Comment by littlecorner
14 days ago
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
14 days ago
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
That's my understanding too, so archiving the unredacted images could mean holding CSAM.
Which is of course very convenient for the government, similar to when wikileaks got prosecuted for holding state secrets.
If we're assuming they didn't leave victims unredacted on purpose
Pretty devious tactic if so. Chilling effect on both any further witnesses and anybody interested in archiving the data (gives them an ethical conundrum at least). In addition to giving them (the feds) a convenient excuse to take down random docs.
Not about a ethical conondrum when rehosting. Anyone who rehosts the whole files can be accused of hosting child porn and doxxing and taken down.
1 reply →
Looking at examples it looks way more like incompetence.