Hacker News Reader

I guess the question is, if someone emails you an archive of jpg files to share on your public website, will you? Without looking at them?

I think that would be crazy. When they end up being CSAM or whatever, you're the one that will go to prison for possessing them, not the person that sent them to you.

View on HN

So, after Google/YouTube have been aided in growth by the safe harbor clause, they now think that site owner responsibility is not such a bad thing after all?

Sounds more to me that they are pulling up the ladder to impede competitors.

I belive this is a really good take on the matter, and somehow you are the first person I see bringing it up.

The EFF has raised this issue repeatedly (that stringent requirements on content filtering will be an advantage to the large players who can afford to do it).

It's very likely you only start getting 'requests' from 3-letter agencies asking you to scan content once you reach some large mass of hosted content, especially since the technology for even doing so is locked up, with NCMEC and Microsoft being the arbitrators for who gets to use it: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/PhotoDNA/CloudService

That's why I made the distinction between public hosting and a private album.

For public files, I fully agree with you. For private ones, not at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com