| ▲ | NooneAtAll3 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
that's kinda the normalization argument, not the reason behind it "it is done because it's always done so" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | monsieurbanana 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure what you're getting at, physical investigation is the common procedure. You need a reason _not_ to do it, and since "it's all digital" is not a good reason we go back to doing the usual thing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pjc50 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well, yes, it is actually pretty normal for suspected criminal businesses. What's unusual is that this one has their own publicity engine. Americans are just having trouble coping with the idea of a corporation being held liable for crimes. More normally it looks like e.g. this in the UK: https://news.sky.com/video/police-raid-hundreds-of-businesse... CyberGEND more often seem to do smalltime copyright infringement enforcement, but there are a number of authorities with the right to conduct raids. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | DetroitThrow 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Isn't it both necessary and normal if they need more information about why they were generating CSAM? I don't know why the rule of law shouldn't apply to child pornography or why it would be incorrect to normalize the prosecution of CSAM creators. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||