Technology

You mean a "github repo". Git by itself doesn't give a hoot about validating authors what-so-ever (I could sign as "Bill Gates [email protected]", and git would happily accept the commit), and it's not federated (multiple people manually downloading various states of the repo at various times doesn't count).

Github ensures owners are who they are, as linked to their profile (though email validation only goes as far as "Well, they clicked the link in the email, so this must be their email account"). Github also isn't federated, since that one site going down takes all the repos with it (unless someone had it cloned, but again, random people downloading at random times yields different states of the repo, depending on when the clone/fetch occured, but then you'd end up with tens/hundreds/thousands of sources of various levels of truth).

If they're leaked, they're leaked. The archive doesn't change that one way or the other

Yeah this is a hard one to navigate and it's the only thing I've ever found that challenges my philosophy on the freedom of information.

The archive itself isn't causing the abuse, but CSAM is a record of abuse and we restrict the distribution not because distribution or possession of it is inherently abusive, but because the creation of it was, and we don't want to support an incentive structure for the creation of more abuse.

i.e. we don't want more pedos abusing more kids with the intention of archival/distribution. So the archive itself isn't the abuse, but the incentive to archive could be.

There's also a lot of questions with CSAM in general that come up about the ethics of it in that I think we aren't ready to think about. It's a hard topic all around and nobody wants to seriously address it beyond virtue signalling about how bad it is.

I could potentially see a scenario where the archival could be beneficial to society similar to the FBI hash libraries Apple uses to scan iCloud for CSAM. If we throw genAI at this stuff to learn about it, we may be able to identify locations, abusers and victims to track them down and save people. But it would necessitate the existence of the data to train on.

I could also see potential for using CSAM itself for psychotherapy. Imagine a sci-fi future where pedos are effectively cured by using AI trained on CSAM to expose them to increasingly mature imagery, allowing their attraction to mature with it. We won't really know if something like that is possible if we delete everything. It seems awfully short sighted to me to delete data no matter how perverse, because it could have legitimate positive applications that we haven't conceived of yet. So to that end, I do hope some 3 letter agencies maintain their restricted archives of data for future applications that could benefit humanity.

All said, I absolutely agree that the potential of creating incentives for abusers to abuse is a major issue with immutable archival, and it's definitely something that we need to figure out, before such an archive actually exists. So thank you for the thought experiment.