"You didn't ask for it or seek it out did you? Someone else uploaded it to your server and you don't want it? Report it to us, then delete it once we've collected our evidence."
That's probably representative of the average agent's disposition, but make sure your ass is covered first.
This seems very ominous.
It does. Likewise with the casual questioning of guilt and suggestion that his/her answers will simply be taken at face value.
In any case, self-reporting does not absolve one of suspicion; else it'd be easy to get away with pretty much anything.
This, when it seems pretty obvious that they'd have to do some investigation of the host, if only to rule out his/her degree of involvement.
And I think you're also right that they'd do some investigation, but I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly. This "people are uploading filth to my website" situation isn't so uncommon like it once was (back in my day, sonny!!).
The chance that that individual is trying to buddy up to the FBI in order to escape detection is more of a Hollywood fantasy than how real life would play out. These agents are human beings too, and they know that if someone's coming to them to ask for help, they're all on the same page.
You're most likely correct. I'd add that even with the agents being human beings, there may still be some protocol that they are compelled to follow in vetting the host. I'd want to know that going in.
That's still not to say that this would end badly for the host. It's just that, given that the tone of the response is correct (even if shortened) , there is clearly more involved. And, when you have a representative of an agency with pretty broad powers, deep resources, and potential mandates soft-pedaling what's at stake, it can have a pretty ominous feel to it.
I didn't imagine that the FBI would literally have a 30-second conversation with someone who claimed to have child porn in their possession, with no actual follow-up or action steps discussed.
But I can see how that would seem problematic if you did take it literally.
I know the parent commenter said they would speak with a lawyer, I just wouldn't take comfort in a casual remark by an FBI agent.
In the US, you're likely to be left alone with all the associated costs. Help the cops all right, but if I do their work for them, I don't want to bear all the costs.
How about you donate all your time, money and resources stopping child abuse.
In any case if you create a platform (you possibly profit from) that is used to distribute child pornography you are faced with restrictions that the rest of the public understandbly isn't.
I see no reason OP shouldn't be legally compelled to cooperate in an investigation in at least the same way a witness can be.
That is exactly what you implied by mocking the fact that the OP even asked the question.
> I see no reason OP shouldn't be legally compelled to cooperate in an investigation in at least the same way a witness can be.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether the OP should look out for personal interests. You implied that one should not be so selfish as to even ask the questions about personal risks and costs. You mocked the very idea that he might ask such a question.
Before you make such a callous and judgmental comment, you should really think about what you would yourself sacrifice to cooperate with law enforcement. If you had, you would not have been so myopic. You would't question the seriousness of the question, even if you still thought that cooperation was necessary.
Volunteering to help stop child abuse and being compelled to participate in an investigation of unknown depth, breadth, duration, and resource burden (time, money, etc.) to you are two completely different things.
If you've never been involved in litigation or other legal situation wherein you couldn't just stop the process whenever you chose to, it might be more difficult to imagine the stress and costs involved, as well as the loss of control over one's own life.
It's nice to think that it's worth it at any cost (and at the sacrifice of one's other life responsibilities). But, of course, given that one can volunteer to make such a sacrifice without waiting to be compelled by a police investigation, then anyone who has not already chosen to do so might be wise to consider whether it's really a manner in which they can afford to help.
(EDIT: conciseness)
Also, the abuse already happened, you are only stopping the dumber CP collectors from sharing images of it.
Especially at a scale where you need automated systems to deal with the problem, law enforcement will inevitably notice sooner or later. I can't help but fell that it's not going to go over well with them (and it shouldn't), if they notice you deleted that content and possibly destroyed evidence in the process.
Technology companies and law enforcement have cooperated on this issue for a long time very successfully. They have experienced people working on nothing but this kind of thing and you're not going to deal with some local low level idiot that barely manages to deal with noise complaints. There is no reason to be paranoid and to believe they are going to act stupid.
- shut it down right now
- take a 'wait and see' approach. Then one day during the course of a bigger investigation they find that your server is hosting CP. Also, you apparently knew about it and didn't do anything (admittedly proving this will be quite difficult and unlikely, but still). In that case, they'll come down on you like a hammer.
Better be proactive. And if you're paranoid about the feds jailing an infrastructure provider who actively came to them asking for help (do you have any examples of where this happened? even just an investigation?), then all you have left is option 1.
NCMEC has protocols around how to report the images/video, and how to delete it on your end.
I would highly recommend against calling the FBI. You should work with NCMEC, as they have experience working with this stuff and their CyberTipline is one of the major ways that Congress has mandated that online service providers should report this stuff. Plus talking to law enforcement employed by the federal government has a host of risks associated with it: