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

391–400 of 473 posts

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

#391

Post by gorgonian »

axiolite wrote: post #380
dpark wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the situation and what I was suggesting. GP was saying that AdGuard should have checked the contents of some random URL supposedly containing CSAM on archive.today. This is not AdGuard’s job. Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal. And it also potentially opens them up for additional liability if they do determine that CSAM is present. AdGuard seems like they did exactly the right thing,…

> Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal. Put CSAM in a banner ad, and arrest everyone who was served that ad? Post a CSAM photo behind plexiglass on a wall in a public space, and arrest everyone who walks by and glanced at it? Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are? People get arrested for paying for, or sharing CSAM, not just stumbling on a website that might have som…

> Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are?

Quite often pretty stupid, honestly. Or careless, ignorant, jaded, corrupt, etc etc

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

#393

Post by Longlius »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #392

> The illegal content was promptly removed from Archive.today after we notified them. Everything else aside, this is a big issue for archive.today and makes it very difficult to defend its continued existence. Crap.

How is it an issue for Archive.today? They immediately removed the content upon being notified about it. That's the "standard" level of responsibility for any site that hosts user-uploaded content.

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

#394

Post by Longlius »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #6

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/…

KF is being spammed with CSAM currently to the point where registrations are closed unless the admins are online to manually watch new user regs.

Seems to be the new tactic now.

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

#395

Post by 1970-01-01 »

econ wrote: post #212
atomicfiredoll wrote: post #2

I don't know anything about Adguard, but good on the team for doing the extra digging instead of just going along with the claim. Even better that they're sharing what they've found with everyone else.

Their DNS is great. Removing websites without a good reason would quickly ruin everything for them.

As a satisfied customer, I just recommended their adblockimg DNS on here a few days ago but am happy to do it again. If you really don't want to install anything, at least adblock at the DNS level. https://adguard-dns.io/en/welcome.html

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

#396

Post by Quarrel »

I wonder if this is why NextDNS block the archive.today domains?

While the NextDNS company is registered in Delaware, the founders are French nationals, so may feel more exposed to such threats.

fwiw, you can use rewrites for these domains in the nextdns settings, or manage it in your local dns client, and get around this pretty easily.

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

#397

Post by mkagenius »

octagons wrote: post #76

The wording and tone of the emails sent to Adguard reads just like phishing emails with a hint of political SMS spam. Glad to see the people behind there thinking critically and acting rationally despite such language.

It was a little weird that they didnt suspect phishing from the get go.

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

#398

Post by Sabinus »

Longlius wrote: post #394
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #6

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/…

KF is being spammed with CSAM currently to the point where registrations are closed unless the admins are online to manually watch new user regs. Seems to be the new tactic now.

KF being Kiwifarms the harassment site? Interesting, did it start happening after any particular event? Have the site admins posted about it publicly?

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

#399

Post by mobeigi »

otterley wrote: post #387
otterley wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the U.S., “John Doe” is typically used when cannot (yet) identify the person to name as a defendant. Once the case is filed then the plaintiff can execute the necessary subpoenas to identify the defendant specifically.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena

I wonder if there is a real person out there called John Doe who regularly received legal threats for a myriad of alleged crimes.

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

#400

Post by miohtama »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #363
e2le wrote: 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…

Generally if you encounter CSAM you should report to your countries appropriate organisation. Skip the police and go straight there to save everyone some time and avoid confusion. This agency will handle notifications etc to the site. USA - https://report.cybertip.org/reporting UK - https://report.iwf.org.uk/org/ (technically the NCA, but they are a catch all reporting target. As a private individual IWF will handle…

Thorn is the same organisation which drives Chat Control in the EU and to have their secret component installed in every app to scan your messages. Working with these organisations harms consumers, is detrimental for privacy and human rights even if they somehow have good intentions.
Post reply on HN