News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FBI's Use of Paid Best Buy Informants Goes Deeper Than We... by mjevans on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @08:54PM (#16533764)
I'd argue that there's a moral one /assuming it falls in to your observation/.

There is /not/ a moral obligation to actively go looking for and judge someone as a normal individual. Rifling through another's possessions without probable cause is already wrong for actual law enforcement, let alone normal people.

I guess what I'm saying is, if in the course of normal actions I do something (like opening the web browser and the default tiles are... or the background of the desktop is) and it's obvious that this is something the individual went of the way to see / keep, that's one thing.

If it's some BS ad that probably got pulled in via automation that's another question. Once you pull in individuals politically motivated to be 'tough on crime' for re-election or future offices/career developments it's likely going to be at least a major hassle even if they're actually innocent of the intent to commit a crime.

Re:FBI's Use of Paid Best Buy Informants Goes Deeper Than We... by EggsOnToast on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @10:22PM (#16534032)
This could still be a grey area. Obviously pornography of young children could be identified by most people 99% of the time, the 1% being bizarre situations like mistaking a collection of cherub images for child pornography. But what about when the 'child' looks like a junior or senior teenager and so it's ambiguous as to weather they're of legal age or not? Is someone morally obligated to report potential child pornography in such a situation? A false report, even an accidental one, could cost an innocent person their freedom or a lot of money to preserve their freedom.
Re:FBI's Use of Paid Best Buy Informants Goes Deeper Than We... by jaclaz on Wednesday March 07, 2018 @06:29AM (#16535725)