5 ms·
To people claiming a physical raid is pointless from the point of gathering data : - you are thinking about a company doing good things the right way. You are
by utopiah 9mo ago
To people claiming a physical raid is pointless from the point of gathering data :
- you are thinking about a company doing good things the right way. You are thinking about a company abiding by the law, storing data on its own server, having good practices, etc.
The moment a company starts to do dubious stuff then good practices start to go out the window. People write email with cryptic analogies, people start deleting emails, ... then as the circumvention become more numerous and complex, there needs to still be a trail in order to remain understandable. That trail will be in written form somehow and that must be hidden. It might be paper, it might be shadow IT but the point is that if you are not just forgetting to keep track of coffee pods at the social corner, you will leave traces.
So yes, raids do make sense BECAUSE it's about recurring complex activities that are just too hard to keep in the mind of one single individual over long periods of time.
- tick_tock_tick 9mo agoNo need to be coy the raid exists because it's a way to punish the company without proving anything. They have zero intention of getting even the slightest bit of valuable data related to Grok from this.
- direwolf20 9mo agoWhat's your evidence?
- fyredge 9mo agoUnlike the current American administration who condones raids on homes without warrants and justifies violence with lies, this France raid follows something called rule of law. So no, don't be coy and pretend that all governments are like American institutions.
- Levitz 9mo ago>Unlike the current American administration who condones raids on homes without warrants and justifies violence with lies, this France raid follows something called rule of law. Iffy on that front, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_indictment_of_Pavel_Durov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_indictment_of_Pavel...
- kergonath 9mo agoThere was a warrant. He was arrested and prosecuted, is being investigated, and will be judged in a court of law. This is rule of law.
- watwut 9mo agoThere was legal warrant and the wikipedia does not mention any lies or rules being being broken. There is nothing "Iffy" on that front. And, to spell it out, it is also funny to see who was complaining about it back then. On the free speech grounds, not less, literally people trying to dismantle democracy and create autocracy. Russian soldiers and operators, Maria Butina, Medvedev and Elon Musk. Bad faith actors having bad faith arguments.
- SilverBirch 9mo agoIt's also just very basic police work. We're investigating this company, we think they've committed a crime. Ok, why do you think that. Well they've very publicly and obviously committed a crime. Ok, are you going to prosecute them? Probably. Have you gone to their offices and gathered evidence? No thanks. Of course they're going to raid their offices! They're investigating a crime! It would be quite literally insane if they tried to prosecute them for a crime and how up to court having not even attempted basic steps to gather evidence!
- NooneAtAll3 9mo agothat's kinda the normalization argument, not the reason behind it "it is done because it's always done so"
- DetroitThrow 9mo agoIsn't it both necessary and normal if they need more information about why they were generating CSAM? I don't know why the rule of law shouldn't apply to child pornography or why it would be incorrect to normalize the prosecution of CSAM creators.
- monsieurbanana 9mo agoI'm not sure what you're getting at, physical investigation is the common procedure. You need a reason _not_ to do it, and since "it's all digital" is not a good reason we go back to doing the usual thing.
- mothballed 9mo agoIt's a show of force. "Look we have big strong men with le guns and the neat jack boots, we can send 12 of them in for every one of you." Whether it is actually needed for evidence is immaterial to that.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- hybrid_study 9mo agoThe people who think raids are pointless probably use TELNET instead of SSH :-)
- almosthere 9mo agoAt some point in the near future I see a day where our work laptops are nothing more than a full screen streaming video to a different computer that is housed in a country that has no data extradition treaties and is business friendly. Because that country and the businesses that support that are going to get RICH from such a service.
- neoromantique 9mo agoIn some places that day is today, and has been for a while.
- almosthere 9mo agoI agree but so far at all places I have ever worked, I have access to the local hardware, disk, etc... if that's an actuality it's extremely rare.
- morkalork 9mo agoI've definitely witnessed some pretty big companies that have got all their employees, including developers, set up on Citrix. In those cases, the "foreign friendly legal environment getting rich off of it" was the United States
- AtlasBarfed 9mo agoSealand,!!!!!!
- utopiah 9mo agoExactly, but that's outdated, what's the current equivalent?
- dragonwriter 9mo ago> At some point in the near future I see a day where our work laptops are nothing more than a full screen streaming video to a different computer that is housed in a country that has no data extradition treaties and is business friendly. Do you mean they will be pure worker surveillance systems, or did you mean “from” instead of “to”?
- SoftTalker 9mo agoThey don't just take paper when they raid offices. They take the computers too. I've never worked anywhere where desktop machines are encrypted as a matter of routine. Laptops yes (but only recently). Servers maybe, depending on what they do.
- Foobar8568 9mo agoEncryption won't save you from warrants and judiciary processing anywhere in the world.
- notepad0x90 9mo agoYeah, two things to add: 1) Even when you move things to a server, or remove it from your device, evidence is still left over without your knowledge sometimes. 2) Evidence of data destruction, is in itself as the name implies, evidence. And it can be used to prove things. For example, an ext4 journal or NTFS USN $J journal entry that shows "grok_version_2.4_schema.json" where twitter is claiming grok version 2.4 was never deployed in France/UK is important. That's why tools like shred and SDelete rename files before destroying them. But even then, when those tools rename and destroy files, it stands out, it might even be worse because investigators can speculate more. It might corroborate some other piece of evidence (e.g.: sdelete's prefetch entry on windows, or download history from a browser for the same tool), and that might be a more serious charge (obstruction of justice in the US).
- utopiah 9mo agoIndeed, actions leaves traces, including the action of deleting data. It takes a LOT of expertise to be able to delete something without leaving a trail behind, if that's even feasible without going to extraordinary length.