BrianKrebsJan 2, 2023

Your periodic reminder that just because a URL is saved at archive.org doesn't mean it's going to stay there.

Last year, I wrote a series about proxy services marketed to cybercriminals, and that relied heavily on Archive.org links to document various connections. After my story ran, the person that those links concerned asked Archive to remove those links from their database, which they did. The person in question came back and said hey, what you said in your story is wrong because there's no supporting evidence and you must remove this. Archive.org confirmed they removed all of the pages at the request of the domain holder, and that was that.

If you stumble upon a page that is in archive.org and you want to make sure there is a record that won't be deleted at some point, consider saving the page to archive.today/archive.ph

Alternatively, of course, you could save the page locally, using something like Firefox's built-in full page screenshot (right click on page). Better yet, save the Archive.org pages you want locally.

Show threadJorge StolfiJan 2, 2023

@briankrebs

Indeed. The original historic website "buttcoin.com" was saved to archive .org, but the registration to the domain lapsed and was acquired by a domain name squatting company. The company demanded that archive.org erase the archived page and made it link to the company's sale page.

Show threadApt Moniker
@JorgeStolfi @briankrebs that is particularly interesting/concerning. Does simply owning the domain name give one rights over content that was previously hosted on the same domain?
Jan 2, 2023 at 5:54pmWeb
Show threadBrianKrebsJan 2, 2023
@aptmoniker @JorgeStolfi yes. So, consider that the Chief Twit could legally request that all Twitter links be removed. Not saying it's going to happen, but it most definitely could.
Show threadApt MonikerJan 2, 2023
@briankrebs @JorgeStolfi I was not aware, very good to know - thank you. My hatred for cybersquatters has just multiplied, which I didn't realise was possible.
Show threadJorge StolfiJan 2, 2023

@aptmoniker @briankrebs

https://mas.to/@JorgeStolfi/109621862406912923

Jorge Stolfi (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] Yes, the archive should have retained the original content of that URL, no matter what. Even if the creators object. That is what it is supposed to do. Bu while the domain squatters did not own the page, they legally owned the domain name (and apparently still do). I suppose their argument was that the sale value of the domain would be impacted if it had prior archived contents unrelated to the buyer.

mas.to
Show threadBaltasar CevcJan 5, 2023
@aptmoniker @JorgeStolfi @briankrebs I would very much doubt so, at least in that generality. Trouble is: you only need to find one major jurisdiction where it does which allows you to enforce it. Archive.org and similar offerings have no interest in lengthy litigation.