top | item 46887697

(no title)

littlecorner | 25 days ago

I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals

discuss

order

dylan604|25 days ago

That's my understanding too, so archiving the unredacted images could mean holding CSAM.

streetfighter64|25 days ago

Which is of course very convenient for the government, similar to when wikileaks got prosecuted for holding state secrets.

thatguy0900|25 days ago

If we're assuming they didn't leave victims unredacted on purpose

streetfighter64|25 days ago

Pretty 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.

jeltz|24 days ago

Looking at examples it looks way more like incompetence.