The grab list: how museums decide what to save in a disaster
62 points
4 days ago
| 3 comments
| economist.com
| HN
lexicality
12 hours ago
[-]
reply
DetectDefect
7 hours ago
[-]
> Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

> Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

> What can I do to prevent this in the future?

> If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

Love how actual captcha spyware has turned to victim-blaming to justify its existence.

reply
promiseofbeans
6 hours ago
[-]
The vast majority of website-gate captchas are served by cloudflare these days. You can use the privacy pass [0] browser extension to skip them. Privacy passes are an open standard [1], so you can re-implement it yourself if you don’t trust that extension.

[0]: https://developers.cloudflare.com/waf/tools/privacy-pass/ [1]: RFC 9576 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9576.html, RFC 9577 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9577.html, RFC 9578 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9578.html

reply
staindk
2 hours ago
[-]
95% of the time I click the tick box and wiggle my mouse and it lets me through without doing a captcha.

I believe they check your mouse for human-like movement as an additional factor. Could be wrong but I haven't been bothered by many captchas in the last couple years.

reply
Arainach
6 hours ago
[-]
If malicious or scraping traffic is coming from your IP, it's not victim blaming.

AI has ruined everything good and free for everyone except a few oligarchs.

reply
DetectDefect
6 hours ago
[-]
> If malicious or scraping traffic is coming from your IP, it's not victim blaming

But it is not; my IP is a residential address paid for with a credit card associated to a human who visits like 6 websites.

reply
Arainach
5 hours ago
[-]
The message is stating that you're seeing a Captcha because suspicious traffic has come from your network. If you're not doing suspicious things, "check that you're not infected with malware" is valid feedback.
reply
mikestew
4 hours ago
[-]
No, it’s because Cloudflare and archive.ph have some pissing content going. I forget the details, but it has nothing to do with malware on anyone’s machine. Somewhere on HN someone has given a better explanation, but I’m not spelunking for it.
reply
DetectDefect
4 hours ago
[-]
No, the message is stating that because I don't allow Javascript to fingerprint and commodify my browser. The euphemized nonsense about malware is just an insult to reason at this point.
reply
expedition32
36 minutes ago
[-]
Privacy is suspicious nowadays.
reply
Chris2048
10 hours ago
[-]
I wonder. Would it be possible for any/all submissions to automatically generate (and provide) and archive.is/archive.org link? @dang

I can't think of any large downsides, it would mean every submission would have an available snapshot for the given time, and we would no longer need a user comment to provide this.

reply
pgwhalen
9 hours ago
[-]
I'm confident that you didn't realize what you were saying, but I really chuckled at "I can't think of any large downsides [in institutionalizing a clearly very legally questionable practice]".
reply
Chris2048
8 hours ago
[-]
Yes, I didn't realize this was a very legally questionable practice, let alone clearly. Can you explain why?
reply
xhkkffbf
8 hours ago
[-]
There's a thing called "copyright" and it's kind of like a union, but for people who write or create art. It gives them the right to decide who gets to make a copy. Many of the best sources of news put up a paywall because it's what allows them to pay their reporters. When you make an illicit copy without their permission, you undermine their ability to make a living. In other words, eat.
reply
Chris2048
7 hours ago
[-]
I asked pgwhalen specifically, so chiming in with a smug/condescending reply isn't welcome.

It's also IMHO a misplaced or false criticism, per my other comments in this thread.

reply
pgwhalen
6 hours ago
[-]
GP’s explanation is better than I would have given and didn’t seem smug or condescending to me - from my perspective it was welcome.
reply
Chris2048
5 hours ago
[-]
Your own original had the same problem, so let me play it straight; I don't think there is a legal issue, let alone a clear one.

You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending?

Now, either of you relate that concept to a suggestion that HN link to archive.org

reply
fuzzer371
3 hours ago
[-]
> You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending?

No, not really. You just seem to be trying to pick a fight.

reply
Chris2048
46 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, really. Not the first time you've hopped on a thread to make a bad call coupled with a personal insinuation:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966385

reply
pgwhalen
5 hours ago
[-]
I'm not interested in having a debate on the legality of it which is why I said "legally questionable." It doesn't strike me as implausible that you wouldn't know what copyright is, if you don't accept the premise that linking to the internet archive for any and all paywalled contemporary content is at least legally questionable.
reply
Chris2048
5 hours ago
[-]
> if you don't accept the premise that ... is at least legally questionable.

The premise was that this is so obvious that my naivety is funny. But no, you don't want to debate that point - Why would you care to consider otherwise, it's not you losing face if correct.

Here's an uninvited counterpoint anyway:

https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-th...

You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.

reply
pgwhalen
4 hours ago
[-]
I don’t follow the first paragraph of this comment at all, it just seems vaguely antagonistic. You also seem to be suggesting I’m taking a view on a debate that I am not.

That such a blog post exists at least suggests the legal “question” exists, which again is the only thing I said in the first place.

reply
Chris2048
44 minutes ago
[-]
The practise in this case is not starting a competing service to archive.org, but linking to it, so the downsides are what?
reply
rouslyrunn
10 hours ago
[-]
There’s a big difference between accepting people will post links that just happen to, sometimes get people past paywalls - and operationalising that so it’s the default behaviour
reply
Chris2048
7 hours ago
[-]
Actually I'd say the opposite: If it only happens with paywalled sites it's clear that its purpose it to circumvent paywalls. If you always do it, It's so there is a record of the original site at time of posting.
reply
technotony
6 hours ago
[-]
It would also help with sites that can't handle the hacker News traffic load. Happens all the time
reply
sidewndr46
9 hours ago
[-]
didn't google try this with AMP or whatever? It wasn't very popular
reply
xhkkffbf
8 hours ago
[-]
Large downsides? How about the news sources going bankrupt? Someone has to pay for reporters.
reply
SanjayMehta
1 hour ago
[-]
The sooner some "news sources" go bankrupt the better, especially The Economist.
reply
appreciatorBus
9 hours ago
[-]
One large downside is that publishers whose paywalls are being circumvented by the act of submitting to HN, would consider legal action against HN.
reply
Chris2048
7 hours ago
[-]
Why isn't that already an issue then? archive.is links remain, despite being easy to otherwise detect?

IANAL, but it would seem to me HN couldn't be liable, since it is a third party (archive.is/org) caching the site. In fact, I always assumed that's why the links aren't removed.

reply
ompogUe
4 days ago
[-]
They also try to do it by design: The Menil Collection in Houston keeps their storage on the top floor to avoid damage from Hurricane flooding.
reply
analog31
8 hours ago
[-]
I have my grab list. People first, then musical instruments.
reply
jeffrallen
2 hours ago
[-]
I'm gonna throw the NAS with the family backups out the back window while running upstairs to get my son.

But yeah, with a bit of planning you can turn it into a yes-and situation.

Also: 48 hours. Can you provide for yourself and your neighbor for 48 hours without any help from the authorities? Does the Kanban card for pasta and tomato sauce always leave 10000 calories in the pantry? Got firewood, matches, and know where the nearest spring is? (This is easier in a culture where we still have running fountains with dates like 1780 on them.)

reply