3 ms·
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
by littlecorner 9mo ago
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
- dylan604 9mo agoThat's my understanding too, so archiving the unredacted images could mean holding CSAM.
- streetfighter64 9mo agoWhich is of course very convenient for the government, similar to when wikileaks got prosecuted for holding state secrets.
- thatguy0900 9mo agoIf we're assuming they didn't leave victims unredacted on purpose
- streetfighter64 9mo agoPretty 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.
- thatguy0900 9mo agoNot about a ethical conondrum when rehosting. Anyone who rehosts the whole files can be accused of hosting child porn and doxxing and taken down.
- direwolf20 9mo agoVery convenient for Epstein and his associates
- jeltz 9mo agoLooking at examples it looks way more like incompetence.