GitHub censored my research data • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#141

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:14 PM UTC

llukas wrote: post #73

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even if it were (a list of vulnerable systems, that is), why the fuck do they think that they should censor serious journalism? If you operate a public venue, then it is an important societal role of journalism to report on it if that public venue poses a risk to the public, whether that might also have negative consequences for the people operating it is completely irrelevant.

You mistook "free and accessible" with "public". You may exercise freedom of speech but not on server that belongs to a private company - it is their right to limit what kind of content they like. But in an essence you are right - companies should exist to benefit society, but it is not how it exactly works right now.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#142

Post by runholm » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

johnsea wrote: post #65

gwillem wrote: post #40

GL sent me this statement. For the record, I didn't publish vulnerable systems, I published stores that have malware. --- Willem, GitLab has opted to remove the list of servers that you posted in your snippet. GitLab views the exposure of the vulnerable systems as egregious and will not abide it. While GiLab reserves the right take further action, up to and including termination ( https://about.gitlab.com/terms/ ), w…

Did you ask them for permission to publish a private communication? Probably not, bad of you! - Github/-lab is for projects imho and not a publishing platform. Why don't you publish it on your blog or something? All power to Github/-lab, kick out such stuff!

They are both offering hosting of websites. They are absolutely a publishing platform.

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#143

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:25 PM UTC

johnsea wrote: post #123

Singletoned wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that they both offer to host web sites, then they are both (to some extent) publishing platforms. https://pages.github.com/ https://pages.gitlab.io/

As you said: to some extent! Have a look at the "What is Github Pages" [1] and one clearly feels that Pages is meant for software, projects, manuals etc. And NOT to publish documents to shame 3rd party misbehaviour and hopefully attract publicity and quarrel. Such content should go to other places (imho). [1] https://pages.github.com/

Why are you so angry? This is not about shaming, but protecting customers - first thing I did even before reading the full article was to click the link to see if I have given my CC to fraudsters, then I was gifted with a 404 from GitLab.

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#144

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

sh1392 wrote: post #39

We at GitLab believe the author did not responsibly disclose this security information in a proper manner, and today we removed the list of hosts in accordance with our terms of service ( https://about.gitlab.com/terms/ ). The author says that he contacted "about 30 merchants directly", but the published list includes over 1000 merchants. Most merchants were neither informed nor given a chance to respond in a timely…

Why did you feel like you needed to respond through a throwaway account?

How can we even tell this is an official statement from GitLab?

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#145

Post by orf » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

formula_ninguna wrote: post #127

The malisious code on those websites isn't your bussiness guys. If their owners wish not to respond and not fix it -- they have a right to do so. Why are you all so anxious? It has nothing to do with you all. Just don't buy from them, that is simple. Needless to say, I've seen most of those websites for the 1st time. The world is unfair? No, it's fair and this proves that it is fair.

What a stupid comment. Here is a list of thousands of sites that people other than you do visit and buy from, causing their cards to be skimmed, and your response is 'stop being so uptight'?

Imagine if this is instead a list of real world ATMs. The correct response is not "well ive never seen these ATMs before just don't use them, duh", it's "how the fuck can this be allowed to happen and how do we fix it".

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#146

Post by gravypod » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

PuffinBlue wrote: post #140

BoorishBears wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hate this trend of journalism leaking into services like Github. We have secure ways to share files with high redundancy, why put a service like Github/Gitlab in the line of fire when their primary goal is to enable open collaboration, vs open information.

What services are you referring to please?

Make a torrent?

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#147

Post by zimbatm » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

Why is a third-party required to publish the list, couldn't it be hosted on the blog post itself? That would have the advantage of being to archive the whole thing on a single page.

Re: GitHub censored my research data

#148

Post by jrochkind1 » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

> I understand that Github doesn’t have the resources to investigate each and every DMCA notice.

The DMCA as written really encourages no investigation whatsoever on the part of the service provider, this is pretty much how everyone acts. File a counter-notice with the service provider if you don't think your content violates anyone's copyright.

In this case, if Github took it down because of a DMCA notice, i think Github actually behaved _better_ than Gitlab. Github is simply following DMCA, if you file a counter-notice, they'll probably restore it -- if they don't, and say it's not an issue of copyright, it's just that they don't want to host your material, then at that point they'll be behaving similarly to Gitlab. Gitlab did not take it down because of a DMCA notice, they took it down because they decided it was 'egregious' and they just didn't want to host it.

https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-...

I can't find any gitlab docs on filing a DMCA counter notice. Their DMCA policy at https://about.gitlab.com/dmca/ is short and solely targetted at those claiming infringement, there is no description of how to file a counter-notice.

In this case, I think github wins. The terrible parts of github's counter-notice policy (10-14 days until your content comes back) is part of the DMCA law. Take it up with your congresspeople. http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-dmca-how-it-works-and-how-its-abu...

However, reading OP again -- it's not clear to me that Github took it down because of DMCA. They may simply be acting exactly like Gitlab, taking it down because they don't want to host it, unrelated to DMCA. But I wanted to clear up some things about the DMCA, since OP mentioned it.