Live data from Hacker News

Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

adguard-dns.io

271–280 of 473 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've given up on trying to change the world. > What will the world will be like in the future is decided by us every day. That's the problem. This "us" you're referring to. People. They're the problem. They have no principles. They stand for nothing. They think they do, but the reality is their principles are easily compromised. They are highly susceptible to manipulation by way of emotion. Powerful emotions like ter…

I don't necessarily disagree with you, broadly. The good news is that, I think, we don't really need - if fact, we probably don't really want - most people to accept anything, at least the specific context of this thread. It's about whether we can carve out a space - some space - for people like you and me. > I've given up on trying to change the world. I don't think you have. Speech matters. Ideas matter. I'm not go…

> It's about whether we can carve out a space - some space - for people like you and me.

Yes. Society at large is a lost cause but maybe we can select some number of known good individuals and form a microsociety inside it where we can enjoy the freedom we crave.

There is a name for that: elitism. I'm not against it. Those who don't make the cut certainly will be.

> If nothing else, you believe in objective truth, I think.

I do.

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

#273
post #263
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They replied within a few hours. The response was straightforward: the illegal content would be removed (and we verified that it was), and they had never received any previous notifications about those URLs. They never notified archive.today of the illegal material, instead they chose to demand blocking actions of archive.today from a DNS provider. I would be interested to know whether any other DNS service provider…

One might even go so far to insinuate that they were the party responsible for the CSAM being there to begin with. Wouldn't be the first time someone weaponized such content. I remember at least one case were a steamer was "digitally" swatted using a Dropbox upload link.

The fake abuse reports coming to IP addresses hosting TOR relays (not exits) might be same group trying to pollute the commons.

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

#274
post #31

A few weeks ago I noticed DNS4EU couldn’t resolve archive.is and assumed it was just a configuration mistake. I emailed them about it, and after a couple of days or weeks (not really sure) the domain started resolving again. Given AdGuard’s recent report about suspicious pressure on DNS providers to block Archive.today, I’m starting to wonder if DNS4EU’s temporary block was actually related to the same campaign

member of DNS4EU ops team here - This was not the case, we had reachability issues with the authoritative servers of archive.is and had to reach out to the team to allow our source IPs. https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyFromEU/comments/1ohekv5/updatedn...

[deleted]

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

#275
Super odd to pressure an ad-blocking DNS provider to use their service to 'block' archive.today. Adguard just provides block lists that allow users to easily block ad services.

If adguard starts blocking certain domains users actually want to access, users will simply switch off of adguard. No one uses adguard as a resolver by default, they switch to adguard to block ads. This seems like it'd be a pretty ineffective way of blocking sites users actually want to access.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not from USA, I mentioned facts you can check, so you can judge the guys action or you be "navie" and trust his words. So for actuaal people that want the truth the badstatd was caiming in the day of Romanian election that France asked him to push pro EU propaganda in Telegram and he the big hero refussed. For some reason he only had the ability to tell the truth about his heroism in the day of the elections and…

To be fair, there wasn't much evidence for removing a popular candidate, except for a "report" anyone could print in an hour. It turns out Europe is not much different from Russia in methods to get the wanted result.

[flagged]

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

#277
post #124

Its 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/…

https://saucenao.blogspot.com/2021/04/recent-events.html Mildly related incident where a Canadian child protection agency uploads csam onto a reverse image search engine and then reports the site for the temporarily stored images.

They were not uploading files. They were crawling the site with URLs that in turn made the search engine retrieve the CSAM and display it.

Still shitty, but more obviously a technical mistake than a deliberate ploy.

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

#278
> While the exact nature of the FBI investigation hasn’t been confirmed, it is speculated it can be related to copyright or CSAM (child sexual abuse material) dissemination issues. Altogether, the situation suggests growing pressure on whoever runs Archive.is, and on intermediaries that help make its service accessible.

Oh, so a chatbot wrote this article. Glad it tipped its hand early enough I didn't waste that much time.

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

#280
post #206
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Archive.is have previously blocked cloudflare DNS because it was anonymizing requests. It could be either. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317 >The archive.is owner has explained that he returns bad results to us because we don’t pass along the EDNS subnet information. This information leaks information about a requester’s IP and, in turn, sacrifices the privacy of users.

Someone asked the archive.is owner why he does this in the past. It's because of similar situations to this one where someone who wants to get archive.is taken down uploads illegal content, requests archive.is to save it, and immediately reports archive.is to their country's legal authorities. His solution to this is using the EDNS information to serve requests from the closest IP abroad, so any takedown procedure re…

Cloudflare tends to default to "It's for the security of our users" when it often times isn't.
Post reply on HN