Britain's Conservatives Scrub Speeches from the Internet 234
An anonymous reader writes news of an attempt to erase a bit of history. From the article: "The Conservative Party have attempted to delete all their speeches and press releases online from the past 10 years, including one in which David Cameron promises to use the Internet to make politicians 'more accountable'. The Tory party have deleted the backlog of speeches from the main website and the Internet Archive — which aims to make a permanent record of websites and their content — between 2000 and May 2010."
Where's the torrent file? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the torrent file?
Re:Where's the torrent file? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of the Streisand Effect.
Re:Where's the torrent file? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of the Streisand Effect.
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of 1984. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Where's the torrent file? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of the Streisand Effect.
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of 1984. [wikipedia.org]
Oh they have, but instead of feeling appalled, they just get a hard-on.
Re: (Score:3)
As a side note. Maybe someone at the NSA could send the data over to Snowden who could then send it over to Julian; that would be epic.
Re:Where's the torrent file? (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK political scene has always been a bit foreign to my German tastes. A backbench MP suggesting that feckless fathers should be dragged to work in chains in defense of the badly executed bedroom-tax would have been forced to apologize in German politics. And he would have lost his seat come the next election. The comically idiotic ads targeting "illegal" immigrants to turn themselves in are both malicious and incompetent. And even now there is another push to introduce the "snooper's charta" which in the light of the recent revelations about the GCHQ isn't even needed for them to do what they do.
The other paries in the UK look good in comparison because of the unmitigated disaster that is the current Tory crop. Thatcher was bad but potentially a necessary evil due to the unmaintainability of the Postwar Dream. But think as I may I can't begin to fathom where to start to look for a justification for that cabinet, that PM and that party. They do not even have the use of a compass needle that permanently points to the south. You can't say "let's do the opposite of what they are suggesting" due to the utter confusion that is their politics.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of the Streisand Effect.
I dunno, but I'm guessing none of these politicians have ever heard of 1984. [wikipedia.org]
I am pretty sure they have heard of it. In fact it's almost as if they use it for inspiration. That, and all Kafka, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
They have. That's why they're all doing it at once. That way nobody in particular is noticed. And, yes, copies will be made and kept, but they won't be found by search engines, and they can be plausibly denied.
Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:4, Interesting)
People have used robots.txt to buy up domains they want to censor.
For example, this happened with partyvan.
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:4, Informative)
I also have a link to a realtime predicted tide generator which takes about 30 seconds to calculate the information it sends back. Before I hacked in a robots.txt to cover it (it's on a different port than the normal web server and thus, according to the robot operators, a completely different website than the one that already had a robots.txt to stop them) one "helpful" robot indexer latched onto it and was sending ten requests per minute. Nice of them to throttle themselves, yeah, when they were running my apache server up to the connection limit (keeping other people from using the site) and driving the load up so the site was useless for anyone local.
So any suggestion that any robot operator ignore robots.txt should be shouted down as the complete nonsense it is.
People have used robots.txt to buy up domains they want to censor.
You can't buy a domain with a robots.txt. Once you own the domain, you have the right to "censor" it all you want, including the use of a robots.txt that bars all robots. But if your goal was to "censor" a website, just stop running an HTTP server. That's much better than any robots.txt in keeping everyone from getting your stuff.
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, Archive.org uses robots.txt to censor old, already captured data. That's a serious flaw in an archive IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When robots.txt is used for censorship, it no longer deserves any respect. I hope more people decide to ignore them. We should never let other people decide what we can see and hear. For the time being we can store stuff locally and employ P2P.
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:4, Insightful)
When robots.txt is used for censorship, it no longer deserves any respect.
It's not censorship when I tell robot data scrapers to bugger off and not abuse the website I run by copying every image I have and looping through the multiple links that take people there, or to invoke a program that generates data on they fly tens of thousands of times a day to the detriment of real users who actually have an interest in the information and can't get it because some robot is using all the available server processes.
I hope more people decide to ignore them.
The day that the first scraper starts ignoring mine, his IP is going into the firewall. If he tries to be a sneaky shit and use multiple IPs, then the site where YOU could come get data for free may very well go away, and you wind up with nothing. Neither I nor my employer have the spare bandwidth and cpu cycles to have every robot come download the Tb of data I have on the web. If free public access becomes an abuse of the server, the free public access goes away.
We should never let other people decide what we can see and hear.
When you are talking about my data, I have every right to decide whether you can see or hear it. It is your attitude of entitlement that makes me always have second thoughts about putting anything on the web. Most people are reasonable, decent people who appreciate the service. Some think they have a right to demand it.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that people such as yourself often think that the presence of your data on someone elses machine somehow gives you the right to install invasive DRM software in an attempt to get their machine to do your bidding instead of the owner's.
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Robots.txt is not DRM, and I'm not trying to get some data scraper's system to "do my bidding". They can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't use my system to do it.
Once the data is recorded and someone else gets a copy, it's only a matter of time before it gets decrypted/distributed.
Still unclear on what you think you are contributing to this discussion. You want to look at my data, you can come do it all day, every day. Yeah, if you're a moron who tries to update a static image once a minute 24/7, I'll shut you off like the idiot abuser you are, but other
Re: (Score:3)
IPv6 users are laughing at your dumb ass right now. Can your idiot ass guess why?
Because it is easy for them to be sneaky shits and use mullions of different IP addresses. Like I said, when the sneaky shits overwhelm the services they are being given for free, the services go away. I've dealt with people like you before. I'm still here. So are my websites.
Fuck, my company would have been dead long ago with an idiot like you behind the wheel.
Yeah, it's a horrible thing to try to make sure that company resources are available for the intended company use and not overwhelmed by leeches sucking up every cycle on a service that they aren't paying for but feel entitled to suc
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that people are buying up the domain names of old websites which no longer exist just to publish a robots.txt file. Then archive.org automatically deletes, or at least blocks access to the entire history of everything that ever happened at that domain including the past website which the new owner has nothing to do with.
I suppose they are just trying to honor site owner's wishes even when they may have initially forgotten about robots.txt and added it later. The robot doesn't know that the old content belonged to someone else who DID NOT wish to block it. Maybe a good solution is that when they notice a new robots.txt everything for the last 'X' months get deleted. (go ahead and debate values of X) Data from prior to that should be left alone. Even if it was posted by the same site owner who is posting the robots.txt today. Tough cookies! If you want to control how your data is used I don't see a problem with requiring you actually take the time to learn about things like robots.txt before you publish. It's really no different than releasing source code under the GPL and then later turning it into a closed source product. All your new work belongs to you but you don't get to force everyone to delete ever copy they might have of the old code and you can't stop them from forking it.
-- I would totally consider an 'X value' of zero as being on the table btw
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose they are just trying to honor site owner's wishes even when they may have initially forgotten about robots.txt and added it later. The robot doesn't know that the old content belonged to someone else who DID NOT wish to block it.
That's probably why they do it that way. They could have picked either side and been wrong for some group. The website operator who didn't know about robots.txt to start with and found some of his material on a robot indexer shouldn't have to track down every robot who has ever visited to be able to rectify the mistake.
The other issue with keeping data after a robots.txt is published by a new owner of a domain is that the archive will contain data that claims to have come from that website but in fact did
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:5, Insightful)
Robots.txt should be respected at the time of retrieval. It should not be retroactively respected to censor or remove old data. That is a shame. I've used the Archive before on a site of a gaming company that I loved, which nearly went bankrupt (or perhaps did) but managed to eke its way through. Part of their relaunch nuked the Internet Archive's archives and I definitely felt a sense of loss.
Yeah, I had the silly impression all this time that the entire purpose of the Internet Archive was to archive the goddamn Internet precisely so that people couldn't pull this kind of retroactive erasure "cleansing of history" bullshit and get away with it.
What a dope I am. It's amazing how inadequately we are protecting our freedoms and our history these days. If we don't do something much more drastic our grandchildren will end up being slaves to some theocratic corporatocracy and they'll have no idea that the world was ever any different.
Lately I think Orwell was overly optimistic.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He misspoke. He meant to say they bought up domains and then used robots.txt to subsequently censor the site (including all older content)
Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score:4, Interesting)
They buy up a domain when it becomes available, set the robots.txt file to "do not archive", then the google-bot spider will send the instruction to delete all
past archives.
You used to be able to visit old web-pages through the google-cache. Remember when google would always have a cached copy of what you wanted to read. Nowadays they just seem to be happy to be a proxy server which records everything you download from the target webpage.
Doesn't that kinda defeat the point of the archive (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't that kinda defeat the point of the arch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't that kinda defeat the point of the arch (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even a takedown request. IA will honor robots.txt totally and retroactively - if they have 10-15 years of archived data at a specific domain (or subdirectory on that domain), and someone puts up a robots.txt disallowing them access, not only will they refuse to archive it going forward, but they will remove all previously archived material from being viewable (I hope they don't actively remove it from their archive, but merely stop making it available).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they have a lot of stuff that isn't publicly available on their website for one reason or another. Don't have a citation though.
Only partially. (Also a wishlist.) (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed this is ridiculous that the IA would retroactively remove stuff though as you say hopefully just disable access instead.
I think the archive actually does just suppress access rather than purge the actual data, so they can again display it once copyright runs out (if it ever does...).
I also think the point is that newbies may not know about robots.txt and that even an experienced webmaster might accidentally allow access to something private long enough for it to get archived, or receive and honor a takedown notice, so this allows the correction of the error.
It's an 'archive' and should reflect how stuff 'was' at the time; legalities of that obviously being quite murky and hard to defend against expensive lawsuits, but still.
That's why. They have limited funds and need them to buy more disks and stuff, not fight lawsuits. If the choice is not display some stuff or go broke and not display anything, the choice is also obvious.
I wish, though, that they were able to detect when a domain changed hands and not honor robots.txt requests retroactively past the boundary. IMHO a new owner is a new web site that happens to have the same name.
Especially: I wish domain name parking sites didn't put up robots.txt files that cause the archive to immediately purge/hide the previous owners' content. I've lost access to a lot of content from dead sites that way. (It also keeps the owners from rescuing their old content if they don't have personal backups.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It fully explains it. Someone bought up the domain that you were hosted on previously, added a blanket disallow in robots.txt, and suddenly all your old stuff is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
The domains are still mine, just took them with me to the different webhosts I've been working for.
OTOH, nothing of value has been lost, just wanted to know exactly what I wrote about Seven of Nine 13 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I added the robots.txt myself :-\
The domains are still mine, just took them with me to the different webhosts I've been working for.
OTOH, nothing of value has been lost, just wanted to know exactly what I wrote about Seven of Nine 13 years ago.
Well that is the thing... sometimes are better off lost. Apparently the Internet Archive is testing the "cannot be unseen" principle.
Re: Doesn't that kinda defeat the point of the arc (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, but then will need an archive to archive all the archives that are not archived in the archive. Are you starting to see the problem?
That should work, as long as there is a standard.
cheers,
Re: (Score:3)
So there's no actual internet archive? How was this not planned for years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
So there's no actual internet archive? How was this not planned for years ago?
People mistakenly thought the Internet Archive was an actual archive of the internet, instead of the "Internet Archive of Uncensored Things". (until today i was one of these people)
Perhaps now this will either make IA do the right thing, or perhaps someone will step up to the plate.
Re: (Score:2)
If A clearly and deliberately causes B, then there's nothing misleading about saying that someone chose B to happen when they elect to effect A.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't that kinda defeat the point of the arch (Score:5, Informative)
I apologize for my mistake. Until just a few minutes ago, I was unaware that the Internet Archive agrees to RETROACTIVELY honor a robots.txt file. So once a robots.txt file restricts access to content, they voluntarily remove access to previously archived content from the archive. Here's the related item from their FAQ [archive.org]:
Some sites are not available because of robots.txt or other exclusions. What does that mean?
The Internet Archive follows the Oakland Archive Policy for Managing Removal Requests And Preserving Archival Integrity
The Standard for Robot Exclusion (SRE) is a means by which web site owners can instruct automated systems not to crawl their sites. Web site owners can specify files or directories that are disallowed from a crawl, and they can even create specific rules for different automated crawlers. All of this information is contained in a file called robots.txt. While robots.txt has been adopted as the universal standard for robot exclusion, compliance with robots.txt is strictly voluntary. In fact most web sites do not have a robots.txt file, and many web crawlers are not programmed to obey the instructions anyway. However, Alexa Internet, the company that crawls the web for the Internet Archive, does respect robots.txt instructions, and even does so retroactively. If a web site owner decides he / she prefers not to have a web crawler visiting his / her files and sets up robots.txt on the site, the Alexa crawlers will stop visiting those files and will make unavailable all files previously gathered from that site. This means that sometimes, while using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, you may find a site that is unavailable due to robots.txt (you will see a "robots.txt query exclusion error" message). Sometimes a web site owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site, and we endeavor to comply with these requests. When you come accross a "blocked site error" message, that means that a siteowner has made such a request and it has been honored.
Currently there is no way to exclude only a portion of a site, or to exclude archiving a site for a particular time period only.
When a URL has been excluded at direct owner request from being archived, that exclusion is retroactive and permanent.
Re:Doesn't that kinda defeat the point of the arch (Score:5, Interesting)
Lol! Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lol! Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
No problem. Just look right here [wisciblog.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lol indeed. When Google aren't being ordered by the NSA (and by extension GCHQ and their political friends) to work for them, they volunteer outright. Enjoy the cache while it lasts and while they allow it, because they'll consider either an oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
And thus invoking the . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Them shooting themselves in the foot isn't all that amusing when the foot in question is on your neck.
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, this means that whenever reference is made to one of their speeches people can just insert scandalous bits. Objections by the Tories would be countered by pointing out that because they removed all copies from the Internet then anything they publish has been modified and is therefore not to be trusted. It should be easy to cultivate an aura of mistrust in anything that they say after that. Well, that is what I would do if I was Machiavelli. Or true to my username. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Insert references to an Orwell work here (Score:3)
Because that's what they did in that book.
Re: Insert references to an Orwell work here (Score:4, Interesting)
The main character's job was "correcting" stored historical documents to match what was being said "right now".
The reasoning why their government must keep EVERYTHING on private people, but can obstruct and hide PUBLICLY OFFERED documents has to be really really funny!
Re: (Score:2)
This is just basic smart politics. An old speech can never help you in an election, but can be mined for quotes to be used against you. Journalists should keep their own records anyway, or establish some 3rd party trusted repository.
Re: (Score:3)
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (Score:5, Funny)
Lucky they now have secret blacklists at every major UK ISP to block these. Think of the children that would be harmed by reading these speeches!
FTFA:
In a remarkable step the party has also blocked access to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, a San-Francisco-based library which captures webpages for future generations, using a software robot that directs search engines not to access the pages.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW, I am sure he NSA's archive crawler does not honor the robots hing.
As a website operator who carefully watches connection counts and has a robots.txt to exclude most of the site content, I am pretty sure there is no "NSA's archive crawler" visiting, at least none with any frequency that it matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe it's not a "crawler", but if it copies all outbound traffic it does essentially the same thing while leaving no footprints.
Chew on that for a while. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe it's not a "crawler", but if it copies all outbound traffic it does essentially the same thing while leaving no footprints. Chew on that for a while. :)
Hmm. (Thinking) Oh my! NSA is sniffing all outbound traffic from my webserver, where people get publicly available information for free. Oh noes! They might see something they could have seen for themselves!
And let's not forget why: (Score:5, Insightful)
because they broke almost all of their pre-election promises.
The most important thing to learn about the Tory party in the UK is that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the party for the responsible, the capitalists, nor the hard-working (except in the sense that they want most people to work hard for them). It is a party representing a few wealthy individuals, and their mission is not small government, but privatised government, where nothing happens without their masters getting a cut.
Sorta like a mafia.
Re:And let's not forget why: (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time a political party (or even an individual politician) did anything else?
Re:And let's not forget why: (Score:4, Informative)
There have been more ideologically-oriented governments, from post-War Labour to Thatcher.
They might not keep all their promises, and all ideologically is strongly diluted with practicality, but they're not the vacuous bunch of cunts we have in Britain today. (They're not that different from Blair, of course, but Blair had a more representative set of people to steer him.)
Re:And let's not forget why: (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately this is usually not the case at all; the responsible, capitalist and hard-working ones only lead those wealthy few to become more wealthy.
This is a truth I think conservatives should realize and embrace, so that we can actually come up with real solutions to problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important thing to learn about the $political_party_name party in the $local_country is that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the party for $positively_framed_groups_and_associations. It is a party representing a few wealthy individuals, and their mission is not $claimed_mission, but !$claimed_mission, where nothing happens without their masters getting a cut.
Sorta like a mafia.
Sounds like pretty much every political party I know of once I FTFY.
Re:And let's not forget why: (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a nice little summary of all those broken promises, pledges and outright deceit. [newstatesman.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be a good start. Have the parties' promises displayed on a big board outside the House of Commons, with promised deadlines and the completion status of each pledge.
Also, let's bring some class back to the house. For every £1000 earned outside of their day job, give them a foot of cloak to wear, with the names of their employers pasted on the cloaks. Good luck to the ones wandering around with cloaks longer than a bus. Include sponsored junkets in the mix, and require they wear their cloak
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to add to each piece of legislation, the exact result desired, and automatically repeal any legislation that does not have the desired results. Why should we "fix" legislation that doesn't work? Why should we trust those that can't figure out how to right legislation correctly to go back and "fix" it when it breaks things more than it fixes?
Re: (Score:2)
It could be interesting as well to outline things that shouldn't happen. E.g. The ability to suspend websites under the Stop Happiness In Terrorism Act will not be employed to take down a torrent website with no proven connection to terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
This would never work.
1) As any mathematician kno, statistics can be abused to prove or disprove anything;
2) If you define the precise tests used in advance, the system will be gamed extremely well to satisfy the statistic but not the principle.
Politics is a game of values, not targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll tackle that one, and very succinctly. A panel you can fire is preferable to a panel you can't. Any day. And they both have precisely the same motivation. To save money, the better to spend it somewhere else.
1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Re:The problem is career politicians (Score:4, Funny)
Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at isohunt.com
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
This is not accurate. Speeches made in Parliament are archived in Hansard for a start. And there is no changing that.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I like your optimism.
They'll find a way to close that to public access (except "on a need-to-know basis" and to Royal family members, staff, and "security" officials) too, as soon as they see how embarrassing (or criminal) parts of the archive may be. Clearly, they always find a way, however brutish [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sigh.. 'Wrong in what way?
This was the archive of speeches, not just the parliamentary ones; but all the ones at election rallies and conferences too.
For instance; ToryBoy recently sat in a big gold chair and ate a 4 course meal along with all his rich chums in the Guildhall, London. He then stood in front of an gilded podium and made a speech [theguardian.com] in which he told all the little people that they had not worked hard enough and that austerity is now here to stay.
This speech is exactly the sort of one that will ne
History will be lost (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a theory out there that states that because most of what we do in the so-called Information Age is stored is somewhat fragile digital storage systems (as opposed to, for example, parchment) historians in the future will have very little to base their research on about our age, as most of the info will be permanently lost.
Well, hundreds of thousands of posts on BBS systems from the 80's and 90's are already gone, delete the Internet Archive and the Web is gone too, any thoughts?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a theory out there that states that because most of what we do in the so-called Information Age is stored is somewhat fragile digital storage systems (as opposed to, for example, parchment) historians in the future will have very little to base their research on about our age, as most of the info will be permanently lost.
Well, hundreds of thousands of posts on BBS systems from the 80's and 90's are already gone, delete the Internet Archive and the Web is gone too, any thoughts?
An archive of the archive, operated in near-secret and kept in a Datacenter built into the side of a hollowed-out, dormant volcano... Or maybe TWO dormant volcanoes... You know, for redundancy.
Sharks with lasers on their heads optional, but recommended. Once "the last place" for evidence to be found becomes this place a great many people (including likely several large, powerful governments) will want to take control of it.
Re: (Score:2)
historians in the future will have very little to base their research on about our age
They'll base their research on what they've always based it on: The "official" records of the victors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not gone, there at least dozens of CDROM backups of my FIDONET archives to be dug up from the landfills millions of years from now you insensitive clod!
CDROM Lifetime (Score:2)
Deleted from the Internet Archive? (Score:2)
How'd they do that? Do they make a copyright claim on the record of speeches they made in public?
Re:Deleted from the Internet Archive? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they put robots.txt on their website and the Internet Archive respects robots.txt retroactively. If they had 20 years worth of data archived from one domain, and someone puts a robots.txt on the domain, all 20 years worth of data is removed from the archive. Whether it's actually deleted or hidden is unknown, but I hope it isn't deleted.
they did it because... (Score:2)
call me Mister Obvious
100 Years (Score:3, Interesting)
In this way, our society(s) are going through life sorta like that movie Memento. All that has to happen is a slight variation of the real story, that would produce the same basic result, but with a new context - Christopher Columbus "discovered" America comes to mind. Perhaps the powers that be depend on this, and are looking to make that number (100 here) smaller.
Not in the USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Rumsfeld-denies-making-claims-Iraq-had-WMDs-1202942.php [seattlepi.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU [youtube.com]
we have always been at war with eastasia (Score:2)
get with the pogrom.
standing by their words (Score:2)
Students usualy want to hide F's. Don't want to look stupid.
Wonder what these conservatives are trying to hide? Not much point trying to hide their stupidity. Everyone already knows that about them.
If you're not doing anything wrong (Score:3)
what do you have to fear? 8)
This should have been predicted. (Score:2)
In fact, it was predicted. It was a particularly sharp observer of English politics [wikipedia.org] who coined the phrase "memory hole". [wikipedia.org]
How about Hansard? (Score:2)
It gets worse (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Winston Smith's job / 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting Timing. (Score:2)
They recently made an announcement that contrary to their election pledge (again) they would look to make economic austerity permanent, instead of scaling back on cuts once the economy recovered.
I would have a bet that in a couple of days if the pressure is still on that they'll either claim it was a mistake, or hackers. Who knows, it might even be true.
I could easily believe that they are stupid enough to think that deleting a few pages erases the past.
Don't approve their own messaging? (Score:2)
What the hell is it with Conservatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Canada, Conservative PM Harper has taken heat lately for breaking all the links on our government's historical archive of the legislation that's been posted for the past decade or two. It's just... gone. The entire archive, except for maybe the past 5 years worth.
That archive is public government information, not Conservative property.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't personally remove it or request it be removed. They simply added a robots.txt to their domain, and the Internet Archive retroactively removes content from the domain when it encounters robots.txt.
Robots.txt (Score:3)
Archivists will exercise best-efforts compliance with applicable court orders Beyond that, as noted in the Library Bill of Rights, 'Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.'
Seems like this may just have slipped past them. Let's make sure they know they need to sort it out... Surely they only removed it from the Wayback Machine, not from the archive itself.