Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
1–10 of 473 posts
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#2I don't know anything about Adguard, but good on the team for doing the extra digging instead of just going along with the claim. Even better that they're sharing what they've found with everyone else.
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#3I don't know anything about Adguard, but good on the team for doing the extra digging instead of just going along with the claim. Even better that they're sharing what they've found with everyone else.
Yes kudo. The pressure could simply be inferred as due to the arrogant trend one can observe, the editing of history.
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#4archive.is is frequently used to bypass paywalls, I wonder if this is motivated by that somehow
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#5I don't know anything about Adguard, but good on the team for doing the extra digging instead of just going along with the claim. Even better that they're sharing what they've found with everyone else.
[deleted]
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#6Its interesting that being unable to find a legal route to dig up dirt on archive.is, they're going the route of CSAM allegations.
I first heard of this technique on a discussion on Lowendtalk from a hoster discussing how pressure campaigns were orchestrated.
The host used to host VMs for a customer that was not well liked but otherwise within the bounds of free speech in the US (I guess something on the order of KF/SaSu/SF), so a given user would upload CSAM on the forum, then report the same CSAM to the hoster. They used to use the same IP address for their entire operation. When the host and the customer compared notes, they'd find about these details.
Honestly at the time I thought the story was bunk, in the age of residential proxies and VPNs and whatnot, surely whoever did this wouldn't just upload said CSAM from their own IP, but one possible explanation would be that the forum probably just blocked datacenter IPs wholesale and the person orchestrating the campaign wasn't willing to risk the legal fallout of uploading CSAM out of some regular citizen's infected device.
In this case, I assume law enforcement just sets up a website with said CSAM, gets archive.is to crawl it, and then pressurize DNS providers about it.
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#7This just shows that LCEN, DMCA, etc are poorly crafted laws. They ineffectually stop the abuse they claim to end (like copyright infringement). But it does allow large organizations a cudgel to protect their own IP.
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#8This just shows that LCEN, DMCA, etc are poorly crafted laws. They ineffectually stop the abuse they claim to end (like copyright infringement). But it does allow large organizations a cudgel to protect their own IP.
I think they’re well crafted laws because I think that’s their intended purpose.
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#9The wording in that follow-up email is so emotive it reads more like a Tweet than formal contact from a federal organisation.
That in itself is quite shocking really.
Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today
#10I speculate, and the conspiracy theorist in me believes, something of a compromising nature has been archived and they want that data inaccessible, but at the same time, pointing out what they want hidden would shine a light on it.
It is even more interesting the US government is coming after archive.today at the same time, or maybe that is just a coincidence, and this is just a tech-savvy philanderer trying to hide something from his wife.