And that's often because what is needed isn't in plain site, so it makes sense to just grab everything and take it back to their lab and have experienced techs go over it rather than having the site team sit on the computers going through files to find what they need.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

How do you know that it was? Were you involved in this case enough to know something the rest of us dont? Or are you just a bystander playing devil's advocate?

EDIT: since I apparently cant reply to your comment below, you cant just claim that the hardware was involved in a crime by "just asking questions" then accuse me of "stirring up shit" after calling you out on making unsubstantiated claims. If you make a claim it is YOUR job to defend that claim. Not everyone elses' job to disprove your assertion.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Were you involved enough to know that it wasn't? There's devil's advocate, and then there's devil's PR. Why are you trying so hard to stir up shit where none exists? It's not wrong to want more information before going on a paranoia bender.

[–] ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not the person you can't reply to below.
I was literally just asking. If the warrant was in relation to a charge that they were hosting CSAM, then yes the seizure of the server would be appropriate.