ai
Traces of Abuse: How Generative AI Impacts Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) Investigations
- Source
- arXiv — Computers and Society
- Published
- Last verified
- 18 Aug 2026
- Confidence
- High
- Evidence
- Original document retained
- Reading time
- 1 min
- Country
- International
- Relevant to
- Research & Evidence, Technology & Data
Executive summary
What happened, and why should leadership care?
The advent of generative AI (GAI) has intensified the challenges associated with image-based sexual abuse (IBSA), facilitating easier creation and distribution of abusive material and leading to increased victimisation. This technological shift complicates investigative processes by altering the nature of forensic traces, ultimately benefiting perpetrators by making their actions harder to detect and trace, thereby hindering justice.
Why this matters
Why is this strategically important?
The proliferation of generative AI in facilitating image-based sexual abuse represents a critical emerging risk that impacts public safety, digital ethics, and legal frameworks. It necessitates strategic responses across technology development, law enforcement capabilities, and policy-making to counter the advantages gained by perpetrators and protect potential victims.
Key insights
What should be noted from the evidence?
- Generative AI (GAI) has exacerbated image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) by simplifying its creation and distribution.
- The ease of perpetration facilitated by GAI is leading to increased victimisation.
- GAI alters the types of forensic traces available in IBSA cases, making investigations more complex.
- The introduction of GAI into IBSA workflows generally benefits abusers, enabling easier perpetration.
- Tracing perpetrators of GAI-enabled IBSA is becoming significantly more difficult.
Evidence and confidence
How far can this assessment be trusted?
High confidence. Named institution, original document retained and analysis corroborated.
Analysis is prepared editorially by Aziz Shuaib Ausi. The original publication remains the authoritative record, and executive judgement remains entirely human.
Source
Where does this originate?
Reported by arXiv — Computers and Society · International. This briefing summarises the publication for executive use; the document itself is not reproduced here.
Read the original publication