484
Epstein Files: Investigation suggests just 2% of data released to public
(www.channel4.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
484 points (100.0% liked)
News
35774 readers
2217 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't want to be the one to view them, but I want them to be viewable.
You want the CSAM to be viewable? You are calling for the public release of CSAM?
A necessary casualty. Somewhere in that material is evidence of abuse, and it needs to be investigated and prosecuted. We can't trust the current administration to adequately do either of those things in good faith, so it needs to be analyzed publicly if there is ever to be any sort of justice for the victims.
A functional justice system would have resolved this years ago, but we don't have one of those so I really don't see any alternative other than making everything public.
If its viewable then it will be a lot more difficult for idiots to argue that the Epstein files is a hoax
You want kid’s histories of child abuse viewable for… evidence?
Wow… yeah, we need to re-traumatize kids by posting their naked bodies online because that’s how we prove Epstein really abused kids
Then censor their identities. The reality is they're trying to push the narrative that they didn't abuse children, and if they released it that narrative would be completely crushed which would be far more devastating for the government than what's happening right now.
Yes. That is the only path forward given the statements and reusable to move forward with any charges.
They are counting on our ick to get away with this. They have actually used this as a reason. Why should anyone still giving them the benefit of the doubt? They are child predators and child predator enablers. By siding with them, you become one of them.
Releasing documentation of what happened doesn't change what happened, it isn't going to incentivize rich assholed to make more.
How does CSAM tell you anything about the abuser? It only reveals the victim.
Often the abuser is in the photo. That's led to the arrest of many a child abuser. The only reason that releasing the evidence in this case is necessary is that the people who we usually trust to look at the evidence and pursue the guilty party are not doing their fucking jobs.
Really? You see a lot of CSAM? That’s not my understanding of it at all, but I’ll defer to the expert
That's fine, becoming an expert in the field is a fucking nightmare. Even the people who can stomach it need regular therapy to keep them from suffering too much trauma. I would not recommend it.
I do not see a lot of csam, I'm not in law enforcement or the legal arts. However, I've worked with people who do both, and there's also plenty of literature on the subject. Studying the material itself is absolutely necessary to solve a lot of these crimes.
It's not often the abusers directly showing their face, but that does happen more often than you think. Criminals are often dumb. But you can tell a lot from the backgrounds, or objects carelessly left in view, like newspapers or phones or food wrappers. Locations can be determined. If the child can be identified and it's unclear who took the pictures, you can identify the people they were in contact with and use the photos to narrow down the search.
In this case, the photos were taken partly as blackmail material, so they are very useful to find the people guilty of the abuse, and prove their guilt.
Now, I am sure you would agree that what should happen is that the DOJ and the FBI should go over all this evidence, using all the resources they have available, the professional investigators, etc, which does not require releasing any pictures to the public. Any that do get released, to satisfy the public right to know, should be carefully redacted to protect identities of the victims, not show their bodies even if they cannot be identified, etc, because that is basic decency.
WE ARE WAY PAST FUCKING "SHOULD".
The FBI and DOJ are dead. They are useless sacks of shit. They have been captured by the people who did the crime. There is now no alternative but to crowdsource the justice that has been denied by normal means. That means that the pictures should be released, with victims redacted, and abusers left visible, so the world can know who they are and exact what justice can be obtained by whatever means.
Yes, that's not ideal. Ideal left the conversation years ago.