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

411–420 of 473 posts

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

#411

Post by solumunus »

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…

You have way too much faith. Almost endless examples of injustice can be observed.

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

#412

Post by squigz »

Longlius wrote: post #393
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.

Unless GP is suggesting the act of removal is what is worrying.

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

#414

Post by h33t-l4x0r »

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…

> Generally if you encounter CSAM you should report to your countries appropriate organisation.

So I should report that I consumed child porn? That's a hard pass from me.

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

#415

Post by simion314 »

codedokode wrote: post #360
simion314 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The candidate declared ZERO money spent in campaign I thought to win you need to get more votes than competitors, not to spend more money. Also, I think you are not seeing the obvious "backdoors" in law. Think for a second, why the punishment for errors in documentation or misreporting is barring a candidate from elections, and not a fine (or imprisonment for cases with serious fraud)? It is obviously intentional.…

>I thought to win you need to get more votes than competitors, not to spend more money.

Listen troll, there is a law in civilized countries about how elections should take place, this laws include declaring your spending, labeling political ads as "political", not doing campaign in specific days before elections, gathering real signatures etc. I am not sorry for Putin that his favorite candidate did not respected the law in such an ovvious way that his trolls can't defend it so they have to do some deflection.

For actual humans reading this, Kremlinescu declared ZERO spending, he spend more then ZERO, so law was broken, for Kremlin bots, next time instruct your pawns to avoid doing so obvious illegal shit.

What idiot would think that the guy would brag by mistake that he spends zero ? Unless Kremlinescu is retarded he knew well that a lot of money is spent in this campaign, and if he is a retard then is a win win we got an actual genius as president then a Putin fanboy.

Kremlinescu is also linked with far right criminals/mercenaries ... and the bastard had the guts to pretend he does not know the criminals until video evidence triggered his memory. Fuck him and his idiots fascists followers.

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

#416

Post by xzjis »

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…

There's another reason: the criminal justice system is structured in such a way that it requires material evidence to prove someone is guilty and punish them. It would be unacceptable to send an innocent person to prison, and you can't prove that someone has merely viewed content.

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

#417

Post by tkel »

luke727 wrote: post #312
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.

Unfortunately they went along with it initially but at least they came to their senses in the end: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586

Yeah, their CTO accepting and repeating the complaint at face value, in less than 10 words to justify the censorship, is not a good look

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#...

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

#418

Post by tomhow »

fukka42 wrote: post #213

[flagged]

We've banned this account for engaging in political battle and ignoring an earlier appeal to stop. Please stop registering new accounts to break the guidelines with. It becomes more obvious the more you do it. The number of comments containing the word "America" alone is a pattern that has no place here. And no it's nothing to do with the site or its moderators being American; the moderators aren't American and we do exactly the same thing if it is any other country. These and other comments are plainly in breach of the guidelines against flamewar-style commenting and political battle.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45938943

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45861930

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45861918

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45861837

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45861746

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45833400

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45826861

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688936

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45603743

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

#419

Post by ameshkov »

tkel wrote: post #417
luke727 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately they went along with it initially but at least they came to their senses in the end: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586

Yeah, their CTO accepting and repeating the complaint at face value, in less than 10 words to justify the censorship, is not a good look https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#...

I tried not to share too much details while we were still in process of figuring out the details.

The legal advice we got was basically “block asap or risk jail time”. Moreover, the risk would still be there even if the complainant is shady or hiding their identity.

So it took us some time to do the digging and make sure that illegal content was removed which was the prerequisite to unblocking.

The digging is not finished btw, we’ll later post a proper analysis of our reaction and the results of the research.

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

#420

Post by alickz »

tkel wrote: post #417
luke727 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately they went along with it initially but at least they came to their senses in the end: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586

Yeah, their CTO accepting and repeating the complaint at face value, in less than 10 words to justify the censorship, is not a good look https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#...

I think that is an unreasonable expectation given the advice they received from their lawyer

Maybe it would have been virtuous to fight it tooth-and-nail from the start, but I don't think it was wrong to comply while investigating further

Post reply on HN