Internet Archive breached again through stolen access tokens

Post by baby_souffle » Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 2:06 PM UTC

Wheatman wrote: post #299

highwaylights wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, but even then you've still the problem of storage - the torrents are only useful (and there's a lot of them) if a sustainable number of seeds remain available.

How abiut torrenting a collection of websites in one collection? You can distribute less popular websites with more used ones to avoid losing it? And Torrents are good with transfering large files in my experience.

Post by TZubiri » Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 2:08 PM UTC

Kerb_ wrote: post #234

TZubiri wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of numbers, if tens of thousands of criminals use tech X, and it has few genuine uses, it's going to be restricted. This has precedent in illegal drug categorization, it's not just about the damage, but its ratio of noxious to helpful use.

That precedent was and still is legally used to federally regulate marijuana harsher than fentanyl, a precedent I strongly disagree with, so you'll have to forgive me for believing that the degree to which something causes harm matters more than the amount of misuse

Post by TZubiri » Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #239

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #5

We need archives built on decentralized storage. Don't get me wrong, I really like and support the work Internet Archive is doing, but preserving history is too important to entrust it solely to singular entities, which means singular points of failure.

I designed a system where you could say "donate this spare 2 TB of my disk space to the Internet Archive" and the IA would push 2 TB of data to you. This system also has the property that it can be reconstructed if the IA (or whatever provider) goes away. Unfortunately, when I talked to a few archival teams (including the IA) about whether they'd be interested in using it, I either got no response or a negative one.

Post by echelon » Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

withinboredom wrote: post #260

sieabahlpark wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is copyright. If you don't like the idea of a publisher owning the rights to content they published doesn't mean you have a right to their content. Let alone worldwide distribution of that content. What makes you feel entitled to the content of the publisher before the copyright expires? Do you feel that you deserve access to everything because you've deemed the concept of ownership around book publishing i…

I don’t like the idea of infinite ownership, which is the current problem of copyright. The public may never be able to own these ideas and build off of them. Further, just because you own something in one country doesn’t mean you can own it in another country. For a physical example, you can’t own a gun in the US and take it to Australia. If publishers didn’t engage in tactics like “library pricing” and preventing p…

Post by Aachen » Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 2:37 PM UTC

trod123 wrote: post #210

Aachen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I collect, archive, and host data. Haven't gotten any threats or attacks. Not one. The average r/selfhosted user hiding their personal OwnCloud behind the DDoS maffia seems more afraid than one needs to be even for hosting all sorts of things publicly. I guess this fearmongering comes from tech news about breaches and DDoS attacks on organisations, similar to regular news impacting your regular worldview regardless o…

Its not a problem until it suddenly is, and by the time it becomes a problem its too late. Its not fear mongering, its risk management and the laws are draconian and fail fundamental basis for a "rule of law", we have a "rule by law".