5 ms·

I don't see the point in doxing anyone, especially those providing a useful service for the average internet user. Just because you can put some info together,

I don't see the point in doxing anyone, especially those providing a useful service for the average internet user. Just because you can put some info together, it doesn't mean you should. With this said, I also disagree with turning everyone that uses archive[.]today into a botnet that DDoS sites. Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading. The site behaves as if it was infected by some malware and the archived pages can't be trusted. I can see why Wikipedia made this decision.

jMyles 8mo ago
> Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading. This is absolutely the buried lede of this whole saga, and needs to be the focus of conversation in the coming age.
jsheard 8mo ago
It's also kind of ironic that a site whose whole premise is to preserve pages forever, whether the people involved like it or not, is seeking to take down another site because they are involved and don't like it. Live by the sword, etc.
- palmotea 8mo ago
  > It's also kind of ironic that a site whose whole premise is to preserve pages forever, whether the people involved like it or not Oddly, I think archive.today has explicitly said that's not what they're there for, and the people shouldn't rely on their links as a long-term archive.
  - johanyc 8mo ago
    What are they for then
    - palmotea 8mo ago
      Bypassing paywalls? It actually seems like they've got accounts at many paywalled sites. Shorter term archiving? Given the unclear ownership situation, it makes sense not to rely on them for anything long term. They could disappear tomorrow.
  - eviks 8mo ago
    Where have they said it? > Archive.today is a time capsule for web pages! > It takes a 'snapshot' of a webpage that will always be online even if the original page disappears.
    - palmotea 8mo ago
      This reddit post collects some statements: https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1i277vt/psa_archivetoday_is_not_a_longterm_web_archive https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1i277vt/psa_ar...
ddtaylor 8mo ago
Did they actually run the DDoS via a script or was this a case of inserting a link and many users clicked it? They are substantially different IMO
- dunder_cat 8mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 has the earliest writeup that I know of. It was running it via a script and intentionally using cache busting techniques to try to increase load on the hosted wordpress infrastructure.
  - ddtaylor 8mo ago
    Thank you this is exactly the information I was looking for. "You found the smoking gun!"
  - jsheard 8mo ago
    > It was running It still is, uBlocks default lists are killing the script now but if it's allowed to load then it still tries to hammer the other blog.
    - dunder_cat 8mo ago
      Ah good to know. My pi-hole actually was blocking the blog itself since the ublock site list made its way into one of the blocklists I use. But I've been just avoiding links as much as possible because I didn't want to contribute.
  - RobotToaster 8mo ago
    Given the site is hosted on wordpress.com, who don't charge for bandwidth, it seems to have been completely ineffective.
    - Hamuko 8mo ago
      The speculation that I saw was that they'd try to get Wordpress.com to boot him off for being a burden on the overall infrastructure.
cardanome 8mo ago
As far as I understand the person behind archive.today might face jail time if they are found out. You shouldn't be surprised that people lash out when you threaten their life. I don't think the DDOSing is a very good method for fighting back but I can't blame anyone for trying to survive. They are definitely the victim here. If that blog really doxxed them out of idle curiosity they are an absolute piece of shit. Though I think this is more of a targeted campaign.
- luckylion 8mo ago
  Somebody who a) directs DDOS attacks and b) abuses random visitors' browser for those DDOS attacks is never the victim. You don't know their motives for running their site, but you do get a clear message about their character by observing their actions, and you'd do well to listen to that message.
  - cardanome 8mo ago
    The character is completely irrelevant to whether they are a victim of doxxing. They might be the worst person ever but that doesn't matter. People can be good and bad, sometimes the victim sometimes the perpetrator. Is it morally wrong to doxx someone and cause them to go to jail because they are running an archive website? Yes. It is. It doesn't matter who the person is. It does not matter what their motivations are.
    - AgentME 8mo ago
      There are plenty of cases where the operator of archive.today refused to take down archives of pages with people's identifying information, so it's a huge double standard for them to insist on others to not look into their identity using public information.
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      Irrelevant to a determination of fact, yes. But very relevant to the question of whether or not I care about any of this. Bad thing happened to bad person, lots of drama ensued, come rubberneck the various internet slapfights, details at 11. In other news, water is wet.
fluoridation 8mo ago
For a very brief time, "doxing" (that is, dropping dox, that is, dropping docs, or documents) used to mean something useful. You gathered information that was not out in public, for example by talking to people or by stealing it, and put it out in the open. It's very silly to talk about doxing when all someone has done is gather information anyone else can equally easily obtain, just given enough patience and time, especially when it's information the person in question put out there themselves. If it doesn't take any special skills or connections to obtain the information, but only the inclination to actually perform the research on publicly available data, I don't see what has been done that is unethical.
- bawolff 8mo ago
  Call it stalking or harrasment if you prefer. Regardless its rude (sometimes illegal) behaviour. That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do a DDOS. In the slang of reddit: ESH
  - fluoridation 8mo ago
    It's neither of those. Stalking refers to persistent, unwanted, one-sided interactions with a person such as following, surveilling, calling, or sending messages or gifts. Investigating a person's past or identity doesn't involve any interaction with the physical person. Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone after having been asked to stop. Again, an investigation doesn't require any form of interaction.
    - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
      > Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone No, harassment also includes persistent attempts to cause someone grief, whether or not they involve direct interactions with that person. From Wikipedia: > Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person.
      - 8mo ago
Sophira 8mo ago
Sites that exist to archive other websites will almost always need to dynamically change the content of the HTML that they're serving in some way or another. (For example, a link that points to the root of the website may need changed in order to point to the right location.) So it doesn't necessarily raise questions about whether the content has been changed or not. The difference is in whether that change is there to make the archive usable - and of course, for archive.today, that's not the case.
luxuryballs 8mo ago
this seems like type of thing that should be on blockchain and decentralized nodes validate authenticity, it could support revisions but not lose originals

jMyles 8mo ago

> Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading. This is absolutely the buried lede of this whole saga, and needs to be the focus of conversation in the coming age.

jsheard 8mo ago

It's also kind of ironic that a site whose whole premise is to preserve pages forever, whether the people involved like it or not, is seeking to take down another site because they are involved and don't like it. Live by the sword, etc.

palmotea 8mo ago
> It's also kind of ironic that a site whose whole premise is to preserve pages forever, whether the people involved like it or not Oddly, I think archive.today has explicitly said that's not what they're there for, and the people shouldn't rely on their links as a long-term archive.
- johanyc 8mo ago
  What are they for then
  - palmotea 8mo ago
    Bypassing paywalls? It actually seems like they've got accounts at many paywalled sites. Shorter term archiving? Given the unclear ownership situation, it makes sense not to rely on them for anything long term. They could disappear tomorrow.
- eviks 8mo ago
  Where have they said it? > Archive.today is a time capsule for web pages! > It takes a 'snapshot' of a webpage that will always be online even if the original page disappears.
  - palmotea 8mo ago
    This reddit post collects some statements: https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1i277vt/psa_archivetoday_is_not_a_longterm_web_archive https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1i277vt/psa_ar...

ddtaylor 8mo ago

Did they actually run the DDoS via a script or was this a case of inserting a link and many users clicked it? They are substantially different IMO

dunder_cat 8mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 has the earliest writeup that I know of. It was running it via a script and intentionally using cache busting techniques to try to increase load on the hosted wordpress infrastructure.
- ddtaylor 8mo ago
  Thank you this is exactly the information I was looking for. "You found the smoking gun!"
- jsheard 8mo ago
  > It was running It still is, uBlocks default lists are killing the script now but if it's allowed to load then it still tries to hammer the other blog.
  - dunder_cat 8mo ago
    Ah good to know. My pi-hole actually was blocking the blog itself since the ublock site list made its way into one of the blocklists I use. But I've been just avoiding links as much as possible because I didn't want to contribute.
- RobotToaster 8mo ago
  Given the site is hosted on wordpress.com, who don't charge for bandwidth, it seems to have been completely ineffective.
  - Hamuko 8mo ago
    The speculation that I saw was that they'd try to get Wordpress.com to boot him off for being a burden on the overall infrastructure.

cardanome 8mo ago

As far as I understand the person behind archive.today might face jail time if they are found out. You shouldn't be surprised that people lash out when you threaten their life. I don't think the DDOSing is a very good method for fighting back but I can't blame anyone for trying to survive. They are definitely the victim here. If that blog really doxxed them out of idle curiosity they are an absolute piece of shit. Though I think this is more of a targeted campaign.

luckylion 8mo ago
Somebody who a) directs DDOS attacks and b) abuses random visitors' browser for those DDOS attacks is never the victim. You don't know their motives for running their site, but you do get a clear message about their character by observing their actions, and you'd do well to listen to that message.
- cardanome 8mo ago
  The character is completely irrelevant to whether they are a victim of doxxing. They might be the worst person ever but that doesn't matter. People can be good and bad, sometimes the victim sometimes the perpetrator. Is it morally wrong to doxx someone and cause them to go to jail because they are running an archive website? Yes. It is. It doesn't matter who the person is. It does not matter what their motivations are.
  - AgentME 8mo ago
    There are plenty of cases where the operator of archive.today refused to take down archives of pages with people's identifying information, so it's a huge double standard for them to insist on others to not look into their identity using public information.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    Irrelevant to a determination of fact, yes. But very relevant to the question of whether or not I care about any of this. Bad thing happened to bad person, lots of drama ensued, come rubberneck the various internet slapfights, details at 11. In other news, water is wet.

fluoridation 8mo ago

For a very brief time, "doxing" (that is, dropping dox, that is, dropping docs, or documents) used to mean something useful. You gathered information that was not out in public, for example by talking to people or by stealing it, and put it out in the open. It's very silly to talk about doxing when all someone has done is gather information anyone else can equally easily obtain, just given enough patience and time, especially when it's information the person in question put out there themselves. If it doesn't take any special skills or connections to obtain the information, but only the inclination to actually perform the research on publicly available data, I don't see what has been done that is unethical.

bawolff 8mo ago
Call it stalking or harrasment if you prefer. Regardless its rude (sometimes illegal) behaviour. That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do a DDOS. In the slang of reddit: ESH
- fluoridation 8mo ago
  It's neither of those. Stalking refers to persistent, unwanted, one-sided interactions with a person such as following, surveilling, calling, or sending messages or gifts. Investigating a person's past or identity doesn't involve any interaction with the physical person. Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone after having been asked to stop. Again, an investigation doesn't require any form of interaction.
  - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
    > Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone No, harassment also includes persistent attempts to cause someone grief, whether or not they involve direct interactions with that person. From Wikipedia: > Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person.
    - 8mo ago

Sophira 8mo ago

Sites that exist to archive other websites will almost always need to dynamically change the content of the HTML that they're serving in some way or another. (For example, a link that points to the root of the website may need changed in order to point to the right location.) So it doesn't necessarily raise questions about whether the content has been changed or not. The difference is in whether that change is there to make the archive usable - and of course, for archive.today, that's not the case.

luxuryballs 8mo ago

this seems like type of thing that should be on blockchain and decentralized nodes validate authenticity, it could support revisions but not lose originals