Using GrapheneOS makes you a terrorist now. I'm a terrorist.

Friend of a friend retired several years ago from Intel. He'll go into detail about all the ways you're being spied on. He won't let you into his house with a smartphone; you have to turn it off and leave it in your car.

I used to think he was just paranoid...

We're all terrorists here.

Own a general purpose computer you can run arbitrary software on, not just corporation and government approved software? You're clearly a money laundering drug trafficking child molesting terrorist.

Song lyrics for those curious: https://genius.com/Dire-straits-on-every-street-lyrics

Thanks, very interesting. Basically the authors blast high-power (~92 dBA) ultrasound around 25kHz and hope that microphone non-linearities will overwhelm the audible signal.

This will sure make all the dogs in 20m radius mad. Hence the solution for the stealth recorder -- bring a dog, then complain about the ultrasound jammer (or at least to be aware of a jammer)

From the paper, it looks like the authors did not consider safety of animals, only human hearing safety.

I’d imagine some people would actually find that useful if they offered a backup and restore feature.

No more “why did I come in this room again?” moments.

An autocracy or illiberal democracy is perfectly possible. It's happened to several countries recently. And Russia at this point is a dictatorship.

A government with total control over the population can turn into whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases. A catalyzing crisis can always be manufactured.

You don’t need the country to become a dictatorship. Private companies will gladly do the job of surveillance and selling your data.

But also, lower your guard long enough and it might be taken over by any of two or three religious groups that only seem to be growing.

How would this affect people with cochlear implants?

This puts me in mind of the infamous GMail Man commercial that Microsoft put out:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oR4jTvxPruw

I do believe people still vote for dictatorship if they think it will fuck over others much harder, then themselves, and "they deserve it".

i get a little thrill knowing im that important to someone :)

You've tripped right over the difference though.

Corporations aren't people. They do not and cannot present a personal threat to you.

Even your trailing example falls flat on this: for the activity to be distressing you had to recontextualize it back to the individual level.

It's about intention. I don't want someone threatening or evil going through my info but don't mind stuff being public in general, like this comment for example.

I think people's idea of privacy is very simplistic and personal and relies on the disgust of a human peering over your files. Most laypeople don't have the same disgust of machines peering over their personal files that is why the weirdo video recording elicits a negative response but Meta or Alphabet doing it doesn't. Plus the fact that they "depend" on Meta and Alphabet tech makes it easier to give them a pass not unlike fans of [insert your favourite celebrity] who happily look away or justify the celebrity's bad actions.

No. Why should I find you repulsive?

You might find something I wrote interesting. Then whatever public info there is on me helps you to get to know me a bit better. You may stop there and forget about me, or you may try to reach out.

There is nothing wrong about that.

I would be fine with the NSA recording everything I do, if I had access to it as a backup. I think it would be a valuable service a government could perform for me - assuming there were a way to make sure the data was not accessed without my side of the key. I would also think it pretty neat, were I able to use it as a backup over my life, for my own purposes - if I could do it without involving the spooks. Like, let me use the technological spy infrastructure, and if I happen to commit a crime, well then - come on in, inspect my data by all means.

This, I think, is the only circumstance where it is justifiable - but of course, it is not reality. We have absolutely no agency over the activities of Pine Gap, etc.

However, corporations - for some reason - are given a pass.

What the world really needs, is for hackers to get user-facing operating systems which just really do, backup everything. It's okay, you can choose not to use it.

I'd love to have every single phone call I've ever made available, at this point in my life.

copy the original link then go to archive .is then paste the link into the second field than choose any result. not a rocket science. the article is not interesting tbh.

As someone who regularly attempts to give up a cell phone, it is not optional. A not insignificant number of things require it. It is the expectation society is now built around and therefore it is not an option. A car without telemetry is for the time being still optional. I take very good care of my old vehicles hoping I never need a new one.

I was watching a documentary about the first food regulations in the US today, lobbyists are as old as the state here, good luck getting them out, the entire system was designed by and for them

I wish that I could upvote this twice.

hey i just want to be able to install graphene os on my iphone hardware. if only.

There are multiple things we need to acknowledge:

- Consumers largely do not know these things. They are either not disclosed, or buried within a TOS that they cannot read. This is all done on purpose. The reason the TOS is obtuse, long, inaccurate, and updated weekly is so you won't read or understand it.

- In most markets there is no choice. For smartphones you do not have a choice, both Apple and Google do extensive surveillance. If you want to bank, get a job, and all around be successful, you have to swallow the surveillance cost. If you want a new car, again, no choice. If you work a job, again, no choice on the computer or software.

- It is not reasonable to expect consumers to do extensive research on everything they buy. Consumers have lives, children, jobs. They're not going to sit and spend 10+ hours researching every thing they buy, especially when most of that research is fruitless.

- There are tradeoffs with everything. Yes we can use Linux, I sure do. But for other consumers, now they need to spend a lot of time understanding that. Yes we can use Graphene OS, but certain apps won't work.

That would be child abuse, as corporations are born out of the state as statutory entities. Corporations used to be chartered to do specific jobs like build a bridge or whatever. Charter max was 20 years. This is why the first and second national banks ran for only 20 years each.

I would be fine with the NSA[1] recording everything I do, if I had access to it as a backup.

I think it would be a valuable service a government could perform for me - assuming there were a way to make sure the data was not accessed without my side of the key. Like, it is only after I have been arrested that the data is accessible to the court in which I will have been presented to face accusations of a crime.

I would also think it pretty neat, were I able to use it as a backup over my life, for my own purposes - if I could do it without involving the spooks. Like, let me use the technological spy infrastructure, and if I happen to commit a crime, well then - come on in, inspect my data by all means.

This, I think, is the only circumstance where it is justifiable - but of course, it is not reality. We have absolutely no agency over the activities of Pine Gap, etc.

And there's the corporations who - for some reason - are given a pass. If governments can steal your data, so can Mr. FatCat and his team of merry department heads.

What the world really needs, is for hackers to get user-facing operating systems which just really do, backup everything. It's okay, you can choose not to use it.

I'd love to have every single phone call I've ever made available, at this point in my life, for review. This kind of super-wide view of things would be quite enlightening, I'm pretty sure.

[1] - just for the record, I think the problems that the NSA are trying to solve are obsolete; that there are far greater solutions to fallacies which support the utility of it as an organ of government; I am in the camp that this is a massive human rights issue, also.

This is what we should have put on the golden record sent on Voyager so the aliens don't get paywalled when they try to check out our content.

They might be trying to make contact, but they're shadowbanned. Neither party knows the message is being blocked.

> He'll go into detail about all the ways you're being spied on.

Don't doubt it for even a second.

Traversing life without a cell phone is a fun experiment. Here and there I forget mine and spend a day without the distraction - glorious way to spend time.

We've added that URL to the thread header.

We don't make a gift link the primary URL because we always want that to be the canonical URL for the article. But it's good to have a variety of options for paywall workarounds.

How about Archive Buttons? [0]

I don't know what's going on behind those 5 buttons, but this was the first, and who knows?

[0] https://www.archivebuttons.com/articles?article=https://www....

I don't think they are optional in today's world. There's a lot of places where it would be prohibitive to try to live without a smartphone and what does it even cost to remove telemetry from a car?

but you don't have separation of church and state... thats a poor comparison. religious dogma eats into nearly all public discourse.

Why does the Atlantic get shade?

> we need a government that is antagonistic towards corporations that are abusing us

Please don't. The entire civilized world for all of history and before has been built on the uncomfortable alliance between power/capability and governance/legitimacy. Protection-seeking is the primary support system for tyranny which is happy to induce the chaos they protect you from.

We just need enough negative feedback for any kind of abuse that it stops, because regulations have to be slow to be accurate and thus invite abuse innovation. The main part of that negative feedback is effective competition so people can vote with their feet.

So, ask not for antagonism but for real alternatives.

The outrage isn't feigned; it just comes from a minority of people. The masses aren't established to "want this"; they may just not care.

We need PII to be so toxic that companies run screaming from the liability unless they have explicit consent[1] and a legit reason to house it.

A company selling me widgets wouldn't store or let another company store extra information about me if it subjected them the widget seller to HIPAA. Or better yet, something more stringent.

We don't need the government to be antagonistic toward corporations; we just need a government that makes the corporations internalize the risk they're making us take.

[1] The fact that ToS are enforceable when every court in the country knows that only a vanishly small percentage of people ever read them, much less understand them, means that they're not doing their job.

By leveraging mobile network infrastructure – towers, spectrum, antennas, and some hardware – ISAC can detect, locate, and track objects (including passive ones with no electronics). This will enable a wide range of use cases such as UAV airspace monitoring, autonomous vehicle safety, industrial automation, and immersive AR experiences. Commercial deployment is expected alongside 6G rollouts in the 2030 timeframe

https://www.ericsson.com/en/6g/isac

I don't think people want this. I think people want the other benefits that those things bring, and increasingly feel that it's impossible to escape being surveilled anyway so do their best to ignore the whole issue.

Being resigned to something is not the same as wanting that thing.

> Most humans use Meta products regularly; also optional. For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.

This is a perfect example of the revealed-preference fallacy. The use of providers like Meta does not reflect a well-informed, freely chosen preference. Meta spends a ton of money to squash competition, remove viable alternatives, and to make their products addictive.

Don’t click that link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...

As someone frequently annoyed by those stupid bird/deer/insect ultrasound emitters I hope this doesn't become common, with my luck I'll be able to hear them.

Yes, but when the surveillance is sweeping, global and total, you can’t really be sure about “intent”, current or future.

The Germans voted for Hitler because the economy was shit and Hitler was the only one daring to say he'd fix it.

>Why should I find you repulsive?

There could be a number of reasons. Am I not trying hard enough?

Or people naively assume that the machine is wayyyy more impartial and privacy-isolated than it really is.

There were literal wars started and people murdered over corporate interests.

> Corporations ... do not and cannot present a personal threat to you.

...is this for real

Holy fucking hell. Someone please, I can't

I think people would find it disgusting, it's just very hard to know what data is being used and how and sold to whom by these companies. It's a very opaque by design.

> He won't let you into his house with a smartphone

His mistrust might be about the phone's owner and the recording apps they might use, more than the smartphone itself.

Socially it's much safer to direct suspicion at "the smartphone" rather than the people invited to your house.

Don't fucking encourage this lol

Right? There are 8 billion humans on those planet. You are 0.0000000125% of humanity. No one outside your family and friends even knows you, nevermind gives a shit about you, unless you stick out in some way. If GP wants to take a tour of my GitHub or my blog and send me a thoughtful email, I'd be delighted!

> Why should I find you repulsive?

Me googling your shit might lead to your real name, your family photos etc

Just because it's all public doesn't mean you want the cashier from the supermarket following you around to your family picnic

or just because you like to let the sunlight in doesn't mean you want random pedestrians peering in through your windows..

I can't believe this needs to be spelled out here: "Public" life is compartmentalized.

The second paragraph by itself is enough, the first is a tad hubristic and vague. The good things that got us here are not necessarily the things that will get us there, there being wherever we ideally want to end up...

>The main part of that negative feedback is effective competition

The comment you responded to allows for "corporations that abuse us" to include those that actively try to prevent effective competition. You don't really explain why being antagonistic to those corporations would be a problem.

your inventing a concept of universal power dynamics and history with no basis. Humans have created a myriad of sociatal structures, and with the current luxury of our post scarcity techno industrial manufacturing capabilities there is no reason to have all of the forever wars and suffering from lack. What you describe is slavery, not civilisation.

It's not shade the article is just paywalled

Agree, you’re either a digital hermit or you’re part of the problem / system

Explicit consent will be everywhere, like you won't be admitted to a grocery store without it. Take any modern TV -- there's a privacy policy you have to accept the first time you turn it on. Or California Prop 65 notice on every product.

So no, requiring explicit consent won't fix anything.

Thank you, this deserved a link. I was being lazy.

Considering the state of the federal government under the current regime it's a challenge to identify safe government and business relationships.

Sometimes it’s also a pain to opt out.

The outrageous prices of used (low telemetry) cars make them a poor value proposition, for example. Depending on the model, a used car can be a decade old with half of its lifetime miles on it already and the seller will still want $14k or something crazy like that. When you factor in the parts of its history that carfax doesn’t cover and the stream of repairs you’re likely to be saddled with, finding a 0%-2% financing deal on something new at ~$20-24k begins to look a lot more attractive.

The separation is not total but its more than used to exist.

All successful negative things have a claim to virtue that they hide behind.

> I don't think people want this

There was a comment made here a month or two ago, about someone from a SE Asia country (I forget which; maybe Bangladesh?) talking about how their government installed AI traffic enforcement cameras all over, and they went from one of the deadliest, most chaotic road systems in the world to Singapore-level rule-following in the space of just a couple months.

As a result, the cameras have become quite popular because there's less traffic, travelling is easier and more predictable, and road deaths have plummeted.

I imagine there are a number of similar situations in every country, where the deployment of AI surveillance has a sufficiently measurably positive impact that it becomes popular.

> We need PII to be so toxic that companies run screaming from the liability

This is how healthcare workers used to treat health information protected by HIPAA, but it seems like the big corporations don't really even care about it. Nothing ever comes from violations besides slap on the wrist/cost of doing business penalties. You can't do anything without waiving all your rights, granting permission to be recorded, granting permission to use your photograph for anything they want, allowing your recorded audio to run through AI for transcription (and whatever else they want to do), granting permission to share your data with their partners, associates, and some vague description of "anyone we decide at a later date". That's before you can even sign-up, receive care, have a service rendered, enter into a business establishment.

There's pages of fine print documenting it all in vague terms that ambiguously safe guard the provider from any liability, but half the time, you don't even get to opportunity to (not) read it. It's just a link to go elsewhere and (not) read it. They add as many steps between you even reading what rights you're giving away, so that even the people who had a mind to do so would get fatigued, and they make you do it while there are people queuing up behind you, or you're almost done with your purchase/subscription, etc.

Everything is so consumer hostile (and expensive in America), but no "better" service can swoop in, because the established Big corps get to break all the rules or can afford the token penalties to give them an unstoppable market share no honest disruptor/competition could ever overcome. On even ground, no competent person would choose to be abused by our resident monopolies vs a reasonably similar priced local upstart, and a lot people would even pay (a little) more for a better experience/product/service.

They care to the degree they become aware of it and it's potential misuses.

I wonder how precise this will be? A flying object sounds reasonable but could it actually track say individual people walking on a street further down the line?

> This is a perfect example of the revealed-preference fallacy.

The fallacy here is that you think people should have difference preferences than they actually do. "People disagree with me? They must be ill-informed."

so I've been watching the CMS symposium about "Burden Reduction". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYyK0Hc43UE&list=PLaV7m2-zFK...

Most of the videos talk about reducing burden on clinicians. Specifically: sharing, accessing, updating patient history. Providing clinicians and patients guidance through the medical process through AI agents (that have access to your PII). the kaiser permanente guy highlighted ai's use in guiding billing codes. Dr. Oz spoke about getting pre-authorizations near instantaneously

I'm not sure how that gets accomplished without reducing liability or loosing restrictions. I wouldnt be surprised to see a continued attack on our healthcare privacy

Don’t look at me. I won’t even put a TV online because they want to watch me back.

What I do know, however, is that most people seem to be willing to give up everything for a little convenience.

They recommend archive.org instead but archive.org's version of that article gets masked by an error page preventing you from reading it where the archive.is link works fine.

So there isn't a choice here if you actually want to see the article (without subscribing to the atlantic).

Alternate take: you can click that link. We are not on Wikipedia and the OP isn't a link to Wikipedia.

I was wondering what was the angle of thede sites.

How about when that thoughtful email becomes a visit from law enforcement because your projects don’t align with the current administration’s views? When something you said offers support for anyone other than The Party’s chosen ethnic group?

> Just because it's all public doesn't mean you want the cashier from the supermarket following you around to your family picnic.

This has never happened to me. Out of the space of “bad things that can happen to me” I don’t have time to worry about things with such a small probability of occurring.

Don't put on the Internet what you don't want found as it's always and forever public, I thought everyone knew the first rule.

I clicked that link and I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not like I donate money by doing that. And they still are very useful resource, even if they're not good enough for Wikipedia (if they indeed tampered with some old archives, it's pretty obvious why)

Weellll...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kpRIRxwmrU

> You don't really explain why being antagonistic to those corporations would be a problem

Yeah, sorry. Yes, corporate activities that reduce competition or corrupt regulators should have their agents and causes ripped out branch to root; they're like diseases which attack the immune system, doubly bad.

But the premise that a corporation or a country that does bad things means you are justified in antagonizing or destroying the entire company or the people is typically enlistment and leverage for protection rackets.

Warring with others is a cycle that doesn't end, and mainly elevates military resource providers. Warring with yourself - attacking your own organs - is self-destructive (which is why enemies stimulate it).

As for here vs there, 20th-century totalitarian systems all stemmed from people wanting to believe promises of a better world, and the promotors being unbound by facts of the present. "Here" is a much more tractable problem, where our medicine (or immune systems) could get better at stemming the diseases we have, like the lack of negative feedback for abusing people (more generally for exporting costs, esp. to the future), or the corruption of discourse that mediates agreements about governance. My goal would be to leave the world more free, peaceful, nature-healthy than I found it. Antagonism doesn't help for that, and side-tracks people into regressive emotions.

The government needs regulation to allow access without granting consent in certain cases. Not quite as far as declaring something a utility, but better than almost completely unregulated.

Alas this is the structure of power. Either you have to do a total rejection of its benefits or you end up being sucked into the system as others practically force people into it for fear of being left behind.

It’s enticing to believe we coulda gone another way. Such as having a paid versions of these services. But free is just Soooo enticing. It hacks peoples brains.

The really obnoxious part is that with the possible exception of maps all of the other "services" touted as vital parts of a digitally connected existence are so enshittified at this point that the original value proposition for all of them is absent. So we're left with this zombie rhetoric around being disconnected while "connecting" means you spend hours every day staring at bot content and ads.

I avoid all that by avoiding the corporate health care system.

It is sometimes true that a large group of people hold a preference due to being misinformed, though. I don’t think a kneejerk assertion that GP is assuming their opinion is true and anyone who disagrees is an idiot is merited here.

Meta has done a lot of shitty things to acquire and addict users, and is analogous to a massive regional monopoly in the U.S. Both of those indicate that users of Facebook might be less than rational (in the economic sense) about their choice of social media product.

Vietnam?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/world/asia/vietnam-traffi...

Weren’t electronic health records supposed to solve this problem almost 20 years ago?

I would have figured there would have been a massive financial interest in providers not having to waste time dealing with tedious Q&A and data entry with new patients…

I suspect while not individually, it will provide another data point that can be collaborated.

One should never underestimate the power of combining data sets.

This is something Richard Stallman has pointed out many times before. You need to tell people about these things, most of them simply do not know the extent of the issues but once they do know it, most are at least sympathetic to the cause.

Please don't call license plate scanners AI

> their government installed AI traffic enforcement cameras all over

What does the AI actually do? Identify specific cars and their drivers, or something? What actual enforcement actions were taken as a result, and against how many drivers before it stopped?

One might wonder how much of the effect was placebo (i.e., people conforming simply due to the belief of being surveilled).

If you would open the second link provided you would get an answer.

>This decision was agreed on after a request for comment with more than 200 participants concluded in February 2026, and is due to multiple concerns, including the site using editors' and readers' computers to run a denial-of-service attack and evidence that the website has tampered with some archived pages

How about it? I am not that interesting or powerful at all. Yes, there's a worst case scenario where the government raids my house and I get shot, and I wouldn't like that, but I refuse to live in fear of the bogeyman.

I think if you're a fat middle aged man, it's not likely to happen to you personally. But you must have daughters, nieces, a mother, or some sort of female presence in your life. It happens to people like them.

Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives?

"what if the government becomes a dictatorship" is a stupid question: you either stood up and opposed it, or you let it happen.

My privacy is important as a matter of consent.

But I should not have to hide my sexuality or identity, nor my politics and if my support of a marginalized group exists then what is the point of hiding it while they are oppressed? What benefit does that bring?

Encouraging people to be private in their views and anymore and anonymous in their "support" is exactly how fascists crush their opposition.

Thank you for the heads up! DDOS attacks are pretty concerning, but even more concerning is the potential alteration of content. Diabolical. That said, journalism needs funding more than ever, please if you can, try your best to pay for it.

Still better than being at the mercy of the corporations.

That cellphone and car and television and most other things that spy on you were most certainly not free.

Maybe not, but it could be using your browser as a part of a DDoS network. The admins have also been tampering with archived articles.

Oh boy. It's NOT about whether something's "public" or not:

It's about someone "connecting the dots" between ALL your public activities.

Someone following you OUTSIDE their "space" that you visited and then invading your other spaces.

People don't usually want to mix their social circles. e.g. nobody likes a snoopy overprotective parent following their [teen] kids around wherever the children go with their friends.

Nobody likes their spouse coming uninvited on a night out with the guys/gals.

Or, when you reply to someone on HN or Reddit, and they don't like what you say about 1 specific topic, then they go and downvote ALL your comments about everything else you said!

That's perfectly legal. It's allowed. Nothing's stopping it. And hey, you commented publicly so you were "asking for it", right?

BUT IT'S A FUCKING DICK MOVE

You really spend hours a day staring at bots and ads?

I'm not sure that's really true. The two that come immediately to mind are Facebook or Discord for organizing with friends and language translation while traveling.

lol, what

Why not? If they use a machine learning approach. AI is more than LLMs.

It's a trained model, just like Claude.

> What does the AI actually do? Identify specific cars and their drivers, or something?

Yes, exactly. It identifies cars and drivers who are committing traffic violations, and issues citations.

I don't have the specific numbers you ask for, seeing as I can't even remember the country, but it's not difficult to imagine that if sufficiently many such cameras are installed that most moving violations on major roadways are caught and punished, then yes, people will come to (reasonably) believe that the cost of committing the violation is close to the price of the fine, rather than close to zero.

It's one thing to blow by a pedestrian crossing the street, it's another to do so knowing you'll probably be charged $150 (or whatever) for having done it.

"it's pretty obvious why" here refers to why Wikipedia would reject them as a source.

> Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives?

See section "Blog capture tampered with":

* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...

Also:

> On 20 February 2026, the English Wikipedia banned all links to archive.today, citing the DDoS attack and evidence that archived content was tampered with: Discussion had discovered that instances of Nora's name were replaced with Patokallio's and that "Nora" was likely an appropriated identity—the name belonged to a real person, whose only connection to archive.today had been a prior content takedown request.[18][17][19] The community's decision was made despite concerns over maintaining content verifiability—partly undermined by the discovery of the alterations— while removing and replacing the second-largest archiving service used across the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. The Wikimedia Foundation had stated its readiness to take action regardless of the community verdict.[18][20] Patokallio expressed his satisfaction with the outcome.[3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Attack_on_Gyrova...

> Specifically, AT's maintainers reportedly tweaked snapshots of a third-party blog post that Patokallio referred to in his February 2026 article about the DDoS attack. AT changed the name of a "Nora" person in said post to Jani Patokallio, making it look as if he had written some comments there. Eagle-eyed Wikipedia editors spotted the alterations, which have since then been reverted, but the action made it easy for them reach a final decision.

* https://www.tomshardware.com/software/search-engines/wikiped...

Looking for the answer to this myself as well. Seems like a bit of conjecture

>But I should not have to hide my sexuality or identity, nor my politics

You shouldn't but you can't and will never be able to know what the future looks like. You could be in libertine Berlin of the 1920s and be hunted down by fascists a decade later because of your ancestry or sexuality.

And don't think that can't happen quickly again, it's not much of a hyperbole given the way the world is going. And nowadays, once you put something on the internet, good luck getting rid of it. So I'd be very careful with what I disclose, it's not paranoia any more. I'm European and flew to the US earlier this year and got asked to disclose my social media profiles. I have none, deleted them a decade ago. Is that sane or moral? No but if that's how the US rolls these days imagine where else your data can end up.

It's more likely to happen a woman than to a man, but it's still very unlikely to happen to a woman.

Fuck no, I stopped using my phone for anything besides maps and phone stuff before the pandemic. You peddling the idea that that isn't what all of the social platforms are these days?

Not mine, UBlock has blocked that since day one, thankfully

Most do.

I think that archive links should be made to include a cryptographic hash of the file; this can prevent alteration of content (including of the original file that it is copied from) but also can allow alternative sources of the file to be found (or verified to be correct) according to the hash. (If someone is concerned they want their username removed, they could perhaps edit their copy of the file first and then archive it, although they should have someone to trust if it matches the original one or not, if it has been modified in this way (or any other way, e.g. removing some scripts and CSS etc).)

I mean I might give it to you for Discord but Facebook is an easy win here. There's so much bot crap on Facebook Meta keeps getting dragged in front of congress over it.

DDoSing who? Doesn't CORS help here?

Someone would only be able to connect the dots based on what you publicly put out there. If you don't put anything out, there's nothing to connect the dots, unless you buy some sort of dark web leaked dataset. None of your analogies are comparable to online public information because you decide what to put out online, and I never said anything about legality so not sure why you bring that up.

A DDoS against a blog that iirc was attempting to dox the archive.today maintainer.

The bit about tampering with archived pages is news to me though. Wish the wiki discussion included receipts. Is "two users report they were redirected to tehrantimes.com" what is being referred to when they say archived pages are being tampered with?

You can easily find my home address by starting with my HN profile.

I do understand what you are getting at. I just don’t find people repulsive by being curious of me; even if they find materials I myself did not make public.

As an aside, I sometimes stumble upon websites of people who write and show pictures of themselves and their family. I find them beautiful[0] to visit and hope more people would do that, as was more common 20 years ago.

[0] https://www.pement.org/

If you are healthy and kid free, you can just not go to the doctor.

So it's something AI, somewhere, you cant verify it, nevermind us. But you feel comfortable stating it both as a fact and a good thing to have.

There was an article on the front page today titled something like "incentives are for schmucks", which I didn't like very much.

In this case, incentives are for people who'd like to reduce traffic deaths.

Very unlikely?

  An estimated 2.7 million Australian adults have experienced stalking since the age of 15, according to new results from the 2021-22 Personal Safety Survey (PSS) released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 

  William Milne, ABS head of crime and justice statistics, said “We found one in five women and one in 15 men have been stalked.

  “Women were almost eight times more likely to be stalked by a male than by a female, while men were stalked by a male and by a female at a similar rate.” 

~ https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/1-7-austr...

You don’t necessarily decide what to put online. Friends may upload photos of you, data brokers make your information available to “people search” websites, if you buy a house your information is available unless you put it in a blind trust, etc. If you go beyond the web to private services then you have companies like Flock and retailers who use facial recognition, who make their data available to subscribers and partners.

Disturbed people with access to this data can use it to harm people, like the Ebay exec who stalked a critic or the occasional police officer who stalks a romantic interest.

cors stops the browser from reading the response but the request still gets processed by the server

> unless you buy some sort of dark web leaked dataset

Customers of such datasets: banks, insurance companies, HR companies, marketing firms, governments, etc.

It looks like the "tampering" was mostly just removing the username of the person submitting the links, so they wouldn't get banned by paywall sites, and archive.today has always done this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

And it looks like in some instances they changed their own alias to the name of the blogger they're in dispute with, in a fit of pique.

You have to scroll down to get hints because the conversation has been redacted, and the evidence is not provided with side-by-side comparisons.

I understand the ethical concerns about linking to the site but the blanket accusations of "tampering" seem a bit disingenuous, since no article content was ever changed afaik.

> I just don’t find people repulsive by being curious of me; even if they find materials I myself did not make public.

If they do it just to reach out to you with good intentions then it's fine. But if they do it to dox you or harm you in any other way, then it's not fine.

Or extracting financial gain from my data without my consent.

In addition to that kind of “benign” tampering, there was also tampering other webpages to insert the name of the person who was doing the exposé on archive.is. Either to slander that person further (in addition to the DDOS archive.is was already attempting) or to dox the person.

Thanks I had edited my post once I saw that - buried deep in the discussion.

I don't get why they couldn't just say what they did instead of disingenuously implying that article content had been "tampered".

Given the breadth of misinformation out there today, shoddy evidence and misleading language makes people give archive.today the benefit of the doubt, and actually hurts the case against them.

Nobody really knows who runs the site. One concern I have after reading this thread is that they start pulling a 1984 at some point.