3 ms·

I sort of get why they have to do that I don't. Can you explain?

by slrz 10y ago

btgeekboy 10y ago
Archive.org doesn't know the domain changed hands, just that it used to be allowed to show the results but now no longer is.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Doesn't really explain why they have to nuke it, even if it is the current site owner. Respecting robots.txt is one thing, but that just means not spidering and archiving the content that is now there. Deleting already archived material based on later changes to robots.txt is a non-obvious behavior, given the usual understanding of the general meaning of robots.txt.
  - aab0 10y ago
    They're not deleting it, just hiding it from public access. Once the squatter goes away, the content comes back.
    - J_Darnley 10y ago
      What's the difference? Both make this feature (and more general use of the archive) useless.
      - aab0 10y ago
        The difference is exactly what I said: if they deleted it, it's gone forever. If they hide it, it can come back. I've seen pages I cite disappear for a year or two thanks to scummy squatters - but they came back! It's the difference between being sentenced to execution and to 1 year of prison.
- infogulch 10y ago
  Could they not also watch when a domain changes ownership and segment history based on the owner? Over the time scales that archive.org holds on to data, domain ownership itself becomes part of the history. While permitting someone to hide a mistake for security reasons is reasonable, allowing erasure of past owners' history by the current owner is counter to their stated purpose.
  - ak4g 10y ago
    No, because the WHOIS details on the domain can change without ownership actually having changed, in the not-uncommon case where a domain starts out registered by a founder or early employee and is later transferred to the company proper. Given the prevalence bogus WHOIS data, the inverse is also possible: if the 2nd owner uses the same registrar and "privacy-protection" feature as the original owner, the WHOIS data could appear to have not changed, except for the start date of the registration, which would look identical to a single owner who re-registered their domain after allowing it to lapse.
viraptor 10y ago
You set up a website, which fails to do authorization properly. Accidentally you expose personal information about your employees which gets harvested by the archive project. You fix the website, but how do you remove the exposed information from the archives?

I sort of get why they have to do that I don't. Can you explain?

by slrz 10y ago

I sort of get why they have to do that I don't. Can you explain?

Archive.org doesn't know the domain changed hands, just that it used to be allowed to show the results but now no longer is.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Doesn't really explain why they have to nuke it, even if it is the current site owner. Respecting robots.txt is one thing, but that just means not spidering and archiving the content that is now there. Deleting already archived material based on later changes to robots.txt is a non-obvious behavior, given the usual understanding of the general meaning of robots.txt.
- aab0 10y ago
  They're not deleting it, just hiding it from public access. Once the squatter goes away, the content comes back.
  - J_Darnley 10y ago
    What's the difference? Both make this feature (and more general use of the archive) useless.
    - aab0 10y ago
      The difference is exactly what I said: if they deleted it, it's gone forever. If they hide it, it can come back. I've seen pages I cite disappear for a year or two thanks to scummy squatters - but they came back! It's the difference between being sentenced to execution and to 1 year of prison.
infogulch 10y ago
Could they not also watch when a domain changes ownership and segment history based on the owner? Over the time scales that archive.org holds on to data, domain ownership itself becomes part of the history. While permitting someone to hide a mistake for security reasons is reasonable, allowing erasure of past owners' history by the current owner is counter to their stated purpose.
- ak4g 10y ago
  No, because the WHOIS details on the domain can change without ownership actually having changed, in the not-uncommon case where a domain starts out registered by a founder or early employee and is later transferred to the company proper. Given the prevalence bogus WHOIS data, the inverse is also possible: if the 2nd owner uses the same registrar and "privacy-protection" feature as the original owner, the WHOIS data could appear to have not changed, except for the start date of the registration, which would look identical to a single owner who re-registered their domain after allowing it to lapse.

viraptor 10y ago

You set up a website, which fails to do authorization properly. Accidentally you expose personal information about your employees which gets harvested by the archive project. You fix the website, but how do you remove the exposed information from the archives?