Talk:Futurehome Smarthub mandatory subscription fee - Revision history

Keith: Keith moved page Talk:Futurehome Smarthub Mandatory Subscription Fee to Talk:Futurehome Smarthub mandatory subscription fee: sentence case

2025-09-05T14:08:45Z

Keith moved page Talk:Futurehome Smarthub Mandatory Subscription Fee to Talk:Futurehome Smarthub mandatory subscription fee: sentence case

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:08, 5 September 2025
(No difference)

Mikewarot: /* Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps? */ add sample workflow

2025-09-01T19:26:41Z

Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps?: add sample workflow

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, 1 September 2025
Line 56:		Line 56:
	== Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps? ==		== Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps? ==

	Perhaps we could interest the Internet Archive to add timestamps/digital signatures to pages they archive, so that we could then download said page, with a timestamp and a signature that could persist past any DCMA takedowns in our own archives and be used for proof of past existence of content despite legal denial of service? [[User:Mikewarot\|Mikewarot]] ([[User talk:Mikewarot\|talk]]) 19:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)		Perhaps we could interest the Internet Archive to add timestamps/digital signatures to pages they archive, so that we could then download said page, with a timestamp and a signature that could persist past any DCMA takedowns in our own archives and be used for proof of past existence of content despite legal denial of service?

			The flow would be.... see website page with bad terms, ask archive.org to archive said page with timestamp/signature, wait for that to happen, then grab a local copy and use that with "retrieved on" added to the footnote on a given wiki page.

			[[User:Mikewarot\|Mikewarot]] ([[User talk:Mikewarot\|talk]]) 19:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Mikewarot: /* Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps? */ new section

2025-09-01T19:24:08Z

Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 1 September 2025
Line 53:		Line 53:

	You could also do it more on a passive way (which may also be an issue for the page integrity, as per, if only one guy visit it in 5 years... it is possible the page has been updated in the meanwhile). Peoples add a browser extension that try to push into the system page they are looking. (But for privacy... that may be another issues)		You could also do it more on a passive way (which may also be an issue for the page integrity, as per, if only one guy visit it in 5 years... it is possible the page has been updated in the meanwhile). Peoples add a browser extension that try to push into the system page they are looking. (But for privacy... that may be another issues)

			== Internet Archive with Signed Timestamps? ==

			Perhaps we could interest the Internet Archive to add timestamps/digital signatures to pages they archive, so that we could then download said page, with a timestamp and a signature that could persist past any DCMA takedowns in our own archives and be used for proof of past existence of content despite legal denial of service? [[User:Mikewarot\|Mikewarot]] ([[User talk:Mikewarot\|talk]]) 19:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

147.253.44.249: Wrong wiki syntax for list

2025-09-01T17:24:24Z

Wrong wiki syntax for list

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 1 September 2025
Line 20:		Line 20:
	I tried to find a way to contact you as well, but without email, here I am!		I tried to find a way to contact you as well, but without email, here I am!

	- P2P platform. More resilient against DMCA since it allows more peoples to participate. Still can cause issues since some peoples are more likely to be backbone of content. It is also great on the resources sides. Easy to expend the storage, add new contents.		* P2P platform. More resilient against DMCA since it allows more peoples to participate. Still can cause issues since some peoples are more likely to be backbone of content. It is also great on the resources sides. Easy to expend the storage, add new contents.
	- Worst case, you end up with different communities ("private archiving services"		** Worst case, you end up with different communities ("private archiving services"

	- P2P over ToR? Don't even ask me if that is even possible.		* P2P over ToR? Don't even ask me if that is even possible.

	- Possible issues:		* Possible issues:
	- Captcha		** Captcha
	- Cloudflare (trying to block bots)		** Cloudflare (trying to block bots)
	- dynamic pages. As per, it is unlikely two peoples will get the same exact page. Maybe the page append a timestamp for example. Maybe it offuscate html against automation, ... Now, you may not know if the page is indeed different or if somebody is messing with the page. On the good side, that shouldn't be too much of your case right now? That alone, could cause security in the whole system around integrity if enough of bad actors are there.*		** dynamic pages. As per, it is unlikely two peoples will get the same exact page. Maybe the page append a timestamp for example. Maybe it offuscate html against automation, ... Now, you may not know if the page is indeed different or if somebody is messing with the page. On the good side, that shouldn't be too much of your case right now? That alone, could cause security in the whole system around integrity if enough of bad actors are there.*

	=== Integrity ===		=== Integrity ===
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Each user has an identity (using a public/private certificate, what is driving HTTPS, also named SSL certificate). So you can't impersonate someone else (except if its private certificate leak).		Each user has an identity (using a public/private certificate, what is driving HTTPS, also named SSL certificate). So you can't impersonate someone else (except if its private certificate leak).

	==== SSL Features (if you want to read more) ===		==== SSL Features (if you want to read more) ====

	SSL certificates allow sub-certificate, which allow trust to be inherited.		SSL certificates allow sub-certificate, which allow trust to be inherited.

147.253.44.249: HTTPS/SSL is a trust system

2025-09-01T17:21:38Z

HTTPS/SSL is a trust system

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 1 September 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Maybe another idea would be to push for a law that force the website to archive any change that they made to ensure no fraud is made, or to push a law or exception to allow archiving website to keep the archive of the website for potentiel proof that a company did commits a crime and would try to hide any evidence of said crime those giving us the consumer probably the only way to get evidence and proove them of there wrong.		Maybe another idea would be to push for a law that force the website to archive any change that they made to ensure no fraud is made, or to push a law or exception to allow archiving website to keep the archive of the website for potentiel proof that a company did commits a crime and would try to hide any evidence of said crime those giving us the consumer probably the only way to get evidence and proove them of there wrong.


			== Re: how lying companies damage the Rossmann brand ==
			Funny thing, during your video I start thinking about idea of a archiving services before you even mention it.
			I tried to find a way to contact you as well, but without email, here I am!

			- P2P platform. More resilient against DMCA since it allows more peoples to participate. Still can cause issues since some peoples are more likely to be backbone of content. It is also great on the resources sides. Easy to expend the storage, add new contents.
			- Worst case, you end up with different communities ("private archiving services"

			- P2P over ToR? Don't even ask me if that is even possible.

			- Possible issues:
			- Captcha
			- Cloudflare (trying to block bots)
			- dynamic pages. As per, it is unlikely two peoples will get the same exact page. Maybe the page append a timestamp for example. Maybe it offuscate html against automation, ... Now, you may not know if the page is indeed different or if somebody is messing with the page. On the good side, that shouldn't be too much of your case right now? That alone, could cause security in the whole system around integrity if enough of bad actors are there.*

			=== Integrity ===
			I end up with similar issues. Thinking about it, it is also normal to have the same issues. It is what internet is good for, having too much of anything which allow its flexibility. What if we try to use some of its ideas?

			==== Identity ====
			Each user has an identity (using a public/private certificate, what is driving HTTPS, also named SSL certificate). So you can't impersonate someone else (except if its private certificate leak).

			==== SSL Features (if you want to read more) ===

			SSL certificates allow sub-certificate, which allow trust to be inherited.
			Why would you want that?
			Security reason. If you have multiple servers working all together, you probably want one certificate per computer. This means, without sub-certificates, each server would have to be trusted. Which may take some time. So having a parent certificate, allow to trusting a _group_ of peoples.

			It also allow to revoke certificates. We probably will need short life certificates because we don't want an endless list of revoked certificates from 1990. If certificates are alive only 1 month, then you can assume, at worst, one month of revoked certificates.
			That, however, need more thinking around it. SSL idea is to trust its parents. There is no "by the way, X become Y, so transfer trust to it". Which open up a wide open of issues.

			==== Trust ====
			How SSL work currently on the internet? Companies have a root certificate that OS trust. OS trust them because they are transparent on sub-certificates they created. And nowday, their transparency is even one level higher and 3rd party are doing audit as well. Unfortunately, we are going to need a somewhat similar way.

			Having some feedback on trust over time. Then, either an automatic system(? could be a good tools) create such trust list, or/and, you subscribe to an entity that will publish its trust list.

			Such content feedback should also be something at its core. Ideally (but it is also a security risk), peoples should double check themself the content somebody else published and raise flag if needed. That may be a seucrity risk, think about somebody creating a virus payload and asking peoples to visit it. Ads farming, ... Since new users are technically endless account. This need better thinking around that.

			You could also do it more on a passive way (which may also be an issue for the page integrity, as per, if only one guy visit it in 5 years... it is possible the page has been updated in the meanwhile). Peoples add a browser extension that try to push into the system page they are looking. (But for privacy... that may be another issues)

HumanShyGuy at 16:13, 1 September 2025

2025-09-01T16:13:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 1 September 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Unless the host cryptographically signs their pages (which would, of course, not be desirable for hiding the past), I don't think there's another way.		Unless the host cryptographically signs their pages (which would, of course, not be desirable for hiding the past), I don't think there's another way.

			Maybe another idea would be to push for a law that force the website to archive any change that they made to ensure no fraud is made, or to push a law or exception to allow archiving website to keep the archive of the website for potentiel proof that a company did commits a crime and would try to hide any evidence of said crime those giving us the consumer probably the only way to get evidence and proove them of there wrong.

78.2.217.229: /* Re: how lying companies damage the Rossmann brand */ Typo

2025-09-01T14:23:33Z

Re: how lying companies damage the Rossmann brand: Typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 1 September 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	As for having a provable copy of a page with proof better than just "trust me bro", I don't think there is a way. It looks like you can only trust copies based on who hosts them. Additionally, note the "why" field on IA in case an archivist group is the source instead of IA itself, because that's another way to archive to Wayback Machine.		As for having a provable copy of a page with proof better than just "trust me bro", I don't think there is a way. It looks like you can only trust copies based on who hosts them. Additionally, note the "why" field on IA in case an archivist group is the source instead of IA itself, because that's another way to archive to Wayback Machine.

	So, why not? A raw copy of the page secured by SSL wouldn't prove anything because an active session uses a symmetric key, which essentially means you can fake it by using any ~~random~~ random key and encrypt the message with it. Since the key is always random, it proves nothing.		So, why not? A raw copy of the page secured by SSL wouldn't prove anything because an active session uses a symmetric key, which essentially means you can fake it by using any random key and encrypt the message with it. Since the key is always random, it proves nothing.

	Unless the host cryptographically signs their pages (which would, of course, not be desirable for hiding the past), I don't think there's another way.		Unless the host cryptographically signs their pages (which would, of course, not be desirable for hiding the past), I don't think there's another way.

78.2.217.229: /* Re: how lying companies damage the Rossmann brand */ new section

2025-09-01T14:21:47Z

Re: how lying companies damage the Rossmann brand: new section

New page

== Re: how lying companies damage the Rossmann brand ==

Since no email was provided, only the URL to history page, I suppose I shall write here.

Best I can suggest is to archive any and all pages you refer to in videos on as many archiving services as possible.

There's a Firefox addon "Web Archives" that should make it a little faster to do, however an automated solution would certainly be an improvement. It's not unlikely there's an equivalent to overcast07/wayback-machine-spn-scripts that also archives to other services.

As for having a provable copy of a page with proof better than just "trust me bro", I don't think there is a way. It looks like you can only trust copies based on who hosts them. Additionally, note the "why" field on IA in case an archivist group is the source instead of IA itself, because that's another way to archive to Wayback Machine.

So, why not? A raw copy of the page secured by SSL wouldn't prove anything because an active session uses a symmetric key, which essentially means you can fake it by using any random random key and encrypt the message with it. Since the key is always random, it proves nothing.

Unless the host cryptographically signs their pages (which would, of course, not be desirable for hiding the past), I don't think there's another way.