"who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past"
If the WHOIS records are falsified they'll start looking at payment information.
But unless you are a high profile gov target, Tor protects you well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45835090
The FBI should investigate the "AI" companies and also the demise of Suchir Balaji, a copyright whistleblower who according to a sloppy local police investigation committed "suicide" hours after being seen cheerfully collecting a doordash delivery on CCTV.
Paywall epidemic is a recent phenomenon, internet media managed to exist before that.
We can not allow the FBI to work for Evil here. I actually think there should be a human right to data. With that I mean, primarily, knowledge, not to data about a single human being as such (e. g. "doxxing" or any such crap - I mean knowledge).
Knowledge itself should become a human right. I understand that the current law is very favourable to mega-corporations milking mankind dry, but the law should also be changed. (I am not anti-business per se, mind you - I just think the law should not become a tool to contain human rights, including access to knowledge and information at all times.)
Wikipedia is somewhat ok, but it also misses a TON of stuff, and unfortunately it only has one primary view, whereas many things need some explanation before one can understand it. When I read up on a (to me) new topic, I try to focus on simple things and master these first. Some wikipedia articles are so complicated that even after staring at them for several minutes, and reading it, I still haven't the slightest clue what this is about. This is also a problem of wikipedia - as so many different people write things, it is sometimes super-hard to understand what wikipedia is trying to convey here.
But then also don’t be angry at big corporations when they scrape the entire internet.
Are they?
I said they're profiting from other people's hard work, a separate concept.
While not all the companies in question may or may not be profiting from these things some of them are, and most if not all of their employees certainly are as well.
Enforcement being unjustly balanced in favor of the rich & powerful is a separate issue from whether there should be enforcement in the first place—"if we must do this, it should at least be fair, and if it's not going to be fair, it at least shouldn't be unfair in favor of the already-powerful" is a totally valid position to hold, while also believing, "however, ideally, we should just not do this in the first place".
Why can't you just be happy for those few who are lucky enough to be able to violate copyright with no consequences? Yes, I know you'd want everyone to be able to violate copyright, but we're not there yet.
Information can be made available to all, and at the same time, we can make it so others cannot resell or repackage it for profit like what AI companies are doing.
I'm only angry with them when they pay hush money to IP extortionists.
Last I checked, they had archive.is blacklisted; the people with power there had (as far as I can tell) come to the conclusion that people using that site to prove that websites had stated X on date Y were the bad guys. Of course, they still have archive.org sources everywhere, so the objection is not actually to archiving page content.
Tons of claims also seem to be sourced ultimately to thinly-disguised promotional material (e.g. claims of the prevalence of a problem backed up by the sites of companies offering products to combat the problem) and opinion pieces that happen to mention an objective (but not verified) claim in passing.
Or they're worried about the paywall by-passing functionality (which is probably what a good portion of people use it for) and copyright claims against archive.today potentially having it taken down and thus breaking a lot of links.
It's not that difficult.
How do you suggest we fund the difficult work needed to investigate, research, and produce such data?
Remember that facts are not copyrightable, and as such, can't be restricted by copyright. Creative expression of those facts, on the other hand, can be.
It's not up to us to tell the FBI what to do, that's a fatal misunderstanding about how power works. You can demand to see the FBI's manager, but I doubt it will get you anywhere. You can choose between two candidates offered by the privately owned and run political parties for whom the FBI works, but I don't think that will help either.
> Knowledge itself should become a human right.
Human rights are created by legislation. Unless you own a legislator (or rather, many legislators), you will not be involved in this. The people who own (and parcel out) knowledge itself, however, will be involved.
It would be better if we stopped making pronouncements about what people more powerful than us should be doing. It's like prisoners talking about what the jail should be doing. You should talk about what you should be doing. And don't mistake demanding for doing, or walking in the street with your friends for activism (unless you're violating curfew and are prepared to defend yourselves.)
Be brave. Put forward a program that might fail. Ask people to help you with it, ask them to follow you, tell them where to show up. Join someone else and help with their program. Don't demand, then whine when they say "of course not." The FBI is not your daddy, and the people running it are not running it on your behalf.
I don't mean to be personal, but this type of talk is empty. The way how to do things is decided is through power; and the way weak people exercise power is collectively, through discussion and coordinated action. Anybody can talk about what they would do if they were dictator of the world.
Historically speaking I can't see this as even being in the top 100 evil things the FBI has done.
Perhaps, but we can't change the past: we can only fight against what is happening in the present to try to get a better future.
>Before 2019 - PhantomJS, after - ordinary (not headless) Chromium/80 with few small patches.
https://blog.archive.today/post/618635148292964352/what-scra... (2020)
>Archive.today launches real browsers (not even headless) and tries to load lazy images, unroll folded content, login into accounts if prompted with login form, remove “subscribe our maillist” modals
https://blog.archive.today/post/642952252228812800/people-of...
To be clear I have no reason to believe specific instances of these sites are malicious, but I would be shocked if black hats weren't trying to get into this space in general.
The fact that the FBI is involved, and given the insane amount of IP protection racket stuff going on, I think it's pretty highly likely this is all about copyright. I think the powerful interests care more about copyright than they do about most other things.
The FBI could be investigating them for archive.today, they could be investigated because of that apparent botnet, they could be investigating them because some billionaire media mogul friend of the current POTUS is outraged at the loss of revenue. To the best of my knowledge, the reasons aren't public.
Still, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking questions or expressing concern over this.
Here I speak about this site, but everyday we have new cases of that. Like "new tax on anything that starts to be popular" for France, or Google trying to kill our privacy and F-Droid by requiring all app devs to have attestation from them.
I read there was a US government investigation tracking Ukranian children abducted by Russian forces, but supposedly there weren't enough resources [0] to sustain that.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2025/03/19/nx-s1-5333328/trump-admin-cut...
The president’s pardons are not popular with the FBI and law enforcement. The FBI is not happy about doing all of the work to prosecute people only to have the president override it for political reasons.
It convinces others that you're willing to pardon them too in exchange for money and convincing other people is the definition of politics.
Op means to say this type of pardon is not to meant to win votes or satisfy the demands of constituents, Like with convicted cops or people with weed related crimes etc or pardoning draft dodgers after Vietnam or civil war and so on .
While money is involved deeply in politics and financial corruption is there , occasionally idealogical (political) actions without direct financial benefits also happen.
It is hard to say whether this pardon of Silk Road founder was motivated by libertarian, or crypto community pressure or by financial donations to the party etc both are possible even at the same time but they are different considerations
Not for any ideological reason.
As a libertarian voter, the pardon for Ross was the only thing Trump did that actually brought me pause. To the point, I felt immensely guilty for not voting for him when I voted (L) because I knew[thought] I was damning Ross to a jail cell. It weighed on my conscious for a long time after the vote, an it wasn't until Trump won I felt somewhat absolved of the guilt.
Oh please. Ross was no saint by any stretch and it does look like he may have made a very dark decision at one point, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. There's a mountain of details and nuance around that case, including a whole host of law enforcement abuses that many people would find distasteful if not sickening if they actually got the whole story.
Their priorities are highly political.
> Archive.is’s authoritative DNS servers return bad results to 1.1.1.1 when we query them. I’ve proposed we just fix it on our end but our team, quite rightly, said that too would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service.
> The archive.is owner has explained that he returns bad results to us because we don’t pass along the EDNS subnet information. This information leaks information about a requester’s IP and, in turn, sacrifices the privacy of users. This is especially problematic as we work to encrypt more DNS traffic since the request from Resolver to Authoritative DNS is typically unencrypted. We’re aware of real world examples where nationstate actors have monitored EDNS subnet information to track individuals, which was part of the motivation for the privacy and security policies of 1.1.1.1.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Valley-Military-History-...
That's long been my assumption.
What I haven't known was whether this was good Russian people (culturally valuing literature and intellect) wanting to be able to access articles that they can't afford.
Nor whether it was or could become something sketchier (e.g., feeding spy databases, or one nice Chrome zero-day and strategic timing away from compromising engineering workstations at most US tech companies where an employee reads HN).
But what actually bothers me about the misc `archive.*` sites is how HN routinely uses them, for US tech company workers to circumvent paywalls for struggling journalism organizations. This piracy practice seems to have the unofficial blessing of the US tech investor firm that runs and moderates HN. Besides whatever laws this is breaking, subjectively, it feels to me like crossing an ethical line, and also (economically) like punching down.
x402 solves this.
The internet is fundamentally different than print though—perhaps this fundamental change to journalism requires another way to pay the bills. (Advertising is the obvious one.)
Or maybe we, as a society (because of our internet ways) simply don't deserve these services any longer.
Perhaps the internet itself is the problem. What if instead that was the big mistake after all?
Archive.today is very popular with HN commenters
This need to make IP-infringement sound ominous by invoking some ill-defined spy plot is a tired cliche.
I've also seen Cloudflare similarly in the loop, and they have similar cross-site tracking data.
Lesson: The same third-party tech surveillance companies to which you sell out all your visitors, can also violate you.
One of the agents named in the subpoena appears to have previously worked on child exploitation cases years ago:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6039/245948/202...
1. Put up CSAM on your unlisted domain briefly.
2. Archive page and delete site.
3. Send people archive link.
In my personal experience, the priorities of the FBI are typically highly politically motivated. The exceptions are if you’re doing something seriously icky, or doing fraud that deceives people.
Projectiboga•2h ago
The subpoena, which was posted on X by archive.today on October 30, was sent by the FBI to Tucows, a popular Canadian domain registrar. It demands that Tucows give the FBI the “customer or subscriber name, address of service, and billing address” and other information about the “customer behind archive.today.”
“THE INFORMATION SOUGHT THROUGH THIS SUBPOENA RELATES TO A FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE FBI,” the subpoena says. “YOUR COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION. YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA INDEFINITELY AS ANY SUCH DISCLOSURE COULD INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.”
The subpoena also requests “Local and long distance telephone connection records (examples include: incoming and outgoing calls, push-to-talk, and SMS/MMS connection records); Means and source of payment (including any credit card or bank account number); Records of session times and duration for Internet connectivity; Telephone or Instrument number (including IMEI, IMSI, UFMI, and ESN) and/or other customer/subscriber number(s) used to identify customer/subscriber, including any temporarily assigned network address (including Internet Protocol addresses); Types of service used (e.g. push-to-talk, text, three-way calling, email services, cloud computing, gaming services, etc.)”
-snip-
Read more: https://www.404media.co/fbi-tries-to-unmask-owner-of-infamou...
hrimfaxi•1h ago
Is this actually a mere request, as in the receiver is _not_ required to avoid disclosure?
Separately—can't believe tucows is still around!
righthand•1h ago
mothballed•1h ago
squarefoot•1h ago
c22•1h ago
yatopifo•1h ago
mystraline•1h ago
Felony contempt of business model.
Turns out, our very user, Saurik, came up with this term!
https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/23/how-to-fix-cars-by-breaki...