[HN Gopher] X offices raided in France
___________________________________________________________________
X offices raided in France
Author : labrador
Score : 248 points
Date : 2026-02-03 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Surprised the EU hasn't banned it yet given that the platform is
| manipulated by Musk to destabilize Europe and move it towards the
| far right. The child abuse feels like a smaller problem compared
| to that risk.
| Bender wrote:
| In my opinion I think the reason they raided the offices for
| CSAM would be there are laws on the books for CSAM and not for
| social manipulation. If people could be jailed for manipulation
| there would be no social media platforms, lobbyists, political
| campaign groups or advertisements. People are already being
| manipulated by AI.
|
| On a related note given AI is just a tool and requires someone
| to tell it to make CSAM I think they will have to prove intent
| possibly by grabbing chat logs, emails and other internal
| communications but I know very little about French law or
| international law.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Given America passed PAFACA (intended to ban TikTok, which
| Trump instead put in hands of his friends), I would think
| Europe would also have a similar law. Is that not the case?
| Bender wrote:
| Are you talking about this [1]? I don't know the answer to
| your question whether or not the EU has the same policy.
| That is talking about control by a foreign adversary.
|
| I think that would delve into whether or not the USA would
| be considered a foreign adversary to France. I was under
| the impression we were allies _since like the 1800s or so_
| despite some little tiffs now and again.
|
| [1] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/7521
| direwolf20 wrote:
| EngineerUSA needs to vastly change his tone to avoid
| being flagged. I vouched it because it's broadly true but
| the wording could be a LOT better.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I had to make a choice to not even use Grok (I wasn't overly
| interested in the first place, but wanted to review how it
| might compare to the other tools), because even just the
| Explore option shows photos and videos of CSAM, CSAM-
| adjacent, and other "problematic" things in a photorealistic
| manner (such as implied bestiality).
|
| Looking at the prompts below some of those image shows that
| even now, there's almost zero effort at Grok to filter
| prompts that are blatantly looking to create problematic
| material. People aren't being sneaky and smart and
| wordsmithing subtle cues to try to bypass content filtering,
| they're often saying "create this" bluntly and directly, and
| Grok is happily obliging.
| caminante wrote:
| It's broader and mentioned in the article:
|
| _> French authorities opened their investigation after
| reports from a French lawmaker alleging that biased
| algorithms on X likely distorted the functioning of an
| automated data processing system. It expanded after Grok
| generated posts that allegedly denied the Holocaust, a crime
| in France, and spread sexually explicit deepfakes, the
| statement said._
| trcarney wrote:
| hold on, are you saying that you should be able to be jailed
| for manipulation? Where would that end? could i be jailed if
| i post a review for a restaurant if you feel it manipulated
| you? or anyone stating an opinion could be construed as
| manipulation. that is beyond a slippery slope, that is an
| authoritarian nightmare.
| gf000 wrote:
| So you think writing a review is somehow on the same
| magnitude as social media platforms with 300 million-3
| billion users?
|
| And how is that different from TV channels/media en large
| having laws to abide by? Slippery slope arguments are
| themselves slippery slopes..
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Almost like the EU can't just ban speech on a whim the way US
| far right people keep saying it can.
| blell wrote:
| Big platforms and media are only good if they try to move the
| populace to the progressive, neoliberal side. Otherwise we need
| to put their executives in jail.
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| "Manipulated by Musk to destabilize Europe and move it towards
| the far right" - this is a very strong claim to make about a
| fairly open platform where people can choose what to post and
| who to follow.
|
| Also, could you clarify what the difference is between the near
| right and the far right? Do you have any examples of the near
| right?
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| In case you're not playing dumb, the term you're looking for
| would be centre right.
| rienbdj wrote:
| Elon fiddles with the algorithm to boost certain accounts.
| Some accounts are behind an auth wall and others are not.
| It's open but not even.
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| And this destabilizes Europe... how?
| gmd63 wrote:
| It gives people who aren't aware of the bot accounts /
| thumb on the scale the perception that insane crackpot
| delusions are more popular than they are.
|
| There is a reason Musk paid so much for Twitter. If this
| stuff had no effect he wouldn't have bought it.
| 936966931646863 wrote:
| Right, european state media stould have the monopoly on
| spreading disinformation.
| javascriptfan69 wrote:
| Social media should not allow algorithms to actively
| AMPLIFY disinformation to the public.
|
| If people want to post disinformation that's fine, but
| the way that these companies push that information onto
| users is the problem. There either needs to be
| accountability for platforms or a ban on behavior driven
| content feeds.
|
| People lying on the internet is fine. Social media
| algorithms amplifying the lie because it has high
| engagement is destroying our society.
| javascriptfan69 wrote:
| The same way that social media has destabilized the USA.
|
| By exposing people to a flood of misinformation and
| politically radicalizing content designed to maximize
| engagement via emotion (usually anger).
|
| Remember when Elon Musk alleged that he was going to find
| a trillion dollars (a year) in waste fraud and abuse with
| DOGE? Did he ever issue a correction on that statement
| after catastrophically failing to do so? Do you think
| that kind of messaging might damage the trust in our
| institutions?
| bulbar wrote:
| > Did he ever issue a correction on that statement after
| catastrophically failing to do so?
|
| To be 'fair', finding fraud never was the real purpose of
| DOGE, just some fake argument that enough citizen would
| find plausible.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| It's pretty obvious, media is called the 4th power.
|
| Control the media, you control the information that a
| significant part of Europeans get. Elections aren't won
| by 50%, you only need to convince 4 or 5% of the
| population that the far right is great.
| verdverm wrote:
| > where people can choose
|
| How true is this really?
|
| We certainly have data points to show Musk has put his thumb
| on the scale
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| It is completely literally true. If you look at the
| "Following" feed, you will only get the people you are
| following.
| verdverm wrote:
| While there may be some feeds on Xitter that are basic
| algorithms, (1) it's not the only one (2) there may still
| be less mechanical algorithmic choices within following
| (what order, what mix, how much) (3) evidence to the
| contrary exists, are you freeing yourself of facts?
|
| I haven't dug into whatever they open sourced about the
| algorithm to make definitive statements. Regardless,
| there are many pieces out there where you can learn about
| the evidence for direct manipulation.
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| 1) It's true, you can also choose to follow an
| algorithmic feed which is full of bait.
|
| 2) As far as I can tell, "following" shows everything, in
| order.
|
| 3) You can just go on the app yourself and verify this. I
| haven't seen evidence to the contrary.
| verdverm wrote:
| > You can just go on the app yourself and verify this
|
| That's not how science and statistics works.
| Comprehensive evidence and analysis is a search or chat
| bot away. The legal cases will go into the details as
| well, by nature of how legal proceedings work
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| If you look up info about the Following tab, you will
| find:
|
| "Your Following timeline displays posts from only the
| accounts you follow"
|
| https://help.x.com/en/using-x/x-timeline
|
| Googling "X app Following tab" finds no evidence to the
| contrary. I encourage you to both research this and try
| it yourself on the app.
| 10xDev wrote:
| This is obviously diversion but anyway: Bunch of "American
| and European" "patriots" that he retweets 24/7 turned out to
| be people from Iran, Pakistan, India and Russia. These
| accounts generate likes by default by accounts with "wife of
| vet" in bio and generic old_blonde_women.jpeg aka bots.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj38m11218xo
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| So he retweets accounts which get likes, and this
| destabilizes Europe... how?
| gyudin wrote:
| People having different opinions other than globalists
| elites is destabilizing to their reign :))
| preisschild wrote:
| You meant to write "Literal russian state-sponsored bots"
| nemo44x wrote:
| They can't fathom that their opinions are unpopular and
| probably wrong.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Far right to me is advocating for things that discriminate
| based on protected traits like race, sex, etc. So if you're
| advocating for "white culture" above others, that's far
| right. If you're advocating for the 19th amendment (women's
| right to vote) to be repealed (as Nick Fuentes and similar
| influencers do), that's also far right. Advocating for ICE to
| terrorize peaceful residents, violate constitutional rights,
| or outright execute people is also far right.
|
| Near right to me is advocating for things like lower taxes or
| different regulations or a secure border (but without the
| deportation of millions who are already in the country and
| abiding by laws). Operating the government for those things
| while still respecting the law, upholding the constitution,
| defending civil rights, and avoiding the deeply unethical
| grifting and corruption the Trump administration has
| normalized.
|
| Obviously this is very simplified. What are your definitions
| out of curiosity?
| phasnox wrote:
| By your definition Musk is not far right.
|
| > Avoiding the deeply unethical grifting and corruption the
| Trump administration has normalized.
|
| Care to give examples of these?
| SilverElfin wrote:
| https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-
| large/trumps-pr...
| uep wrote:
| I hate to wade into this cesspool. How about some of the
| real obvious ones: * Crypto currency rug
| pulls (World Liberty Financial) * Donations linked
| with pardons (Binance) * Pardoning failed rebels of
| a coup that favored him (Capitol rioters) *
| Bringing baseless charges against political enemies and
| journalists (Comey, Letitia James, Don Lemon) *
| Musk (DOGE) killing government regulatory agencies that
| had investigations and cases against his companies
|
| This is with two minutes of thought while waiting for a
| compile. I'm open to hearing how I am wrong.
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| I think your definition is mostly fine, although deporting
| illegal immigrants is a moderate position, not near right.
|
| And I would agree with the other reply that Musk is not far
| right by that definition.
| latexr wrote:
| > fairly open platform where people can choose what to post
| and who to follow.
|
| It is well known Musk amplifies his own speech and the words
| of those he agrees with on the platform, while banning those
| he doesn't like.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-m.
| ..
|
| > could you clarify what the difference is between the near
| right and the far right?
|
| It's called far-right because it's further to the right
| (starting from the centre) than the right. Wikipedia is your
| friend, it offers plenty of examples and even helpfully lays
| out the full spectrum in a way even a five year old with a
| developmental impairment could understand.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| My friend Wikipedia tells me that far right means anything
| from outright fascism to mild restrictions on immigration.
| So the term is just meaningless, then?
| antiframe wrote:
| I was surprised by your claim that Wikipedia would
| categorize mild restrictions on immigration as an element
| of far-right politics, so I read that article to see it
| for myself. I didn't see anything about mild
| restrictions. Would you care to point out where you saw
| that?
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| It calls National Rally in France "far right".
| sunshine-o wrote:
| Simply because if you were to ban this type of platform you
| wouldn't need Musk to "move it towards the far right" because
| you would already be the very definition of a totalitarian
| regime.
|
| But whatever zombie government France is running can't "ban" X
| anyway because it would get them one step closer to the
| guillotine. Like in the UK or Germany it is a tinderbox
| cruising on a 10-20% approval rating.
|
| If "French prosecutor" want to find a child abuse case they can
| check the Macron couple Wikipedia pages.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if you were to ban this type of platform you wouldn 't
| need Musk to "move it towards the far right" because you
| would already be the very definition of a totalitarian
| regime_
|
| Paradox of tolerance. (The American right being Exhibit A for
| why trying to let sunlight disinfect a corpse doesn't work.)
| bulbar wrote:
| What do you mean with "this type of platform"? Platforms that
| don't follow (any) national laws have been banned in multiple
| countries over the years.
|
| By itself this isn't extraordinary in a democracy.
| rvnx wrote:
| and France is known for filtering internet access where
| domains are blocked (over 4000 added per year), including
| porn, but also news websites
| lowkey_ wrote:
| > The child abuse feels like a smaller problem compared to that
| risk.
|
| I think we can and should all agree that child sexual abuse is
| a much larger and more serious problem than political leanings.
|
| It's ironic as you're commenting about a social media platform,
| but I think it's frightening what social media has done to us
| with misinformation, vilification, and echo chambers, to think
| political leanings are worse than murder, rape, or child sexual
| abuse.
| lingrush4 wrote:
| In fairness, AI-generated CSAM is nowhere near as evil as
| real CSAM. The reason why possession of CSAM was such a
| serious crime is because its creation used to necessitate the
| abuse of a child.
|
| It's pretty obvious the French are deliberately conflating
| the two to justify attacking a political dissident.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| Definitely agree on which is worse! To be clear, I'm not
| saying I agree with the French raid. Just that statements
| about severe crimes (child sexual abuse for the above
| poster - not AI-generated content) being "lesser problems"
| compared to politics is a concerning measure of how people
| are thinking.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| It may not be worse "objectively" and in direct harm.
|
| However - it has one big problem that is rarely
| discussed... Normalizing of behaviour, interests and
| attitudes. It just becomes a thing that Grok can do - for
| paid accounts, and people think - ok, "no harm, no
| problem"... Long-term, there will be harm. This has been
| demonstrated over decades of investigation of CSAM.
| preisschild wrote:
| Those innocent "political leanings" get people killed. See
| the ICE killings in Minneapolis.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I am not surprised at all. Independent of whether this is true,
| such a decision from the EU would never be acted upon. The
| number of layers between the one who says "ban it" somewhere in
| Bruissels and the operator blackholing the DNS and filtering
| traffic is decades.
| bulbar wrote:
| Why do you think that? It can take a few years for national
| laws bring in place, but that also depends on how much
| certain countries push it. Regarding Internet traffic I
| assume a few specific countries that route most of the
| traffic would be enough to stop operation for the most part.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Have you ever seen an actual EU-wide decision on such
| matters and an actual application?
|
| The closest I can think of is GDPR which has its great
| aspects and also the cookies law (which is incorrectly
| interpreted). And some things like private IPs being PIIs
| which promotes nonsnsical "authorities notifications" that
| are not used afterwards.
|
| We have consulting companies doing yearly audits on
| companies to close the books. And yet hacks happen all the
| time. Without consequences.
|
| There is an ocean between what is announced and lives on
| paper vs. the reality of the application. If you work in
| compliance and cubersecurity you see this everyday.
| q3k wrote:
| There's no tool, technological or legal, to block/ban a website
| EU-wide.
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| They will set their DNS servers to drop all incoming
| connections to X. That can be done in each country. They can
| use Deep Packet inspection tools and go from there. If the
| decision is EU wide then they will roll that out.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Deep packet inspection? What do you mean? Are you talking
| about domain name confiscation or building a Great Firewall
| of EU?
| 936966931646863 wrote:
| True, dissidents commiting wrongthink by not submitting to the
| far-left regimes' ideology should be prosecuted.
| rurban wrote:
| @dang The title here is misleading. The original not.
|
| X didn't raid the prosecutors offices, the prosecutors did
| alexrson wrote:
| I think they meant to put a period after raided.
| labrador wrote:
| Fixed. That period was one char too long but I used an "&"
| instead of "and" to fix it.
| postalrat wrote:
| What X and why did the prosecutors raid their own office?
| chihuahua wrote:
| Some people are calling Twitter "X".
|
| The second part of your question remains a mystery :-)
| latexr wrote:
| @mentions aren't a thing on HN. To contact the moderators,
| email hn@ycombinator.com (contact is at the bottom of the
| page).
| stickfigure wrote:
| Honest question: What does it mean to "raid" the offices of a
| tech company? It's not like they have file cabinets with paper
| records. Are they just seizing employee workstations?
|
| Seems like you'd want to subpoena source code or gmail history or
| something like that. Not much interesting in an office these
| days.
| beart wrote:
| Offline syncing of outlook could reveal a lot of emails that
| would otherwise be on a foreign server. A lot of people save
| copies of documents locally as well.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Most enterprises have fully encrypted workstations, when they
| don't use VM where the desktop is just a thin client that
| doesn't store any data. So there should be really nothing of
| interest in the office itself.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I had the same thought - not just about raids, but about
| raiding a satellite office. This sounds like theater begging
| for headlines like this one.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| They do what they can. They obviously can't raid the American
| office.
| paxys wrote:
| Whether you are a tech company or not, there's a lot of data on
| computers that are physically in the office.
| ramuel wrote:
| Except when they have encryption, which should be the
| standard? I mean how much data would authorities actually
| retrieve when most stuff is located on X servers anyways? I
| have my doubts.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| The authorities will request the keys for local servers and
| will get them. As for remote ones (outside of France
| jurisdiction) it depends where they are and how much X
| wants to make their life difficult.
| ramuel wrote:
| Musk and X don't seem to be the type to care about any
| laws or any compelling legal requests, especially from a
| foreign government. I doubt the French will get anything
| other than this headline.
| Retric wrote:
| Getting kicked out of the EU is extremely unattractive
| for Twitter. But the US also has extradition treaties so
| that's hardly the end of how far they can escalate.
| okanat wrote:
| I don't think US will extradite anybody to EU. Especially
| not white people with strong support of the current
| government.
| Retric wrote:
| White people already extradited to the EU during the
| current administration would disagree. But this
| administration has a limited shelf life, even
| hypothetically just under 3 years of immunity isn't
| enough for comfort.
| wongarsu wrote:
| > But this administration has a limited shelf life, even
| hypothetically just under 3 years of immunity isn't
| enough for comfort.
|
| Depends on how much faith you have in the current
| administration. Russia limits presidents to two 6-year
| terms, yet Putin is in power since 2000.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't think US will extradite anybody to EU_
|
| EU, maybe not. France? A nuclear state? Paris is properly
| sovereign.
|
| > _people with strong support of the current government_
|
| Also known as leverage.
|
| Let Musk off the hook for a sweetheart trade deal. Trump
| has a track record of chickening out when others show
| strength.
| fmajid wrote:
| France doesn't extradite its citizens, even absolute
| scumbags like Roman Polanski. Someone like Musk has lots
| of lawyers to gum up extradition proceedings, even if the
| US were inclined to go along. I doubt the US extradition
| treaty would cover this unless the French could prove
| deliberate sharing of CSAM by Musk personally, beyond
| reckless negligence. Then again, after the Epstein
| revelations, this is no longer so far-fetched.
| krisoft wrote:
| > France? A nuclear state? Paris is properly sovereign.
|
| That is true. But nukes are not magic. Explain to me how
| you imagine the series of events where Paris uses their
| nukes to get the USA to extradite Elon to Paris. Because
| i'm just not seeing it.
| rvnx wrote:
| No need for nukes. France can issue an Interpol Red
| Notice for the arrest of Elon Musk, for whatever excuse
| is found.
| Teever wrote:
| The game changed when Trump threatened the use of
| military force to seize Greenland.
|
| At this point a nuclear power like France has no issue
| with using covert violence to produce compliance from
| Musk and he must know it.
|
| These people have proven themselves to be existential
| threats to French security and France will do whatever
| they feel is necessary to neutralize that threat.
|
| Musk is free to ignore French rule of law if he wants to
| risk being involved in an airplane accident that will
| have rumours and conspiracies swirling around it long
| after he's dead and his body is strewn all over the ocean
| somewhere.
| ronsor wrote:
| You're implying that France is going to become a
| terrorist state? Because suspicious accidents do not
| sound like rule of law.
| Teever wrote:
| Become? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rain
| bow_Warrior
|
| The second Donald Trump threatened to invade a nation
| allied with France is the second anyone who works with
| Trump became a legitimate military target.
|
| Like a cruel child dismembering a spider one limb at a
| time France and other nations around the world will
| meticulously destroy whatever resources people like Musk
| have and the influence it gives him over their countries.
|
| If Musk displays a sufficient level of resistance to
| these actions the French will simply assassinate him.
| hunterpayne wrote:
| You got that backwards. Greenpeace for all its faults is
| still viewed as a group against which military force is a
| no-no. Sinking that ship cost France far more than
| anything they inflicted on Greenpeace. If anything, that
| event is evidence that going after Musk is a terrible
| idea.
|
| PS Yes, Greenpeace is a bunch of scientifically-
| illiterate fools who have caused far more damage than
| they prevented. Doesn't matter because what France did
| was still clearly against the law.
| bulbar wrote:
| Killing foreigners outside of the own country has always
| been deemed acceptable by governments that are (or were
| until recently) considered to generally follow rule of
| law as well as the majority of their citizen. It also
| doesn't necessarily contradicts rule of law.
|
| It's just that the West has avoided to do that to each
| other because they were all essentially allied until
| recently and because the political implications were
| deemed too severe.
|
| I don't think however France has anything to win by doing
| it or has any interest whatsoever and I doubt there's a
| legal framework the French government can or want to
| exploit to conduct something like that legally (like
| calling something an emergency situation or a terrorist
| group, for example).
| cyberax wrote:
| > You're implying that France is going to become a
| terrorist state? Because suspicious accidents do not
| sound like rule of law.
|
| Why not? After all, that's in vogue today. Trump is
| ignoring all the international agreements and rules, so
| why should others follow them?
| hunterpayne wrote:
| Counter-point. France has already kidnapped another
| social media CEO and forced him to give up the encryption
| keys. The moral difference between France (historically
| or currently) and a 3rd wold warlord is very thin. Also,
| look at the accusations. CP and political extremism are
| the classic go-tos when a government doesn't really have
| a reason to put pressure on someone but they really want
| to anyway. France has a very questionable history of
| honoring rule of law in politics. Putting political
| enemies in prison on questionable charges has a long
| history there.
| rvnx wrote:
| We are also talking about a country who wants to ban
| anonymous VPNs in the name of protecting the children and
| ask everyone to give their ID card to register account on
| Instagram, TikTok, etc.
|
| OpenDNS is censored in France... so imagine
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| If I'm an employee working in the X office in France, and
| the police come in and show me they have a warrant for
| all the computers in the building and tell me to unlock
| the laptop, I'm probably going to do that, no matter what
| musk thinks
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Witnesses can generally not refuse in these situations,
| that's plain contempt and/or obstruction. Additionally,
| in France a suspect not revealing their keys is also
| contempt (UK as well).
| rvnx wrote:
| 100%. Only additional troubles for yourself personally,
| for practically no benefit (nobody in the company is
| going to celebrate you).
| ronsor wrote:
| These days many tech company offices have a "panic button" for
| raids that will erase data. Uber is perhaps the most notorious
| example.
| politelemon wrote:
| It's sad to see this degree of incentives perverted, over
| adhering to local laws.
| caminante wrote:
| _> notorious_
|
| What happened to due process? Every major firm should have a
| "dawn raid" policy to comply while preserving rights.
|
| Specific to the Uber case(s), if it were illegal, then why
| didn't Uber get criminal charges or fines?
|
| At best there's an argument that it was "obstructing
| justice," but logging people off, encrypting, and deleting
| local copies isn't necessarily illegal.
| intrasight wrote:
| It is aggressive compliance. The legality would be
| determined by the courts as usual.
| caminante wrote:
| _> aggressive compliance_
|
| Put this up there with nonsensical phrases like "violent
| agreement."
|
| ;-)
| fragmede wrote:
| violent agreement is when you're debating something with
| someone, and you end up yelling at each other because you
| think you disagree on something, but then you realize
| that you (violently, as in "are yelling at each other")
| agree on whatever it is. Agressive compliance is when the
| corporate drone over-zealously follows stupid/pointless
| rules when they could just look the other way, to the
| point of it being aggressively compliant (with stupid
| corporate mumbo jumbo).
| pyrale wrote:
| > if it were illegal, then why didn't Uber get criminal
| charges or fines?
|
| They had a sweet deal with Macron. Prosecution became hard
| to continue once he got involved.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| This is a perfect way for the legal head of the company in-
| country to visit some jails.
|
| They will explain that it was done remotely and whatnot but
| then the company will be closed in the country. Whether this
| matters for the mothership is another story.
| amelius wrote:
| Of course they will not lock the data but hide it, and put
| some redacted or otherwise innocent files in their place.
| acdha wrote:
| That sounds awfully difficult to do perfectly without
| personally signing up for extra jail time for
| premeditated violation of local laws. Like in that
| scenario, any reference to the unsanitized file or a
| single employee breaking omerta is proof that your
| executives and IT staff conspired to violate the law in a
| way which is likely to ensure they want to prosecute as
| maximally as possible. Law enforcement around the world
| hates the idea that you don't respect their authority,
| and when it slots into existing geopolitics you'd be a
| very tempting scapegoat.
|
| Elon probably isn't paying them enough to be the
| lightning rod for the current cross-Atlantic tension.
| amelius wrote:
| These days you can probably ask an LLM to redact the
| files for you, so expect more of it.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Nobody does that. It is either cooperation with law
| enforcement or remote lock (and then there are
| consequences for the in-country legal entity, probably
| not personally for the head but certainly for its
| existence).
|
| This was a common action during the Russian invasion of
| Ukraine for companies that supported Ukraine and closed
| their operations in Russia.
| mr_mitm wrote:
| How do you know this?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| From HN, of course!
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32057651
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| It wasn't erasing as far I know, but locking all computers.
|
| Covered here:
| https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-bosses-
| tol...
| alex1138 wrote:
| Why is this the most upvoted question? Obsessing over pedantry
| rather than the main thrust of what's being discussed
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Gather evidence.
|
| I assume that they have opened a formal investigation and are
| now going to the office to collect/perloin evidence before it's
| destroyed.
|
| Most FAANG companies have training specifically for this. I
| assume X doesn't anymore, because they are cool and edgy, and
| staff training is for the woke.
| niemandhier wrote:
| If that training involves destroying evidence or withholding
| evidence from the prosecution, you are going to jail if you
| follow it.
| hn_go_brrrrr wrote:
| What a strange assumption. The training is "summon the
| lawyers immediately", "ensure they're accompanied at all
| times while on company premises", etc.
| niemandhier wrote:
| That can start with self deleting messages if you are
| under court order, and has happens before:
|
| "Google intended to subvert the discovery process, and
| that Chat evidence was 'lost with the intent to prevent
| its use in litigation' and 'with the intent to deprive
| another party of the information's use in the
| litigation.'"
|
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand
| .37...
|
| VW is another case where similar things happens:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/vw-
| offici...
|
| The thing is: Companies don't got to jail, employees do.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| The training is very much the opposite.
|
| mine had a scene where some bro tried to organise the
| resistance. A voice over told us that he was arrested for
| blocking a legal investigation and was liable for being
| fired due to reputational damage.
|
| X's training might be like you described, but everywhere
| else that is vaguely beholden to law and order would be
| opposite.
| free652 wrote:
| >withholding evidence from the prosecution, you are going
| to jail if you follow.
|
| Prosecution must present a valid search warrant for
| *specific* information. They don't get a carte blanche, so
| uber way is correct. lock computers and lets the courts to
| decide.
| niemandhier wrote:
| Gather evidence against employees, use that evidence to put
| them under pressure to testify against their employer or grant
| access to evidence.
|
| Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to
| place his kids into foster care.
|
| That was legal. Guess what, similar things would be legal in
| France.
|
| We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have real
| power. Western liberal democracies just rarely use it.
|
| The same way the president of the USA can order a Drone strike
| on a Taliban war lord, the president of France could order
| Musks plane to be escorted to Paris by 3 Fighter jets.
| mmooss wrote:
| > Western liberal democracies just rarely use it.
|
| Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents
| have rights and due process.
|
| > Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to
| place his kids into foster care.
|
| Though things like that can happen, which are very serious.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| > defendents have rights and due process.
|
| As they say: you can beat the rap but not the ride. If a
| state wants to make your life incredibly difficult for
| months or even years they can, the competent ones can even
| do it while staying (mostly) on the right side of the law.
| colechristensen wrote:
| We are not entirely sure the rule of law in America isn't
| already over.
|
| People are putting a _lot_ of weight on the midterm
| elections which are more or less the last line of defense
| besides a so far tepid response by the courts and even
| then consequence free defiance of court orders is now
| rampant.
|
| We're really near the point of no return and a lot of
| people don't seem to notice.
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| > We're really near the point of no return and a lot of
| people don't seem to notice.
|
| A lot of people are cheering it (some on this very site).
| toss1 wrote:
| >> they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents
| have rights and due process.
|
| That due process only exists to the extent the branches of
| govt are independent, have co-equal power, and can hold and
| act upon different views of the situation.
|
| When all branches of govt are corrupted or corrupted to
| serve the executive, as in autocracies, that due process
| exists only if the executive likes you, or accepts your
| bribes. That is why there is such a huge push by right-wing
| parties to take over the levers of power, so they can keep
| their power even after they would lose at the ballot box.
| nilamo wrote:
| > Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and
| defendents have rights and due process.
|
| It's a nice sentiment, if true. ICE is out there, right now
| today, ignoring both individual rights as well as due
| process.
| generic92034 wrote:
| They were talking about western liberal democracies,
| though.
|
| /s
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and
| defendents have rights and due process.
|
| As we're seeing with the current US President... the
| government doesn't (have to) care.
|
| In any case, CSAM is the one thing other than Islamist
| terrorism that _will_ bypass a lot of restrictions on how
| police are supposed to operate (see e.g. Encrochat, An0m)
| across virtually all civilized nations. Western nations
| also will take anything that remotely smells like Russia as
| a justification.
| gf000 wrote:
| > As we're seeing with the current US President
|
| Well, that's particular to the US. It just shows that
| checks and balances are not properly implemented there,
| just previous presidents weren't exploiting it
| maliciously for their own gains.
| kps wrote:
| > We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have
| real power.
|
| Elon has ICBMs, but France has warheads.
| speed_spread wrote:
| France has Ariane, which was good enough to send Jame Web
| Telescope to some Lagrange point with extra precision. It's
| all fun and and games until the French finish their
| cigarette, arms French Guyana and fire ze missiles.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have
| real power._
|
| I remember something (probably linked from here), where the
| essayist was comparing Jack Ma, one of the richest men on
| earth, and Xi Jinping, a _much_ lower-paid individual.
|
| They indicated that Xi got Ma into a chokehold. I think he
| "disappeared" Ma for some time. Don't remember exactly how
| long, but it may have been over a year.
| kshacker wrote:
| From what I hear, Ma made 1 speech critical of the
| government and Xi showed him his place. It was a few years,
| a year of total disappearance followed by slow rehab.
|
| But China is different. Not sure most of western europe
| will go that far in most cases.
| hiprob wrote:
| It's legal to just put kids in foster care for no reason but
| to ruin someone's life?
| rvnx wrote:
| In France yes, if you call 119, you can push to have a baby
| taken from a family just because you don't like someone.
|
| It's only then after a long investigation and a "family
| assistant" (that will check you every day), that you can
| recover your baby alone.
|
| -> Example of such case (this man is innocent):
| https://www.lefigaro.fr/faits-divers/var-un-homme-se-
| mobilis...
|
| Typically, ex-wife who doesn't like the ex-husband, but it
| can be a neighbor etc.
|
| People who do fake reports don't get punished, as they just
| claim "there is a worrying situation" (signalement
| preoccupant) and it's difficult to prove intent
| gf000 wrote:
| I mean, that's surely not as simple as you make it out to
| be.
| rvnx wrote:
| I've seen that during harassment of a couple on X /
| YouTube.
|
| In one YouTube live the woman claimed: "today it's my
| husband because sometimes my baby makes me angry that I
| want to kill him"
|
| but she was saying it normally, like any normal person
| does when they are angry.
|
| -> Whoops, someone wrote to 119, baby removed. It's
| already two years.
|
| There is a few non-profit fighting against such:
|
| https://lenfanceaucoeur.org/quest-ce-que-le-placement-
| abusif...
|
| That being said, it's a very small % obviously
| agoodusername63 wrote:
| I can't believe theres a country out there that has
| recreated the DMCA but for child welfare
| gruez wrote:
| >Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to
| place his kids into foster care.
|
| >That was legal. Guess what, similar things would be legal in
| France.
|
| lawfare is... good now? Between Trump being hit with felony
| charges for falsifying business records (lawfare is good?)
| and Lisa Cook getting prosecuted for mortgage fraud (lawfare
| is bad?), I honestly lost track at this point.
|
| >The same way the president of the USA can order a Drone
| strike on a Taliban war lord, the president of France could
| order Musks plane to be escorted to Paris by 3 Fighter jets.
|
| What's even the implication here? That they're going to shoot
| his plane down? If there's no threat of violence, what does
| the French government even hope to achieve with this?
| knallfrosch wrote:
| fighter jets ARE a threat of violence, and it is widely
| understood and acknowledged.
|
| Again: the threat is so clear that you rarely have to
| execute on it.
| gruez wrote:
| >fighter jets ARE a threat of violence, and it is widely
| understood and acknowledged.
|
| That's not a credible threat because there's
| approximately 0% chance France would actually follow
| through with it. Not even Trump would resort to murder to
| get rid of his domestic adversaries. As we seen the fed,
| the best he could muster are some spurious prosecutions.
| France murdering someone would put them on par with
| Russia or India.
| xoxolian wrote:
| > We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have
| real power.
|
| Interesting point. There's a top gangster who can buy
| anything in the prison commissary; and then there's the
| warden.
| hkpack wrote:
| No, state decides on the rules of the game any business is
| playing by.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| > Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to
| place his kids into foster care.
|
| This is pretty messed up btw.
|
| Social work for children systems in the USA are very messed
| up. It is not uncommon for minority families to lose rights
| to parent their children for very innocuous things that would
| not happen to a non-oppressed class.
|
| It is just another way for the justice/legal system to
| pressure families that have not been convicted / penalized
| under the supervision of a court.
|
| And this isn't the only lever they use.
|
| Every time I read crap like this I just think of Aaron
| Swartz.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Seems like you'd want to subpoena source code or gmail
| history or something like that.
|
| This would be done in parallel for key sources.
|
| There is a lot of information on physical devices that is
| helpful, though. Even discovering additional apps and services
| used on the devices can lead to more discovery via those cloud
| services, if relevant.
|
| Physical devices have a lot of additional information, though:
| Files people are actively working on, saved snippets and
| screenshots of important conversations, and synced data that
| might be easier to get offline than through legal means against
| the providers.
|
| In outright criminal cases it's not uncommon for individuals to
| keep extra information on their laptop, phone, or a USB drive
| hidden in their office as an insurance policy.
|
| This is yet another good reason to keep your work and personal
| devices separate, as hard as that can be at times. If there's a
| lawsuit you don't want your personal laptop and phone to
| disappear for a while.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Sure it might be on the device, but they would need a
| password to decrypt the laptop's storage to get any of the
| data. There's also the possibility of the MDM software making
| it impossible to decrypt if given a remote signal. Even if
| you image the drive, you can't image the secure enclave so if
| it is wiped it's impossible to retrieve.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I read somewhere that Musk (or maybe Theil) companies have
| processes in place to quickly offload data from a location to
| other jurisdictions (and destroy the local data) when they
| detect a raid happening. Don't know how true it is though. The
| only insight I have into their operations was the amazing speed
| by which people are badged in and out of his various
| gigafactories. It "appears" that they developed custom badging
| systems when people drive into gigafactories to cut the time
| needed to begin work. If they are doing that kind of stuff then
| there has got to be something in place for a raid. (This is
| second hand so take with a grain of salt)
|
| EDIT: It seems from other comments that it may have been Uber I
| was reading about. The badging system I have personally
| observed outside the Gigafactories. Apologies for the mixup.
| malfist wrote:
| That is very much illegal in the US
| int_19h wrote:
| It wouldn't be the first time a Musk company knowingly does
| something illegal.
|
| I think as far as Musk is concerned, laws only apply in the
| "don't get caught" sense.
| rvnx wrote:
| give any country a gift / investment of 100B USD
|
| -> crimes ? what crimes ?
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| > Are they just seizing employee workstations?
|
| Yes.
| jimbo808 wrote:
| It sounds better in the news when you do a raid. These things
| are generally not done for any purpose other than to
| communicate a message and score political points.
| eli wrote:
| Why don't you think they have file cabinets and paper records?
| verdverm wrote:
| France24 article on this:
| https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260203-paris-prosecutor...
|
| lol, they summoned Elon for a hearing on 420
|
| "Summons for voluntary interviews on April 20, 2026, in Paris
| have been sent to Mr. Elon Musk and Ms. Linda Yaccarino, in their
| capacity as de facto and de jure managers of the X platform at
| the time of the events,
| miltonlost wrote:
| I wonder how he'll try to get out of being summoned. Claim 4/20
| is a holiday that he celebrates?
| verdverm wrote:
| It's voluntary
| dgxyz wrote:
| They'll make a judgement without him if he doesn't turn up.
| pyrale wrote:
| An "audition en tant que temoin libre" is more or less
| the way for an investigation to give a chance to give
| their side of the story. Musk is not likely to be
| personally tried here.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| > Claim 4/20 is a holiday that he celebrates?
|
| Given his recent "far right" bromance that's probably not a
| good idea ;)
| verdverm wrote:
| It hadn't occurred to me that might be the reason they
| picked 420
| layer8 wrote:
| It's unlikely, because putting the month first is a US
| thing. In France it would be 20/04, or "20 avril".
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Still, stoner-cultures in many countries in Europe
| celebrate 4-20, definitively a bunch of Frenchies getting
| extra stoned that day. It's probably the de-facto
| "international cannabis day" in most places in the world,
| at least the ones influenced by US culture which reached
| pretty far in its heyday.
| miltonlost wrote:
| Oh, that was 100% in my mind when I wrote that. I was
| wondering how explicit to be with Musk's celebrating being
| for someone's birthday.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| We'll know he's gone too far if he has to take another
| "voluntary" trip to Israel
| sophacles wrote:
| Wouldn't celebrating hitler's birthday be good for his far-
| right bromance?
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| you would perhaps be shocked to learn how right-leaning the
| money folks behind the legal and legacy cannabis markets
| actually are. money is money.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Why "lol"?
| verdverm wrote:
| 420 is a stoner number, stoners lol a lot, thought of Elmo's
| failed joint smoking on JRE before I stopped watching
|
| ...but then other commenters reminded me there is another
| thing on the same date, which might have been more the actual
| troll at Elmo to get him all worked up
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Well yes, if France24 was using "20 April 2026" as we write
| here, there would be no misunderstanding.
|
| I believe people are looking too much into 20 April - 4/20
| - 420
| verdverm wrote:
| Thanks for the cultural perspective / reminder, yes that
| is definitely an American automatic translation
| LightBug1 wrote:
| April 20th most definitely is international stoners day.
| And I like what the French have done here!
| why_at wrote:
| >The Paris prosecutor's office said it launched the
| investigation after being contacted by a lawmaker alleging that
| biased algorithms in X were likely to have distorted the
| operation of an automated data processing system.
|
| I'm not at all familiar with French law, and I don't have any
| sympathy for Elon Musk or X. That said, is this a crime?
|
| Distorted the operation how? By making their chatbot more
| likely to say stupid conspiracies or something? Is that even
| against the law?
| int_19h wrote:
| Holocaust denial is illegal in France, for one, and Grok did
| exactly that on several occasions.
| pyrale wrote:
| Also, csam and pornographic content using the likeness of
| unwilling people. Grok's recent shit was bound to have
| consequences.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I'm not at all familiar with French law, and I don't have
| any sympathy for Elon Musk or X. That said, is this a crime?
|
| GDPR and DMA actually have teeth. They just haven't been
| shown yet because the usual M.O. for European law violators
| is first, a free reminder "hey guys, what you're doing is
| against the law, stop it, _or else_ ". Then, if violations
| continue, maybe two or three rounds follow... but at some
| point, especially if the violations are openly intentional
| (and Musk's behavior makes that very very clear), the hammer
| gets brought down.
|
| Our system is based on the idea that we institute complex
| regulations, and when they get introduced and stuff goes
| south, we assume that it's innocent mistakes first.
|
| And in addition to that, there's the geopolitical aspect...
| basically, hurt Musk to show Trump that, yes, Europe means
| business and has the means to fight back.
|
| As for the allegations:
|
| > The probe has since expanded to investigate alleged
| "complicity" in spreading pornographic images of minors,
| sexually explicit deepfakes, denial of crimes against
| humanity and manipulation of an automated data processing
| system as part of an organised group, and other offences, the
| office said in a statement Tuesday.
|
| The GDPR/DMA stuff just was the opener anyway. CSAM isn't
| liked by authorities at all, and genocide denial (we're not
| talking about Palestine here, calm your horses y'all, we're
| talking about Holocaust denial) is a crime in most European
| jurisdiction (in addition to doing the right-arm salute and
| other displays of fascist insignia). We actually _learned_
| something out of WW2.
| xdennis wrote:
| > lol, they summoned Elon for a hearing on 420
|
| No. It's 20 April in the rest of the world: 204.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46868998
| scotty79 wrote:
| Facebook offices should routinely raided for aiding and
| profitting from various scams propagated through ads on this
| platform.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| That would apply to any and all social media though
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Sounds awesome, when do we start?
| bluescrn wrote:
| Governments dont't care about minor scams. Political speech
| against them, on the other hand...
| ta9000 wrote:
| Guess that will be a SpaceX problem soon enough. What a mess.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I wonder if the recent announcement spurred them into making a
| move now rather than later.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| How was that move legal anyway? Like... a lot of people and
| governments gave Musk money to develop, build and launch
| rockets. And now he's using it to bail out his failing social
| media network and CSAM peddling AI service.
| wmf wrote:
| Once he launched the rockets he can do whatever he wants with
| the profit. And he wants to train Grok.
| Psillisp wrote:
| CSAM in space! At least he isn't reinventing the cross town
| bus.
| kalterdev wrote:
| Yet another nail
| tomlockwood wrote:
| Elon's in the files asking Epstein about "wild parties" and then
| doesn't seem to care about all this. Easy to draw a conclusion
| here.
| alex1138 wrote:
| Elon is literally in the files, talking about going to the
| island. It's documented
| chihuahua wrote:
| He was only going to the island to get rid of bots on
| Twitter. Just like OJ spent the rest of his life looking for
| the real killer.
| alex1138 wrote:
| It's timestamped like 2013, I think. Years before he bought
| Twitter (yes, I know you're joking)
| andrewflnr wrote:
| He was planning way ahead, like a real genius.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Who knows who did what on this island, and I hope we'll
| figure it out. But in the meantime, going to this island
| or/and being friend with Epstein doesn't automatically make
| someone a pedo or rapist.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Neither does your wife divorcing you at about the same time
| things started to go through legal process...
|
| Oops... yeah, in retrospect it was even worse... no... you
| can and should be judged by the friends you keep and hang-
| out with... The same ones who seem to be circling the
| wagons with innocuous statements or attempts to find other
| scapegoats (DARVO)... hmm, what was that quote again:
|
| "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately"
| guywithahat wrote:
| All I've seen is Elon tried to invite himself to the "wild
| parties" and they told him he couldn't come and that they
| weren't doing them anymore lol. It's possible he went but, from
| what I've seen, he wasn't ever invited.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Why would X have offices in France? I'm assuming it's just to
| hire French workers? Probably leftover from the Pre Acquisition
| era.
|
| Or is there any France-specific compliance that must be done in
| order to operate in that country?
| mike-the-mikado wrote:
| X makes its money selling advertising. France is the obvious
| place to have an office selling advertising to a large European
| French-speaking audience.
| joshuaheard wrote:
| Yes, Paris is an international capital and centrally located
| for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Many tech companies
| have sales offices there.
| orwin wrote:
| Ok, that's the second article on this that doesn't mention how it
| works in France.
|
| I will explain because I see a lot of post that could be better
| if their author understood that the French system isn't the US
| system.
|
| France 'prosecutor' role is divided in two: one is called
| 'procureur' and represent the state, but is chosen among judges
| by the executive power. The second is 'juge d'instruction' and
| represent the judiciary. They are chosen nominated by the local
| court without any executive power involvement. They lead the
| investigation, they order the raids, they order the arrest etc,
| without involvement from the 'procureur'.
|
| The 'procureur' ask for a 'juge d'instruction' to lead an
| investigation on X/Y or Z (this fucking company name makes
| everything worse FFS). The judge will then collect evidence, for
| and against the procureur case, and then if necessary will ask
| for raids and auditions to finalise. When that's done and all the
| new evidence is collected (it can take on average 2 years, but if
| it's an international case like for our ex-president, it can take
| 10+), the 'juge d'instruction' will present all the gathered
| evidence to the procureur (who will decide to pursue or not)
| _and_ the accused.
|
| This system exists to avoid as much as possible the executive
| (police and politicians) to use investigations as a scare tactic.
| Of course the magistrates know each other, and both corruption
| and influence is possible, and maybe that's the case here, but
| you ought to know the raid can't be at the behest of the
| procureur/president. We take separation of powers seriously here
| fluoridation wrote:
| What's the distinction you're making between "state" and
| "judiciary"?
| pyrale wrote:
| Traditionally, in France, l'Etat (likely translated into "the
| state" here) refers to the national-level executive branch.
| looperhacks wrote:
| The procureur is part of the executive, and thus represents,
| and is directed by, the government. The other is independent
| from the executive, as part of the judicary branch.
| Traster wrote:
| Thanks for this, it's really important to reflect the fact that
| aside from anything else, the common law tradition practiced in
| most anglophone countries is fundamentally at odds with a lot
| of European countries.
| tehjoker wrote:
| It's cool that not every law enforcement agency in the world is
| under the complete thumb of U.S. based billionaires.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> They have also summoned billionaire owner Elon Musk for
| questioning._
|
| Good luck with that...
| dathinab wrote:
| the thing is a lot of recent legal preceding surrounding X is
| about weather X fulfilled the legally required due diligence
| and if not what level of negligence we are speaking about
|
| and the things about negligence which caused harm to humans
| (instead of e.g. just financial harm) is that
|
| a) you can't opt out of responsibility, it doesn't matter what
| you put into your TOS or other contracts
|
| b) executives which are found responsible for the negligent
| action of a company can be hold _personally_ liable
|
| and independent of what X actually did Musk as highest level
| executive personal did
|
| 1) frequently did statements that imply gross negligence (to be
| clear that isn't necessary how X acted, which is the actual
| relevant part)
|
| 2) claimed that all major engineering decisions etc. are from
| him and no one else (because he love bragging about how good of
| an engineer he is)
|
| This means summoning him for questioning is legally speaking a
| must have independent of weather you expect him to show up or
| not. And he probably should take it serious, even if that just
| means he also could send a different higher level executive
| from X instead.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I guess he could just never enter the EU ever again. Maybe he
| can buy Little St. James.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I guess this means that building the neverending 'deepfake CSAM
| on demand machine' was a bad idea.
| jongjong wrote:
| Once you've worked long enough in the software industry, you
| start to understand it's all just a fully planned economy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-03 23:00 UTC)