Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

adguard-dns.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 473 posts

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#231

Post by ngriffiths »

salawat wrote: post #191
ngriffiths wrote: post #162

> a private company shouldn’t have to decide what counts as “illegal” content under threat of legal action. Immediately reminded me of patio11's amazing write up[1] of debanking, featuring banks being deputized as law enforcement for financial crimes (which is completely non controversial), and even used as a convenient tool to regulate other industries that the white house didn't like (kinda controversial). [1]: htt…

I strongly disagree that financial institutions being a de facto extension of law enforcement is "non-controversial". It may be the way things are ; it may be a pre-req of making financial crime tractable; but that does not detract from the fact that every financial institution is in essence, deputized law enforcement, and negate the chilling effect that comes as a consequence thereof on a business environment subjec…

Fair enough. It was something that impressed me when I first read about it. You hear about disputes between Apple and the FBI over unlocking phones and meanwhile banks are like "and over here are whole floors of analysts tracking suspicious stuff." I definitely agree there are downsides and not everyone is happy about the floors of analysts, but I do think they are very far away from the Overton window.

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#232

Post by mrtksn »

fragmede wrote: post #221
AstralStorm wrote: post #193

How can you even sue without any legal identity? This website and an organisation does not happen to have any. Might as well be some shell company in the Carribeans with no legal standing in France. It's not even good enough for public prosecution, as the tip would then go through French services. This law is completely backwards, and worse than a SLAPP. If you cannot respond to a report in any way, it should be null…

US courts let you sue objects under "in rem" jurisdiction. In rem = the thing is the defendant. You're not suing a person, and you're asking the court to decide who owns or controls a specific property. The quintessential case is United States v. $124,700 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

Interesting, so the US already has the tools to go after AI, self driving cars and robots.

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#233

Post by bee_rider »

amiga386 wrote: post #182
rgj wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But apparently there was actual CSAM there, since the article mentioned that archive.is removed it within a few hours. So the claim was real. Why did they make up such a story around it?

False flag attacks are a thing that wannabe censors do. They post CSAM to some service/site, then immediately report it to every possible contact of the site's hosting provider, DNS provider, DDoS protection provider, etc. But not the site itself. Before they do that, they spend weeks probing the site's moderation response, to work out the best time to evade detection on the site itself. Then they do it again, and ag…

I don’t understand this attack, are these reports anonymous or something?

In order to pull off this attack the attacker would have to have a collection of CSAM to upload. What if the site being attacked logged the uploader’s IP and went above-and-beyond complying with authorities and provided the source of the upload.

Well, I guess some people doing this sort of thing would try to hide their identity while doing the upload. Honestly, in that case… it might be reasonable for sites to not accept uploads via things like TOR, right? (Or however else these people hide their tracks).

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#234

Post by sans_souse »

I wonder if ignoring the email and forcing a more official action would have been the better move here, in retrospect? Perhaps I am ignorant on the legal responsibilities of your services, just seems like something more formal than an email would have at least served more as "official notice"

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#235

Post by vintermann »

phyzome wrote: post #88
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> KF/SaSu/SF SaSu: Sanctioned Suicide [1] But I don't know what KF and SF are supposed to stand for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctioned_Suicide

KF would be KiwiFarms

They're under a CSAM flood/reporting attack themselves, according to their admin.

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#236

Post by brookst »

meowface wrote: post #228
ricardobeat wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since archive.is doesn’t scan the internet and only archives content on demand, those might as well have been planted exactly for this purpose - which would put another crime onto the accuser.

[flagged]

It’s a reasonable possibility to consider given the evidence of bad faith, the factually incorrect claims, the apparent impersonation of a lawyer, and the apparent history of targeting using similar claims but “different” claimants.

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#237

Post by codedokode »

bee_rider wrote: post #233
amiga386 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False flag attacks are a thing that wannabe censors do. They post CSAM to some service/site, then immediately report it to every possible contact of the site's hosting provider, DNS provider, DDoS protection provider, etc. But not the site itself. Before they do that, they spend weeks probing the site's moderation response, to work out the best time to evade detection on the site itself. Then they do it again, and ag…

I don’t understand this attack, are these reports anonymous or something? In order to pull off this attack the attacker would have to have a collection of CSAM to upload. What if the site being attacked logged the uploader’s IP and went above-and-beyond complying with authorities and provided the source of the upload. Well, I guess some people doing this sort of thing would try to hide their identity while doing the…

I assume people who do this also do other illegal things and know how to anonymize themselves.

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#238

Post by vintermann »

immibis wrote: post #154
iamnothere wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why you are downvoted, this is absolutely what happened semi-frequently until Reddit was finally forced to crack down on it. The same thing happened on Twitter/X for a while where bots would mass reply to targeted users with gore and CSAM.

I downvoted it because it's commonly said by people who do bad things, as a red herring. "People from your subreddit keep killing people" "Well at least we're not infected by the woke mind virus"/"You can't accuse us of that just because we don't agree with the hivemind"/etc. It's no different from "but her emails" etc.

If there was one thing I could make people understand: Even though bad people are saying it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Social media false flag tactics happen. People from all over all sorts of political spectrums tell the same story. The sites tell the same story.

If you decide to blindly dismiss claims of abuse because you don't like the ones claiming to be abused, you create a comfy little space for abuse to happen.

Re: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

#239

Post by hobs »

gruez wrote: post #145
immibis wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>with the evidence from the emails we can upgrade it to the much more direct fact "President Trump is a pedophile who liked to rape little girls" A bunch of vaguely worded emails is enough to summarily conclude that someone is a criminal? I'm glad you're not a judge.

And pictures and letters and cohabitation and friendship and mutual business arrangements and the list goes on. The court of public opinion is not an actual court.
Post reply on HN