Chatbot roleplay and image generator platform SecretDesires.ai left cloud storage containers of nearly two million of images and videos exposed, including photos and full names of women from social media, at their workplaces, graduating from universities, taking selfies on vacation, and more.

Archived version: https://archive.is/jT5Mv

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 11 months ago (1 child)

This shit is creepy and anyone involved should be ashamed.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 22 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    On its site, Secret Desires says it uses end-to-end encryption to secure communications from users: “All your communications—including messages, voice calls, and image exchanges—are encrypted both at rest and in transit using industry-leading encryption standards. This ensures that only you have access to your conversations.” It also says stores data securely: “Your data is securely stored on protected servers with stringent access controls. We employ advanced security protocols to safeguard your information against unauthorized access.”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago*

    Earlier this year, as part of its paid subscriptions that range from $7.99 to $19.99 a month, it had a “face swapping” feature that let users upload images of real people to put them in sexually explicit AI generated images and videos.
    ...
    In early 2025, Secret Desires removed its face-swapping feature. The most recent date in the faceswap files is April 2025.
    ...
    “I can look like your favorite celebrity. That girl from the gym. Your dream anime character or anyone else you fantasize about? I can do everything for you.” Most of Secret Desires’ ads on YouTube are about giving up on real-life connections and dating apps in favor of getting an AI girlfriend.

    They straight up marketed the ability to make deepfakes.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago
    22 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 45 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    'Ai girls never say no' is pretty awful

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This is pretty gross and not at all surprising.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Half of the requests on /r/grok are “yes but how do it do this to pictures I uploaded??”

    NaziGPT will do pretty NSFW images (no genitalia) for stuff it created but even Elmo isn’t stupid enough to allow it for any upload.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 20 points 11 months ago (13 children)
  • [+] 9 points 11 months ago* (11 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Realistically if its private no one will know about it anyway. IIRC the UK goes with private is also illegal and the realistic reason for that is so that if its leaked and you have it they don't need to prove that it was you who leaked it and "i was hacked though!" isn't a valid defence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (3 children)

    I know what you mean, not saying its right but that is how it apparently works here. Law often struggles when you go down what if scenarios with technology.

    Technically I am not allowed to cut back some nettles on a path because I don't have the land owners permission. In reality no one gives a shit and people may appreciate not getting stung when walking down the path.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    There are a lot of problems with that stance and I do not have the energy to point them all out, but here is the main one I see.

    If you say something in private is illegal, how do you enforce it? Many harmful drugs are illegal, for example, so we justify invasions of privacy with searches of a suspect because the harm of the drugs is so great we are okay with violating people like that.

    When you say digital content is illegal in private it justifies searching digital content for enforcement. But the trouble with this is it is digital content and programs can be used to search it...continuously. This sort of search needs to scan EVERYTHING of yours in private. Once you have that, they can add more search criteria and you won't even know it's happening.

    You have no idea how bad this can get. I hope that you don't find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    But as a thought experiment: AI images are usually derivative, even faces dont look exactly like the original, they take it and alter it a bit. So if someone takes an image and alters it, and then displays it publicly is it AI generated porn or is it art? Because obviously not all nudes are porn and some erotic art is still art. So a lawyer would have to prove that a) the original person is recognizable enough and therefore an offense has been committed and b) that the image is pornographic and not erotic art. That could be one heck of a challenge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    I was going to agree with him but you have a good point. The source should not be real people . The person should have to put in prompts to get something that looks similar like hair color or whatnot. If they can't get it just the way they want it than boo hoo.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Should be illegal to use someone else's photograph without permission for the purpose of creating erotic works.

    There. Finished. Easy.

    If you wanna scribble a charcoal drawing of your crush and upload it to AI to try to make something erotic: legal, not relevant to this law; that's your own art. Same as if you make a painting currently.

    If you take someone images off their social media and send it to a sad person's AI to generate porn: illegal.

    If they give you permission: legal.

    It comes down to consent and what an average person would reasonably expect, and you can be sure that a reasonable person would not expect people to take their images and make Ai porn with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Social media and Big Tech, in general, has been really awful for privacy. This is just disgusting.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Should be fined $1000 for each image or identifiable piece information of a human being.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 20 points 11 months ago

    That slogan in the preview image (“AI Girls Never say no”) is creepy enough on its own, but even more when users are having it imitate real people

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago

    This is the reason impersonation / defamation laws exist. Have at it ladies.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    If a normal person was to infringe copyright then that person could be sued and even face jail time.

    But, a company run AI steals all the data on the net and turns school kids into digital sex workers that is fine apparently.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Anyone got past the paywall to establish whether its women being victimized with the random-ass pics mentioned in the first couple paragraphs, or young girls(minors) being victimized with yearbook photos, as the title implies?

    I feel like an opportuinity was missed, in favor of leaving things vague and click-baitey in the name of profit/data-mining.

  • source