Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If the archive.today contact is telling the truth, then this implies that WAAD had collected links containing CSAM and chose not to contact the person who could best get rid of the material. I think it implies either:

1. WAAD has developed a good way of detecting CSAM, but is ok with the CSAM staying available longer than it needs to, and remaining accessible to a wider audience than needed, in order to pursue their ulterior motive. In this case, they could be improving the world in some significant way, but are just choosing to do something else.

2. WAAD has intentionally had archive.today index CSAM material in order to pursue their ulterior motive.

Of course, option 2 is _much_ more damning than option 1, but I feel both are really bad, and naively I'd still expect option 1 to be illegal. If you know of a crime and intentionally hide it, that seem illegal.





> If you know of a crime and intentionally hide it, that seem illegal.

Yet this is a standard way to become a wealthy lawyer.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: