• BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    15 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.

    • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 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.

    • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 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…

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Generally, if you add contact info for law enforcement and copyright owners, you’re not liable for content hosted on your server, as long as you take appropriate action when notified.

      What that action means differs. For some countries, that means “wipe the data without a trace and inform the police”. For others, you need to collect evidence and submit that to the police, or have the police access your server to collect their own evidence. In some jurisdictions, you’re allowed to verify that CSAM reports are factually correct and action needs to be taken, in others you’re obligated to trust the government and never ever look at those files.

      You’re not going to jail over this, but it’s going to be really annoying to have to explain the Fediverse and how server-to-server communication means you don’t know what user uploaded the files to the police every couple of months.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 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.