[cardanome]

As far as I understand the person behind archive.today might face jail time if they are found out. You shouldn't be surprised that people lash out when you threaten their life.

I don't think the DDOSing is a very good method for fighting back but I can't blame anyone for trying to survive. They are definitely the victim here.

If that blog really doxxed them out of idle curiosity they are an absolute piece of shit. Though I think this is more of a targeted campaign.

[pibaker]

One thing they always teach you in Crime University is "don't break two laws at the same time." If you have contrabands in your car, don't speed or run red lights, because it brings attention and attentions means jail.

In this case, I didn't know that the archive.today people were doxxed until they started the ddos campaign and caught attention. I doubt anyone in this thread knew or cared about the blogger until he was attacked. And now this entire thing is a matter of permanent record on Wikipedia and in the news. archive.today's attempt at silencing the blogger is only bringing them more trouble, not less.

Barbara_Streisand_Mansion.jpg

[stuffoverflow]

The weird thing is that there was nothing new in that blog post. And on top of that it couldn't conclusively say who the owner of archive.today is, so no one still knows.

[ouhamouch]

We do not know what was important in that doxx.

Probably nothing and the DDoS hype was intentional to distract attention and highlight J.P.'s doxx among the other, making them insignificant.

J.P. might be the only one of the doxxers who could promote their doxx in media, and this made his doxx special, not the content?

Anyway, it made the haystack bigger keeping needle the same.

[protimewaster]

> As far as I understand the person behind archive.today might face jail time if they are found out. You shouldn't be surprised that people lash out when you threaten their life.

One of the really strange things about all of this is that there is a public forum post in which a guy claims to be the site owner. So this whole debacle is this weird mix of people who are angry and saying "clearly the owner doesn't want to be associated with the site" on the one hand, but then on the other hand there's literally a guy who says he's the one that owns the site, so it doesn't seem like that guy is very worried about being associated with it?

It also seems weird to me that it's viewed as inappropriate to report on the results of Googling the guy who said he owns the site, but maybe I'm just out of touch on that topic.

[ouhamouch]

There are even YouTube videos (of GamerGate-time, thus before AI era) with a guy claiming to be the site owner. A bit difficult to OSINT :)

[arboles]

> is that there is a public forum post in which a guy claims to be the site owner.

Which forum post? The post mentioned by the blogger, the post on an F-Secure forum (a company with cybersecurity products) was a request for support by the owner of archive.today regarding a block of their site. It's arguably not intended as a public statement by the owner of the archive, and they were simply careless with their username.

[RobotToaster]

I don't see how that contradicts anything? He's almost certainly using a nomme de guerre.

[luckylion]

Somebody who a) directs DDOS attacks and b) abuses random visitors' browser for those DDOS attacks is never the victim.

You don't know their motives for running their site, but you do get a clear message about their character by observing their actions, and you'd do well to listen to that message.

[cardanome]

The character is completely irrelevant to whether they are a victim of doxxing.

They might be the worst person ever but that doesn't matter. People can be good and bad, sometimes the victim sometimes the perpetrator.

Is it morally wrong to doxx someone and cause them to go to jail because they are running an archive website? Yes. It is. It doesn't matter who the person is. It does not matter what their motivations are.