6 ms·

You should definitely consult legal counsel before and during talking to the authorities (which you should also do). The laws surrounding CP in particular are o

by ender7 11y ago

You should definitely consult legal counsel before and during talking to the authorities (which you should also do). The laws surrounding CP in particular are outdated and do not fit well into the digital world. For example, simply looking at CP can be a crime, which can make it difficult to report unless you know the right words to say. Always consult counsel in these cases.

some_furry 11y ago
Definitely talk to legal counsel, but I can already tell you what the FBI told me when I asked them about this exact situation in a hypothetical: "You didn't ask for it or seek it out did you? Someone else uploaded it to your server and you don't want it? Report it to us, then delete it once we've collected our evidence." That's probably representative of the average agent's disposition, but make sure your ass is covered first.
- balls187 11y ago
  > Report it to us, then delete it once we've collected our evidence. This seems very ominous.
  - steanne 11y ago
    not to me. ominous would be "we'll delete it once we've colected our evidence."
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    >This seems very ominous. It does. Likewise with the casual questioning of guilt and suggestion that his/her answers will simply be taken at face value.
    - lifeformed 11y ago
      Why would they self report it then?
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Guilty people also self-report crimes to which they are obviously close and for which they assume they'd fall under suspicion anyway. A fairly heavily trafficked, public website featuring CP images may well already be under investigation. In any case, self-reporting does not absolve one of suspicion; else it'd be easy to get away with pretty much anything.
      - stickfigure 11y ago
        You sound like someone that expects human beings in positions of authority to operate rationally.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        One might self-report if they were involved, suspected they were under investigation, and wanted to give the appearance that their involvement was unwitting.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Why does that seem ominous? Genuine question. What would be a non-ominous response from the FBI in this situation?
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      Part of what makes it ominous is that the agent is too casually requesting that the host open the gates, and suggesting that the host has zero-risk, simply because he/she states his/her innocence. This, when it seems pretty obvious that they'd have to do some investigation of the host, if only to rule out his/her degree of involvement.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Yes, you're right, like I said in my other reply, I'd assumed the parent poster's engagement with the agent had been trimmed down for the sake of the story, that there was more substance they left out because that was the overall thrust of the story. And I think you're also right that they'd do some investigation, but I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly. This "people are uploading filth to my website" situation isn't so uncommon like it once was (back in my day, sonny!!). The chance that that individual is trying to buddy up to the FBI in order to escape detection is more of a Hollywood fantasy than how real life would play out. These agents are human beings too, and they know that if someone's coming to them to ask for help, they're all on the same page.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        >I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly You're most likely correct. I'd add that even with the agents being human beings, there may still be some protocol that they are compelled to follow in vetting the host. I'd want to know that going in. That's still not to say that this would end badly for the host. It's just that, given that the tone of the response is correct (even if shortened) , there is clearly more involved. And, when you have a representative of an agency with pretty broad powers, deep resources, and potential mandates soft-pedaling what's at stake, it can have a pretty ominous feel to it.
  - caligastia 11y ago
    Never never trust the FBI. That's how they nailed DotCom, instructing him to let them collect 'evidence' against someone else, then they used it against him. Seems like you're in a hornet's nest, and you're not even making any money for your trouble.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Exactly. Beyond my own liability, the other question I would want answered is whether I could potentially be compelled to cooperate in some long-term investigation. If so, then what could that mean in terms of time and expense, and is it worth it?
- DasIch 11y ago
  You are not seriously asking whether it's worth it to help law enforcement stop child abuse?
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > "potentially be compelled to cooperate" In the US, you're likely to be left alone with all the associated costs. Help the cops all right, but if I do their work for them, I don't want to bear all the costs.
  - Goladus 11y ago
    > You are not seriously asking whether it's worth it to help law enforcement stop child abuse? How about you donate all your time, money and resources stopping child abuse.
    - DasIch 11y ago
      Nobody is talking about donating all time, money and resources of anyone towards that goal. In any case if you create a platform (you possibly profit from) that is used to distribute child pornography you are faced with restrictions that the rest of the public understandbly isn't. I see no reason OP shouldn't be legally compelled to cooperate in an investigation in at least the same way a witness can be.
      - Goladus 11y ago
        > Nobody is talking about donating all time, money and resources of anyone towards that goal. That is exactly what you implied by mocking the fact that the OP even asked the question. > I see no reason OP shouldn't be legally compelled to cooperate in an investigation in at least the same way a witness can be. This is irrelevant to the question of whether the OP should look out for personal interests. You implied that one should not be so selfish as to even ask the questions about personal risks and costs. You mocked the very idea that he might ask such a question. Before you make such a callous and judgmental comment, you should really think about what you would yourself sacrifice to cooperate with law enforcement. If you had, you would not have been so myopic. You would't question the seriousness of the question, even if you still thought that cooperation was necessary.
kw71 11y ago
Is there an automatic script to thumbnail images? That simply multiplies the number of problem images in your data store.

by ender7 11y ago

some_furry 11y ago

Definitely talk to legal counsel, but I can already tell you what the FBI told me when I asked them about this exact situation in a hypothetical: "You didn't ask for it or seek it out did you? Someone else uploaded it to your server and you don't want it? Report it to us, then delete it once we've collected our evidence." That's probably representative of the average agent's disposition, but make sure your ass is covered first.

balls187 11y ago
> Report it to us, then delete it once we've collected our evidence. This seems very ominous.
- steanne 11y ago
  not to me. ominous would be "we'll delete it once we've colected our evidence."
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  >This seems very ominous. It does. Likewise with the casual questioning of guilt and suggestion that his/her answers will simply be taken at face value.
  - lifeformed 11y ago
    Why would they self report it then?
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      Guilty people also self-report crimes to which they are obviously close and for which they assume they'd fall under suspicion anyway. A fairly heavily trafficked, public website featuring CP images may well already be under investigation. In any case, self-reporting does not absolve one of suspicion; else it'd be easy to get away with pretty much anything.
    - stickfigure 11y ago
      You sound like someone that expects human beings in positions of authority to operate rationally.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      One might self-report if they were involved, suspected they were under investigation, and wanted to give the appearance that their involvement was unwitting.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Why does that seem ominous? Genuine question. What would be a non-ominous response from the FBI in this situation?
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Part of what makes it ominous is that the agent is too casually requesting that the host open the gates, and suggesting that the host has zero-risk, simply because he/she states his/her innocence. This, when it seems pretty obvious that they'd have to do some investigation of the host, if only to rule out his/her degree of involvement.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Yes, you're right, like I said in my other reply, I'd assumed the parent poster's engagement with the agent had been trimmed down for the sake of the story, that there was more substance they left out because that was the overall thrust of the story. And I think you're also right that they'd do some investigation, but I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly. This "people are uploading filth to my website" situation isn't so uncommon like it once was (back in my day, sonny!!). The chance that that individual is trying to buddy up to the FBI in order to escape detection is more of a Hollywood fantasy than how real life would play out. These agents are human beings too, and they know that if someone's coming to them to ask for help, they're all on the same page.
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        >I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly You're most likely correct. I'd add that even with the agents being human beings, there may still be some protocol that they are compelled to follow in vetting the host. I'd want to know that going in. That's still not to say that this would end badly for the host. It's just that, given that the tone of the response is correct (even if shortened) , there is clearly more involved. And, when you have a representative of an agency with pretty broad powers, deep resources, and potential mandates soft-pedaling what's at stake, it can have a pretty ominous feel to it.
- caligastia 11y ago
  Never never trust the FBI. That's how they nailed DotCom, instructing him to let them collect 'evidence' against someone else, then they used it against him. Seems like you're in a hornet's nest, and you're not even making any money for your trouble.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Exactly. Beyond my own liability, the other question I would want answered is whether I could potentially be compelled to cooperate in some long-term investigation. If so, then what could that mean in terms of time and expense, and is it worth it?

DasIch 11y ago
You are not seriously asking whether it's worth it to help law enforcement stop child abuse?
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > "potentially be compelled to cooperate" In the US, you're likely to be left alone with all the associated costs. Help the cops all right, but if I do their work for them, I don't want to bear all the costs.
- Goladus 11y ago
  > You are not seriously asking whether it's worth it to help law enforcement stop child abuse? How about you donate all your time, money and resources stopping child abuse.
  - DasIch 11y ago
    Nobody is talking about donating all time, money and resources of anyone towards that goal. In any case if you create a platform (you possibly profit from) that is used to distribute child pornography you are faced with restrictions that the rest of the public understandbly isn't. I see no reason OP shouldn't be legally compelled to cooperate in an investigation in at least the same way a witness can be.
    - Goladus 11y ago
      > Nobody is talking about donating all time, money and resources of anyone towards that goal. That is exactly what you implied by mocking the fact that the OP even asked the question. > I see no reason OP shouldn't be legally compelled to cooperate in an investigation in at least the same way a witness can be. This is irrelevant to the question of whether the OP should look out for personal interests. You implied that one should not be so selfish as to even ask the questions about personal risks and costs. You mocked the very idea that he might ask such a question. Before you make such a callous and judgmental comment, you should really think about what you would yourself sacrifice to cooperate with law enforcement. If you had, you would not have been so myopic. You would't question the seriousness of the question, even if you still thought that cooperation was necessary.

kw71 11y ago

Is there an automatic script to thumbnail images? That simply multiplies the number of problem images in your data store.