6 ms·
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
by littlecorner 7mo ago
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
- dylan604 7mo agoThat's my understanding too, so archiving the unredacted images could mean holding CSAM.
- streetfighter64 7mo agoWhich is of course very convenient for the government, similar to when wikileaks got prosecuted for holding state secrets.
- thatguy0900 7mo agoIf we're assuming they didn't leave victims unredacted on purpose
- streetfighter64 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo agoVery convenient for Epstein and his associates
- jeltz 7mo agoLooking at examples it looks way more like incompetence.