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

FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#21

Post by AlienRobot »

dogma1138 wrote: post #20
AlienRobot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hash.

You both need to generate the hash at the point of archival correctly and store it in a way that cannot be modified later on. Doing that with a blockchain like tech is one of the few use cases where the tech itself actually adds value. Heck you might be able to store the entire pages on a blockchain or a blockchain linked storage. The problem with these sites is that we implicitly trust them and unlike a book or othe…

You only need the hash of the original content. No blockchain is necessary. The problem is that there is no source for that hash except for the scraper that archives it since people don't put the hash in a hyperlink.

If you download an ISO for a Linux OS for example, they give you the hash of the file so you can check it. They don't build an entire blockchain whatever to validate the hash.

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#22

Post by lschueller »

I would bet, even when the fbi is able to track down archive.today, it will be a matter of hours until the archive is shifted to another network and reinstated.. Even though if a certain amount of archived data might be lost, the core service will be rehosted quite fast somewhere else, i would think.

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#23

Post by rekabis »

walletdrainer wrote: post #6
duxup wrote: post #2

People who steal from Americans get pardons... archive.is gets the the Feds on them. The current administration would be a good joke if it wasn't real.

FWIW circumventing various paywalls is probably the bad thing archive.is is being investigated for, not the archiving bit.

An AdGuard employee working their Reddit subreddit let slip that the legal order that forced them to block those domains (from their ad-blocking DNS) was a - claimed! - result of Archive.today having saved CP and refusing to delete it.

Methinks someone accidentally archived the Epstein files, and the FBI is desperately trying to scrub the unredacted backups before the archive URL becomes well-known. That alone would align somewhat with the CP claim,

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#24

Post by dpark »

dogma1138 wrote: post #20
AlienRobot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hash.

You both need to generate the hash at the point of archival correctly and store it in a way that cannot be modified later on. Doing that with a blockchain like tech is one of the few use cases where the tech itself actually adds value. Heck you might be able to store the entire pages on a blockchain or a blockchain linked storage. The problem with these sites is that we implicitly trust them and unlike a book or othe…

This is getting to blockchain for the sake of blockchain.

If Wikipedia recorded the hash of every referenced page you could verify that the archive.is page is unchanged.

You could certainly argue that archive.is isn’t the right place to store archives (I have no idea) but attempting to move all this to the blockchain would be very expensive.

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#25

Post by egberts1 »

Galanwe wrote: post #15
dpark wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the blockchain be useful here? You don’t need a blockchain to store a hash.

You do need some kind of reliable, distributed storage though. The sequential nature of a blockchain also ensures that such stored content is held no matter what by any full node.

No, just no.

A simple four-hash like BSD or Gentoo Linux do with their repository is more than sufficient.

No need to record who is requesting the recording, much leas fetchibg.

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#27

Post by walletdrainer »

tw04 wrote: post #8
walletdrainer wrote: post #5

> The subpoena is supposed to be secret Ars inventing their own colour here. This is simply not true.

>Ars inventing their own colour here. This is simply not true. What are you talking about? Right at the top of the subpoena it literally says in bold and all caps, and I quote: >YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA INDEFNITELY AS ANY SUCH DISCLOSURE COULD INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.

You are absolutely allowed to do whatever you want with the subpoena unless you’re ordered by some authority not to do so.

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#28

Post by walletdrainer »

dogma1138 wrote: post #9
walletdrainer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW circumventing various paywalls is probably the bad thing archive.is is being investigated for, not the archiving bit.

Do they actually do anything to circumvent paywalls or do websites just whitelist their crawlers?

Websites don’t whitelist their crawlers, they maintain custom bypasses for a wide variety of websites.

If the websites were inclined to whitelist these crawlers, they’d also whitelist archive.org which is actually easy to whitelist. Archive.is is not

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#29

Post by Galanwe »

egberts1 wrote: post #25
Galanwe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do need some kind of reliable, distributed storage though. The sequential nature of a blockchain also ensures that such stored content is held no matter what by any full node.

No, just no. A simple four-hash like BSD or Gentoo Linux do with their repository is more than sufficient. No need to record who is requesting the recording, much leas fetchibg.

The hash to verify content is only half of the problem. You also need to store the _actual_ content of the page. What's the point of having Wikipedia reference a URL + hash if the page does not exist anymore?

A blockchain is, at its core, a distributed database, it is exactly made for this use case.

Re: FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious Archive.is site

#30

Post by egberts1 »

Galanwe wrote: post #29
egberts1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just no. A simple four-hash like BSD or Gentoo Linux do with their repository is more than sufficient. No need to record who is requesting the recording, much leas fetchibg.

The hash to verify content is only half of the problem. You also need to store the _actual_ content of the page. What's the point of having Wikipedia reference a URL + hash if the page does not exist anymore? A blockchain is, at its core, a distributed database, it is exactly made for this use case.

You should experiment with embedded hash within HTML pages and discover their limitations.

These same limitations amplifies when going to outer scopes like URL itself, blockchain isn't immune to this.

Blockchain also has the same problem when attempting to track/verify each single vote.

W3C Subresource Integrity Recommendation

Source: https://www.w3.org/TR/sri-2/

Post reply on HN