[HN Gopher] FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs myste...
___________________________________________________________________
FBI orders domain registrar to reveal who runs mysterious
Archive.is site
Author : incomplete
Score : 43 points
Date : 2025-11-10 19:04 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| duxup wrote:
| People who steal from Americans get pardons... archive.is gets
| the the Feds on them.
|
| The current administration would be a good joke if it wasn't
| real.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| FWIW circumventing various paywalls is probably the bad thing
| archive.is is being investigated for, not the archiving bit.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Do they actually do anything to circumvent paywalls or do
| websites just whitelist their crawlers?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45836826
| walletdrainer wrote:
| > The subpoena is supposed to be secret
|
| Ars inventing their own colour here. This is simply not true.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Ars inventing their own colour here. This is simply not true.
|
| What are you talking about? Right at the top of the subpoena it
| literally says in bold and all caps, and I quote:
|
| >YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS
| SUBPOENA INDEFNITELY AS ANY SUCH DISCLOSURE COULD INTERFERE
| WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The "requested" part sounds like it's not mandatory,
| otherwise they would have used something like "you're not
| allowed to..." or similar language.
| namibj wrote:
| Sounds like a notice that disclosure could result in
| outcomes that make the discloser liable of (the crime? of)
| interfering-with-an-investigation.
|
| And thus to avoid that risk, to think twice before
| disclosing. Disclosure would only be punished if the
| specific circumstances actually result in legally-
| considered-(unlawful-)interference.
| AlienRobot wrote:
| The "supposed" part as well.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Regardless of this situation I actually think that websites like
| Archive and TWBM should be fully transparent.
|
| A very large partition of citations in Wikipedia for example
| relies on them. Most of the pages that cite archived copies do so
| because the live version is no longer available I would like to
| have some assurances that archive.is and the likes are not
| altering their content in any way over time.
|
| Unironically content sensitive hashing of archival pages might be
| one of the few use cases where something like a blockchain might
| actually be useful for.
| dpark wrote:
| Why would the blockchain be useful here? You don't need a
| blockchain to store a hash.
| Galanwe wrote:
| You do need some kind of reliable, distributed storage
| though. The sequential nature of a blockchain also ensures
| that such stored content is held no matter what by any full
| node.
| AlienRobot wrote:
| It's a hash.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _very large partition of citations in Wikipedia for example
| relies on them_
|
| Is the _Internet Archive_ related to archive.is?
| toast0 wrote:
| The subpoena is for archive.today.
|
| The .is TLD is run by ISNIC and they process registrations
| directly, and operating out of Iceland, it would be very strange
| if they took orders from the FBI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-10 23:01 UTC)