And then even in that even-more-obviously-bad made-without-permission case, the argument here seems to be "we can't make tools to handle these [assumed rare] cases because false positives"?
Is the harm of an uploader having to follow up with a human about a false positive seen as WORSE than the harm of having these videos uploaded over and over and over...?
So something the legal system doesnt take into account is people changing their minds.
Why do people changed their minds, because their chemistry changes, this is seen as aging or might even be a short term change like getting drunk, going through stress, even having people you dont want to know, knowing about it. So it shows even the law isnt perfect.
Similar to how the legal system recognizes that verbal business contracts are valid (a form of consent), it just does not have a way of proving them essentially rendering them invalid.
Not me — that was a quote from the comment I was responding to. :) I agree with the implication that the question should have been about publishing rather than creating.
Just look at all the pictures/videos from that iphone celeb hack a few years back. They all consented at the time. Many even took the pictures themselves (selfies, very common with teenagers too). The harm came far later when the material became public.