datahoarder

I’m still waiting for just the first zip file to uncompress and it’s been HOURS. The ONLY reasonable explanation to bolster the NYT claim is that they put “AI” on the datasets running on a supercomputer, and “caught” the DOJ distributing CP! Show us the proof NYT! (redact faces and genitalia and show the images!) Then: CONVICT THEM ALL! LIFE IN PRISON FOR THE ENTIRE DOJ!!! ;-P

We didn't have trouble getting Datasets 10, 11, or 12. I think Dataset 9 was probably delivered fine on Friday, so the NYTimes was able to grab a complete copy. Then, NYTimes started reporting the abusive material, which prompted the DOJ to yoink the ZIP, and it's been screwy ever since.

I saw a post from a random Redditor confirming that they found abusive material, if that's the concern. I doubt that the reports are fabricated, but I also agree that the reports are a great excuse for the DOJ to remove legitimate files.

I'm not sure of the exact files that were reported by the NYT, but there certainly were some concerning images in the initial Jan 30 release, however it was certainly more than the reported 40. I saw others as well but I don't remember what the file numbers we're.

From my own observation timeline on the images in question: Jan 30: Images were accessible through DOJ directly. File numbers wereskipped in the list, but were manually reachable through URL. All these photos were fully unredacted (uncensored). **Feb 1: ** Images were NOT accessible through DOJ anymore, returns "Page not found". However images were (and still are) snapshotted via web.archive.org. Feb 2: Downloading the 87GB Set 9 appeared contain these images as well, meaning we likely all have them on our computers. yikes

These files were scrubbed from the DOJ website, along with many others.

I found many of the scrubbed files by parsing through the lists and finding large gaps in file numbers, where the preceding file did not contain multiple images/documents in one pdf. There are also tons of internal memos in the dataset that precede file groups and talk about the content ahead. These memos surrounded files that seemed like they were meant to be redacted, so its worth poking around. I didn't go nuts, but things I found around these that interesting and were also removed:

• [EFTA00276493]: internal memo referring to Clinton photographed with "nude Gretchen".
• [EFTA00273790-EFTA276487]: (removed) looks like arial Lidar scans of the full estate?
• [EFTA00276220]: (removed) panoramic Infrared / xray-ray scan of a room

if what you're saying is that CSAM seems like a very good excuse to redact a lot more of those files than they previously intended, I agree yes.