4 ms·
I stopped reading when it said the repos had once been public and were in a Bing cache. That is probably true of a lot of once public, now private, data. Not ju
by loumf 2y ago
I stopped reading when it said the repos had once been public and were in a Bing cache. That is probably true of a lot of once public, now private, data. Not just in Bing, but also in archive.org, google. It said the repo in question had a “public phase”.
Anyway, there is no indication that your data would be exposed if you had a private repo that was always private.
- Goofy_Coyote 2y agoSame here. It’s like saying Wayback machine is exposing private data because it was captured when it was public. What an absolute waste of an item on the HN front page.
- creshal 2y agoWayback Machine is aware that this could be a problem, which is why they let website owners expunge sites. And what a surprise! So does Bing: https://www.bing.com/webmasters/help/bing-content-removal-tool-cb6c294d https://www.bing.com/webmasters/help/bing-content-removal-to... (As do Google etc.) Neither of these expunging mechanisms work if you're not the domain owner, however, so this is just one more reminder that any content you upload to somebody else's website is never fully under your control.
- lol768 2y agoYou've got to treat any repository made public - no matter how briefly - as compromised / downloaded / accessed / viewed. I found the article title pretty misleading. There's perhaps an interesting conversation to have around the possibility of wanting to be able to scrub training data after-the-fact and how (or if) that could work - but that's not what the article's headline tried to convey.