It's unlikely law enforcement would take the risk to handle CSAM just to make a case against a Russian pirate, jeopardizing their careers and freedom, when the copyright case is pretty strong already.

These are the doings of one of the myriad freelance "intelectual rights enforcement agents", which are paid on success and employed by some large media organization. Another possibility is that a single aggrieved individual who found themselves doxed or their criminal conviction archived etc. took action after failing to enforce their so called "right to be forgotten".

Unfortunately, archive.is operating model is uniquely vulnerable to such false flag attacks.

▲

justin66 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s grimly hilarious that anyone in 2025 believes the police wouldn’t do something because that thing is unethical and against their own standards.

> handle CSAM

They wouldn’t “handle” it, they’d have some third party do their dirty work.

▲

kevin_thibedeau an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Andrew Bustamante has stated that the CIA "supplies" people with such material.

https://youtu.be/fu6bYPTp_kE?si=K_YKzTxy5ggKQDiG&t=2156

▲

cornholio 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They wouldn’t “handle” it, they’d have some third party do their dirty work.

Without proof, that's just an edgelord conspiracy theory.

Police are not the Borg, perfectly coordinated in their evilness, all law enforcement agencies have internal power structures and strife, rivalries, jealousy, old conflicts. The fact that some action, such as planting evidence leading to a conviction, is punishable with long prison sentences, is not something the corrupt can simply afford to ignore, while giving their internal foes mortal leverage against them.

For example, if Kash Patel receives an order from his handlers to plant child porn on some political target, that outcome might happen or not, but what you can be pretty damn sure is that all those involved will be aware of the risks and will try their best to stay out of it, or, if coerced, do it covertly so as to minimize the extreme risks they face.

The point was not that FBI are a bunch of angels, but that the undeniable risks involved by such a move seem completely unnecessary - the FBI has for years been weaponized against overseas copyright infringers, openly and legally.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	justin66 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In this case we’re talking about asking someone like a confidential informant to paste a URL into a text field on a web site. Not really elaborate in the grand scheme of things, conspiracy-wise.

▲

jordanb 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The FBI has a large archive of CSAM used for content ID:

https://cybernews.com/editorial/war-on-child-exploitation/

Of course in a pinch it could also be used for other things like pretext.

▲

iamnothere 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is probably the realm of intelligence agencies, who have less accountability and many reasons to eliminate public archives (primarily perception management).