i actually made a blog post about the archival stuff but i don't wanna crosspost it here for fear of Um Actually

gonna post it, fingers crossed i don't get techbro'd into oblivion

Follow

i made a post with my thoughts about the whole berries.space archival thing here: bune.city/2019/05/archive-team

"Just because something’s publicly available doesn’t mean people want it harvested and stored forever by a dedicated group of data archivists. Posting your phone number on a billboard isn’t consenting to having your phone number posted online by an archival team. Neither is protesting in public, or having a conversation in public, or going skinny-dipping in public, or walking past a CCTV camera in public. Being in public does not mean you automatically consent to having your activities archived."

people are tagging me in other threads and mentioning this post and i'm really happy about it :blobbunmelt:

i've added a section about a former berries.space admin's response to the data collection.

bune.city/2019/05/archive-team

the article has been updated again with the archive team founder's response.

bune.city/2019/05/archive-team

in short: the member responsible for the incident was kicked off the team. an apology was issued. nothing was done to prevent this happening in future. the archive is (as of the time of writing) still available.

in what is hopefully the final update to this mess, i updated the article to reflect the removal of the berries.space data.

@lynnesbian

i sometimes wish archive.org hadn't gotten hold of that early snapshot of my second website. some of that text is embarrassing.

i REALLY wish that none of my teenaged blather from the Fidonet days had been archived, elsewhere, either.

@lynnesbian Archive Team seeks to relentlessly embarrass me by archiving all the dumb trash I ever posted, yet they did not archive bofa.lol :thonk: curious

@lynnesbian I'm not sure about this statement, "The Archive Team is not violating any rules or laws".

Someone copying and using someone's creative works without explicit permission seems like exactly what copyright law is for.

If they were "archiving" videos from Netflix in case they were taken offline one day, they wouldn't last 30 seconds.

@mike thanks! i updated the article to clarify that they aren't breaking any laws by ignoring robots.txt, but the scraping itself violates laws

@lynnesbian good clarification. 👍

IP law and the internet is a clusterfuck of conflicting interests. There's probably grounds to get anything an individual owns off archive.org itself via a copyright claim. Might be hard as an individual, maybe not. I'm just a law school dropout, don't listen to me. 😀

@mike @lynnesbian "We just told them to do it" (in this case, told the script to ignore robots.txt) is the worst technicality to use as a defense in the world. But for some unfathomable reason, it's widely effective.

After all, it's why bank CEOs aren't held responsible for ordering their tellers to create fraudulent accounts back in 2008 & it's why Trump isn't being held accountable for telling white supremacists to go out and shoot people of color.

@mike @lynnesbian aside from copyright isn't there a potential GDPR issue there? not sure if it qualifies because as i understand it the data subject must be personally identifiable for GDPR protections to apply, but if they do...

@daskeit @lynnesbian @mike we talked about that in the old thread, it seems that GDPR has a specific safeguard for archival systems "in the public interest" as long as they honour cancellation requests. I could not find cases in which the public interest clause was contested, and am not sure it applies to archive.org, but it might well be. Also, not sure how to consider the case of sensitive personal information in this case.

@lynnesbian if they provided an opt out method, would it be "OK"?

also thanks for the article, didn't know they were such pieces of shit

@void it'd be an improvement, but it wouldn't make it OK

@lynnesbian right. at the same time, I would be scared as hell that someone lost posts they wanted. Maybe it would be better to donate to berries to put into read only mode for a while and let users download their stuff, but that's a good scenario that is not always possible.

@lynnesbian @void there was a p long lead time before the berries shut down and iirc admin have said they told people how to get their archives (disclaimer: not a berries user and didn't follow THAT closely as shutdown approached)

anyway opt in is better than opt out with stuff like this and it seems like the users did have the chance so

@aflightybroad @lynnesbian honestly I don't know, but maybe they could have stored a copy of the database locally and leave an email for people to request. just throwing ideas around

@lynnesbian Jason is going through and deleting things this week, supposedly

@lynnesbian Thank you for taking the time to clarify this in one spot. I appreciate it.

@lynnesbian I’m fairly certain that being in public does mean you automatically consent to having your activities archived in the United States.

@lynnesbian Thank you for this context. It’s really helpful.

@lynnesbian thank you for posting this. I didn't know anything about it before, and now I do.

if I might make a tiny comment. this "archive team". they don't sound like archivists to me. archivists I've known are careful and respectful with what they're archiving and the people involved. it bothers me people like this, who seem to have contempt for others, are being referred to with a word they don't deserve.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Lynnestodon

@lynnesbian@fedi.lynnesbian.space's anti-chud pro-skub instance for funtimes