6 ms·
Good job on AdGuard's end for bringing this to the Internet's attention. I especially enjoyed the unearthed details about this "N"GO's short history. I think t
by PinkSheep 11mo ago
Good job on AdGuard's end for bringing this to the Internet's attention. I especially enjoyed the unearthed details about this "N"GO's short history.
I think the e-mail exchange should've been kept short, although it is good that the owner of archive.today was eventually notified (by them) about these links in good faith to remove them. Their reply should've been the following:
"Thank you for contacting us. If you have conclusive proof of illegal behavior, you should contact police and seek legal assistance. A website's administrator is expected to adequately react to illegal actions conducted by its users, such as removing media that's breaking a law.
We have visited the URLs provided by you (https://archive[.]today/ https://archive[.]today/ , ...) and found no evidence to corroborate your concerns. To avoid misunderstandings, we require you to send a certified mail to <Adguards company address> before further replies on this matter."
Remember guys, it should always be certified mail (bonus points for international). And yes, I mean literal index pages as provided in the first e-mail. Play by the legal understanding of words. Be creative and break the rules to the extent of not breaking them ;)
PS: If you want to see more of "funny replies" you should read Njalla's blog (<https://njal.la/blog/ https://njal.la/blog/>) and TPB's infamous e-mail replies.
- mmooss 11mo agoI can see what you are getting at. Is this meant to be real advice - i.e., are you an attorney, familiar with French law, etc.?
- dpark 11mo ago> We have visited the URLs provided by you “You sent claims of CSAM hosted on someone else’s servers and we decided to download it.” Hell no. I don’t want to see that and I don’t want it being ingested into systems I control. Of all the stuff here, “download some supposed CSAM to see if it’s real” is the absolute worst advice I can imagine.
- noosphr 11mo agoThe above post contains csam, Dang please delete it without reading. Thanks.
- dpark 11mo agoYou misunderstand the situation and what I was suggesting. GP was saying that AdGuard should have checked the contents of some random URL supposedly containing CSAM on archive.today. This is not AdGuard’s job. Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal. And it also potentially opens them up for additional liability if they do determine that CSAM is present. AdGuard seems like they did exactly the right thing, which is to send the report along to the party actually responsible for cleaning up the supposed CSAM.
- axiolite 11mo ago> Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal. Put CSAM in a banner ad, and arrest everyone who was served that ad? Post a CSAM photo behind plexiglass on a wall in a public space, and arrest everyone who walks by and glanced at it? Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are? People get arrested for paying for, or sharing CSAM, not just stumbling on a website that might have something questionable. It is illegal to possess, but just loading a website is hardly possession... If it was, all of Facebook and Google's content moderators would be facing life-sentences.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 11mo agohttps://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/knowingly https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/knowingly You even quoted the word...
- Sporktacular 11mo agoArrests aren't the only way a company can be harmed. Being flagged or investigated is enough of a legal burden and reputational hit that it could be catastrophic. "Stumbling" is not a part of any network protocol. Over a network, viewing a link is indistinguishable from downloading its contents.
- mijowi 11mo ago> Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are? Quite often pretty stupid, honestly. Or careless, ignorant, jaded, corrupt, etc etc
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]