• BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months 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
      11
      ·
      3 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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…

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