1
14

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND [S] 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago  (edited ago)

OP for this wall of text here. The article doesn't even seem that political to me. My analysis is that because wired.com is based in San Francisco, somehow, someone got triggered somewhere in the world and wanted this to be deleted for saying the word Kosher or something like that. Apparently a Jewish man complaining about having to pay 3x the normal price for kosher food in Prison hurted someone's fee-fee's ? It's also kind of funny that the article was originally click-baity anyway as it looks to just paint Mitnick into an obnoxious cheap and entitled Jew trope, during a time where he was the forefront on setting the standard for how hackers will be punished (with the major debate being that he was punished excessively for fraudulent claims on damages he never made).

0
0

[–] BobCat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Dude, take a pill. WIRED fucked up their archives a decade ago, and you JUST noticed it? There's a lot of stuff misfiled or missing, they sucked at IT, and no one gives a shit that Kevin couldn't get turkey bacon on his BLT. There's about 50 other stories about him still there.

Before the fuckup: http://web.archive.org/web/20050403231248/http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,21322,00.html After: http://web.archive.org/web/20060623001219/http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21322.html

They changed the url scheme and lost bits all over. See? Investigate harder before you flip out about nothing.

Kevin's sentence was entirely fair, which you would know if you read his books.

1
4

[–] InfoTeddy 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Decided to archive an archive. Maybe more archive-ceptions in the future? Who knows!

1
6

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND [S] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This is not the first time archive.org has been caught delisted/deleting archives. They even admit to having a policy where they will delete anything that the original publisher wants deleted.

The Internet Archive states, however, "Sometimes a web site owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. We comply with these requests."[45] In addition, the web site says: "The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection."[46]

They are 200+ employee company with big money flowing their their paws. They are not some kind of internet free open source initiative that they promote themselves to be on their about page. They have some big money connection with Amazon/Alexa, but it will take some digging to really understand what the nature of that connection is.

But, I do think they are also on the hinge of a moral dilemma with no obvious answer. A clear one yes, but not that obvious. On the one hand, I can see cases where a person who is stalked (ex lover, witness protection, etc) needs to get their information deleted from archive.org. But I don't see how major corporations should be able to abuse this and use it as a tool of both censorship and rewriting history. Given that archive.org is a major 200+ employee operation with connections to big silicon Valley business (and Seattle Business really, Amazon/Alexa), it seems they have no problem letting service end up as an internet history rewrite tool for corporate interests.

1
7

[–] Sragwaven 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

This is why I archive twice. Once in archive.is, and once one archive.org as a courtesy for people who have trouble with archive.is. Occasionally, I'll also screen cap it, if I'm really worried about it going somewhere, but that's just to make sure some kind of record is kept, and mainly for myself. I basically archive everything I come across, so I have a pretty well oiled system.

1
3

[–] Chuck_Testa 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Holy Shit!, the last link you provided is gone too http://web.archive.org/web/20090420132601/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/08/21322

Really good work on this.

1
2

[–] trucking_foal 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I want to thank you for the effort that you put forth to help preserve the integrity of us users of the internet.

0
1

[–] Tb0n3 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Looks like you need to go back to the drawing board. Archive.org has the actual article in your own link, and through 2011. It kind of looks like you caught the site when it was doing some maintenance and attributed to malice what was a mere inconvenience.

0
0

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Archive.org has the actual article in your own link

I know, I posted it. It's not showing up on their search and it still isn't. Nothing has changed on their website since I posted this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090701000000*/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/08/21322

Notice how 2009 is the earliest entry in the top navbar, here is a screencap: http://i.imgur.com/pIBITcT.png

Even if you got to the de-listed revision from 1999 (find via an external website that isn't censored), it still shows 2009 as the earliest entry in that same top-navbar: http://web.archive.org/web/20090420132601/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/08/21322

They even admit to openly deleting anything retroactively, even publicly published articles:

The Internet Archive states, however, "Sometimes a web site owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. We comply with these requests."[45]

Makes sense, they have customer support for those who don't know how to configure robots.txt.

In addition, the web site says: "The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection."[46]

They openly admit to deleting anything. It appears that the wired article was in fact deleted. However, I am very much eager and willing to see facts explaining why the revisions from 2009 aren't showing up. I'd rather be right than wrong, certainly.

0
0

[–] Tb0n3 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It looks to me like archive.org is having issues. Sometimes the pages don't load, but when they do load the article is there.

1
1

[–] frankenmine 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Please list these other sites that can be used to search Archive.org.

1
2

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I was able to find it using http://timetravel.mementoweb.org/ ... which is able to search archive.org without any deletion filters. They are probably using an API for archive.org and the API isn't abiding by the deletion filter. mementoweb.org just points to archive.org links, as opposed to doing their own webcrawl/archiving.

1
2

[–] frankenmine 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

This tip should be made more widely available. I will mention it when relevant. Thanks.

0
0

[–] bigbigbison 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

you mean this article: http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/08/21322 which literally took me less than 10 seconds to find.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Inversely, don't expect malice to be executed with aboslute precision. I think the fact that it is currently deleted on archive.org is evidence of a cover up.

[–] [deleted] 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]