Why does that seem ominous? Genuine question. What would be a non-ominous response from the FBI in this situation?

Part of what makes it ominous is that the agent is too casually requesting that the host open the gates, and suggesting that the host has zero-risk, simply because he/she states his/her innocence.

This, when it seems pretty obvious that they'd have to do some investigation of the host, if only to rule out his/her degree of involvement.

Yes, you're right, like I said in my other reply, I'd assumed the parent poster's engagement with the agent had been trimmed down for the sake of the story, that there was more substance they left out because that was the overall thrust of the story.

And I think you're also right that they'd do some investigation, but I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly. This "people are uploading filth to my website" situation isn't so uncommon like it once was (back in my day, sonny!!).

The chance that that individual is trying to buddy up to the FBI in order to escape detection is more of a Hollywood fantasy than how real life would play out. These agents are human beings too, and they know that if someone's coming to them to ask for help, they're all on the same page.

>I imagine the investigation would be over very quickly

You're most likely correct. I'd add that even with the agents being human beings, there may still be some protocol that they are compelled to follow in vetting the host. I'd want to know that going in.

That's still not to say that this would end badly for the host. It's just that, given that the tone of the response is correct (even if shortened) , there is clearly more involved. And, when you have a representative of an agency with pretty broad powers, deep resources, and potential mandates soft-pedaling what's at stake, it can have a pretty ominous feel to it.

Something written from the FBI, like a receipt that the FBI has received the evidence and it is therefore of no consequence if the files are deleted. Something that will keep him out of jail if by chance another unrelated law enforcement agency happened to be investigating and became upset or suspicious because evidence was disappearing.

Ok, fair enough. I assumed that that was a somewhat trimmed-down version of the actual discussion, for the sake of telling their story briefly.

I didn't imagine that the FBI would literally have a 30-second conversation with someone who claimed to have child porn in their possession, with no actual follow-up or action steps discussed.

But I can see how that would seem problematic if you did take it literally.

"Collecting evidence" seems extremely broad. What is the evidence collection process? Access granted to servers, wire sniffing, seizing of hardware? How long will that process take? What recourse is available should the FBI seize hardware?

I know the parent commenter said they would speak with a lawyer, I just wouldn't take comfort in a casual remark by an FBI agent.

not to me. ominous would be "we'll delete it once we've colected our evidence."

Never never trust the FBI. That's how they nailed DotCom, instructing him to let them collect 'evidence' against someone else, then they used it against him. Seems like you're in a hornet's nest, and you're not even making any money for your trouble.

>This seems very ominous.

It does. Likewise with the casual questioning of guilt and suggestion that his/her answers will simply be taken at face value.

Why would they self report it then?

You sound like someone that expects human beings in positions of authority to operate rationally.

Guilty people also self-report crimes to which they are obviously close and for which they assume they'd fall under suspicion anyway. A fairly heavily trafficked, public website featuring CP images may well already be under investigation.

In any case, self-reporting does not absolve one of suspicion; else it'd be easy to get away with pretty much anything.

One might self-report if they were involved, suspected they were under investigation, and wanted to give the appearance that their involvement was unwitting.