that look like kids until they must retire from all work including use of gas stoves to boil water. Said people just literally look like kids, attracts wrong kinds of the rest 2/3, wrongly reject them if others come over, and gets banned on social media as being underaged, all the time.
edit: I have feeling that the concept of "adults by appearance" might be the case of suspicious discontinuities created by industrial revolution; it is often said that the modern concept of binary child/adults dichotomy is the result of industrialization though the concept of child always existed. For this reason, there might have been selective pressure towards attaining "definitely adult" appearances at younger ages in forerunner regions, and less such pressure at regions that followed it. IMO that makes more sense than assuming people from some regions are obsessed with certain things.
What are you talking about?
"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."
I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.
Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.
Perhaps try reading "your private data" again - slowly.
Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."
Your misunderstanding of "private data". This is not lawyered words.
> Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself
It is not a naked image of yourself.
An image of someone else's naked body does not become a reflection of an image of you just because your face is pasted on it. Object if you wish, but when it comes to privacy, the only possible breach is of the privacy of the body, not the face.
> is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image
It is not your image.
In the US, that would fall under Prosser's Four Torts, "appropriation of name and likeness".
The law, currently, doesn't care if you think its a new image. Likeness is protected. Similarity is enough.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent?
Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person? Other than potential second-order effects that may or may not occur like increase in demand for abuse?
I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being sexually interested in kids.
Personally, I'd be in favor of banning all sexual content on X, but it really feels like a legislative solution applying to all social media platforms might be the best solution.
And yes I realize the slippery slope that could put us on.
In what country?
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5689660-xai-investigat... - musk “not aware” of any naked underage images, pushing back on concerns
https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gende... - musk downplays concerns and blames users and hackers
I actually have the same opinion about hand drawn arts on social media, it completely exhausts all available resources and simply wins the attention economy, and it _can_ be "problematic" that it does, in some contexts, not necessarily that it concerns me personally. I guess it's always had been that way considering that they used ground up gemstones given by monarchs in medieval biblical life sized nude paintings, just turned up to 1000.
A myth. CSAM is evidence of real-world abuse. Grok fakes are by definition not that.
The EFF featured update / press release at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-... links to the letter, with color:
Our response[^1] to X’s petition debunks many claims the company uses in its arguments. For example, there’s little evidence the order placed an undue financial burden on X. In our letter, we note that the compliance cost is merely “a rounding error against the $200 billion valuation of X Corp. following the xAI merger.”
[^1]: public interest advocates opposing x petition 2026: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocat...
The letter is more interesting than the cover, undersigned by Center for Digital Democracy, Check My Ads Institute, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress Education Fund (“DPEF”), Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), National Consumers League (“NCL”), Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Public Citizen, Travelers United and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, and drafted by DPEF's Special Advisor Kate Oh (kate@demandprogress.org), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).
When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do not have a duty to restrict users in order to deter some kind of unlawful behavior.
We said that about copyright infringement (again and again and again, including before the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster), about counterfeiting, about housing discrimination, about distribution of existing child porn, about manufacture of weapons, about evading law enforcement surveillance, and about every kind of tort in content moderation (the intermediaries do not have a duty to prevent people from publishing content that civilly harms others). Oh, also money laundering with cryptocurrency mixer code. And prostitution.
In every case EFF's position was that there might be unlawful ways to use technology but the technology developer or operator didn't have a duty to prevent or discourage it, or to design the technology to prevent or discourage it, or to help the government or private parties catch people doing something unlawful.
I know there are several different legal doctrines in play there and some of them may have limitations in terms of actual knowledge (although EFF usually also argued for defining this narrowly!), so maybe one could argue that if Grok obtains actual knowledge of some improper use that it might have a duty to prevent that use in that case. But it would have been historically exceptional for EFF to say that there was a general duty to design technology to deter or detect any form of unlawful use.
There may also be a distinction in several of the relevant legal doctrines between inventing a technology (or making it available to others to use themselves on their own devices) versus hosting it on a cloud service, where the operator has more knowledge and more control than in other settings. EFF still historically preferred in basically every case to try to minimize the technology creator's or operator's liability for what users did.
It gives the ability to speak and communicate without fear of being censored or surveillance (edit to add: and when there is censorship & surveillance it gives helps regain some of said freedom). It supports other freedoms like voting and freedom of association. It reduces the ability of others to harass or threaten or stalk you, making your daily life easier. It allows for whistleblowing against illegal acts of companies or government entities. Journalists and their sources often need it as part of their ability to freely do their jobs.
They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.)
So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
Which is why I would like the EFF to support freedom.
And they often contradict.
People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them
Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031
Basic human decency?