• Underwear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The person referenced in the article was raided for completely unrelated charges. It just happened they took the server and backups as part of the raid. Had they hosted off-site or kept the backups off-site, the damage would have been minimal. This article brings up a good point, but it’s not the nefariousness that the title implies.

    • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cops took what wasn’t needed and haven’t returned it (that we know of).

      I’d say that’s about as nefarious as it gets.

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Any time they take all electronics, there’s bound to be something there that wasn’t needed. It’s overly broad.

          • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, because humans can’t just pick up a drive and instantly read every single thing on it. The cops have no idea how many pieces of storage you have or how you organize your files.

        • xkforce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How do you know that it was? Were you involved in this case enough to know something the rest of us dont? Or are you just a bystander playing devil’s advocate?

          EDIT: since I apparently cant reply to your comment below, you cant just claim that the hardware was involved in a crime by “just asking questions” then accuse me of “stirring up shit” after calling you out on making unsubstantiated claims. If you make a claim it is YOUR job to defend that claim. Not everyone elses’ job to disprove your assertion.

          • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. I’m not the person you can’t reply to below.

            2. I was literally just asking. If the warrant was in relation to a charge that they were hosting CSAM, then yes the seizure of the server would be appropriate.

          • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Were you involved in this case enough to know something the rest of us dont?

            I could say the same to you. Trying to research it literally only surfaces what the admins of the instance have said. As far as I could tell, they didn’t publish anything concerning what was in the warrant, or any specifics of what crime was being investigated. The most they’ve said is that it’s related to a protest.

            Beyond that, it’s basically just standard procedure to seize all or most computers and drives on a warrant since they can’t possibly know exactly which ones do and don’t contain evidence in advance.

            So yeah, I’d would say it’s entirely reasonable to question the person calling it “as nefarious as it gets” for more information