One thing I am really at a loss to understand (apologies for following up
my own post):
What makes them, or rather whoever is the keeper of the password at the
moment, believe that asking for a description of some content of a vid is
any kind of security measure?
Surely they do not believe that LEA do not see some content and
cannot or will not describe it to them to get the password? Of course they
will - in Australia during the girly bust, police had obtained some kind
of legal sanction to trade actual cp in order to infiltrate, but said
they did not have to. So passing on descriptions is going to be no
problem whatsoever.
In point of fact, this requirement serves to actively incriminate whoever
is emailing such information. The officer on the other end then has
written confirmation that the emailer has seen possibly illegal or
borderline material and has a description of that content.
Enough to obtain a warrant perhaps. In one jurisdiction I have heard of
(not the US), merely admitting one has seen such material is enough for a
conviction.
|
|