4 ms·

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 a

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.

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.