this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
290 points (97.1% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7584 readers
3 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Were you involved enough to know that it wasn't? There's devil's advocate, and then there's devil's PR. Why are you trying so hard to stir up shit where none exists? It's not wrong to want more information before going on a paranoia bender.
I'm not the person you can't reply to below.
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.
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