• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    918 days ago

    There’s gotta be some kind of limited liability for this kind of thing. I mean, banks wouldn’t be liable if someone put csam in a safe deposit box or (assuming they don’t x-ray packages) UPS shipping csam in a sealed package. I think there just needs to be reasonable safeguards against it but I don’t know if any of that is built into the software.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1218 days ago

      Issue here is that what’s in a safe deposit box isn’t also being shared/distributed. It is locked away.

      If, however, they made copies of the contents of a box and put it in other boxes … and it came out somebody used that for CSAM then there probably would be some kind of liability.

      Besides CSAM there’s also copyrighted material, etc which section 230 kind of covers but even then gets tricky since there’s a duty to respond to DMCA takedowns in order to get safe harbor protections.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        418 days ago

        It’d be a little more like someone going to a Kinko’s (or whatever like that exists anymore) and using their copiers to copy CSAM.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Unfortunately we are at a point where Cisco Cloudflare and Google are held liable for filesharing-related domains their DNS relays are resolving IPs for…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        117 days ago

        I could also see this turning into a form of DoS attack. I’m sure there’s very little leeway in ignoring “bad faith” reports so if you have an instance you could be responsible for investigating thousands of reports per day. And if you take the safe route and remove anything that’s reported, until deemed safe, you might as well turn off your instance.