1. 31
  1.  

  2. 4

    Both Tor and the Internet Archive are threats because they promote an open Internet.

    That’s not how it works. Carnegie Mellon University attacked Tor, probably to do FBI’s bidding: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/carnegie-mellon-university-attacked-tor-was-subpoenaed-by-feds

    Are they the baddies now? Is CMU the big bad wolf supporting Le Pen and hating our way of life?

    There’s too much fiction and too little research in this article. Also:

    They ignore robots.txt

    Oh, the irony - https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ :

    A few months ago we stopped referring to robots.txt files on U.S. government and military web sites for both crawling and displaying web pages (though we respond to removal requests sent to info@archive.org). As we have moved towards broader access it has not caused problems, which we take as a good sign. We are now looking to do this more broadly.

    1. 3

      There’s too much fiction and too little research in this article.

      Right-on.

      The title of this post is ridiculous and misrepresents the issues at stake; the content is even more shady.

      Perhaps a fakenews tag would be appropriate for lobsters?

      1. 2

        Both Tor and the Internet Archive are threats because they promote an open Internet.

        That’s not how it works. Carnegie Mellon University attacked Tor, probably to do FBI’s bidding: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/carnegie-mellon-university-attacked-tor-was-subpoenaed-by-feds

        Are they the baddies now? Is CMU the big bad wolf supporting Le Pen and hating our way of life?

        This does neither follow, nor is it implied by the article. Just because one specific motive for attacking a service is given, it doesn’t follow that all attacks on said service follow the same motive.

        While one can disagree with the statement the article makes in the first place, this is still faulty reasoning and shifts the burden of proof to unrelated grounds.

        1. 3

          Just because one specific motive for attacking a service is given, it doesn’t follow that all attacks on said service follow the same motive.

          Have you read the article? It’s filled with causation jumps based on assumed motives and opportunities. It boils down to a giant “wink-wink, nudge-nudge”. I just used the same mechanism with CMU to show the absurdity of it all. What fault do you find in that?

          1. 2

            The article points out most of it is speculation. You don’t do that, making your statement a strawman.

            1. 2

              The article points out most of it is speculation. You don’t do that, making your statement a strawman.

              It’s obviously a reductio ad absurdum and most people don’t need it spelled out for them. You need to read some more.

      2. 1

        I have to wonder what the benefit is of accessing the Internet Archive through a Tor hidden service proxy versus a general-purpose Tor exit node proxy.

        1. [Comment removed by author]

          1. 1

            So does the Internet Archive proxy? I don’t follow.

            You can actually access the Internet Archive over HTTPS, so proxying that through an exit node would mean a third party can see less of what you’re doing than if you were using the specialized proxy.

            1. [Comment removed by author]

              1. 1

                If you request a site (even with TLS) through a Tor exit node, the exit node can at least see you go to to the Internet Archive using DNS, SNI and target IP address.

                1. 1

                  Wait - they can see that “someone” accessed it. They need your intermediate nodes and entry to get you specifically, right?

                  1. 1

                    Yes.