• 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