Question regarding saved threads.

[Cleopatra]

Some weeks ago I asked Claus to send me one of the pruned threads he has saved. This (http://www.skepticreport.com/download/22874.htm) one.

I have a question for Skeptoid, ceptimus, Unique, Xouper, Jeff, Show me and to forgive me if I forgot any of our pc experts.

Is it possible for anybody to modify any of the posts in the thread I linked. If yes is it possible to notice the intervention?

Ah the joys of pruning!

Thanks in advance.

[Skeptoid]

Short answer... Yes, the thread can be modified at will by anyone with a desire to do so. Once a thread/post is no longer part of the forum's database, its authenticity can no longer be guaranteed.

The joys of pruning, indeed.

[Earthborn]

Actually, the thread can only be modified by the someone who has access to the webspace it is on. In this case, Claus, I assume. Unless the person who wants to alter it has some nasty hacker tools (but the forum itself is probably not immune for that either).

The best way to make sure it stays in the original form is by spreading lots of copies around to people trusted by all parties involved.

[Skeptoid]

Without the original threads in their original format stored in the forum database you cannot verify the authenticity of existing copies, no matter how many copies are spread around. I trust that Claus has maintained their integrity but I can't imagine many of the forum's antagonists doing so.

[Earthborn]

True, but by spreading copies you are at least creating a pool of people who know what the original was like. If someone would change the text later, there will always be people who can spot the change and testify what the original was like.

[Clancie]

Posted by Earthborn

True, but by spreading copies you are at least creating a pool of people who know what the original was like. If someone would change the text later, there will always be people who can spot the change and testify what the original was like.Hypothetically speaking, one could just alter posts in the archive -before- making copies, knowing that no one is going to proofread it all when they get it.
Posted by Skeptoid

Without the original threads in their original format stored in the forum database you cannot verify the authenticity of existing copies, no matter how many copies are spread around.
True.

[69dodge]

just repeating what everyone else said, basically: Claus can change it, since it's on his website. No one else can change it. You can't tell simply by looking at the web page whether or when it was changed; although naturally if you looked at it yesterday, and printed it or saved it on your own computer or just remembered it, and then you look at it again today and see that it's now different, then you'll know that Claus changed it sometime between yesterday and today.

[Clancie]

Posted by 69dodge

just repeating what everyone else said, basically: Claus can change it, since it's on his website
No, he's archived this and other boards on CDs (which are, of course, hypothetically very easy to change).

[Cleopatra]

Clancie I don't like the fact that your creating a heavy climate of suspicions in the Communty.

If you have specific accusations, post them.Otherwise stop accusing Claus and members of being potential forgers.

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

Clancie I don't like the fact that your creating a heavy climate of suspicions in the Communty.

If you have specific accusations, post them.Otherwise stop accusing Claus and members of being potential forgers.
Wrong again, Cleopatra. I've made it quite clear I was speaking hypothetically, in answer to your question and to clarify to Earthborn and 69dodge, respectively, that (1) distributing CDs widely doesn't--prevent anyone from, hypothetically, being able to edit them prior to distribution...and (2) Claus's archive is on CDs, not at his website. Like it or not, both of these are facts, Cleopatra, and not intended to throw suspicion on anyone.

You asked a question and you don't like the answer.

Too bad.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Clancie

Wrong again, Cleopatra. I've made it quite clear I was speaking hypothetically, in answer to your question and to clarify to Earthborn and 69dodge, respectively, that (1) distributing CDs widely doesn't--prevent anyone from, hypothetically, being able to edit them prior to distribution...and (2) Claus's archive is on CDs, not at his website. Like it or not, both of these are facts, Cleopatra, and not intended to throw suspicion on anyone.

You asked a question and you don't like the answer.

Too bad. [

You were complaigning for Claus posting quotes for saved threads and yet you did not post a similar thread to investigate the matter. Obviously you were afraid that you wouldn't like the answer.

Instead of posting a thread and asking for technical clarification you started posting you hypothetical accusations only to create a negative climate towards skeptics.

If I was afraid that I wouldn't like the answer I wouldn't start this thread or if I already knew that the answer wouldn't favor my position I wouldn't start it either.

This is what distinguishes a skeptic from a believer. It's the facts and truth that matters in order to take a decision not the hypothesis.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have a question for Skeptoid, ceptimus, Unique, Xouper, Jeff, Show me and to forgive me if I forgot any of our pc experts.

Why not me? I make a bl00dy living out of it! :p

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is it possible for anybody to modify any of the posts in the thread I linked. If yes is it possible to notice the intervention?

I can edit it. Hackers can change it. That's it. Although it is possible for hackers to change it, it would mean nothing, since I still keep copies. So, for now, we can rule out hackers. Hackers don't go for this kind of stuff, anyway.

Originally posted by Skeptoid
Short answer... Yes, the thread can be modified at will by anyone with a desire to do so. Once a thread/post is no longer part of the forum's database, its authenticity can no longer be guaranteed.

The authenticity can technically never be "guaranteed" even while on the forum's database: The moderators can edit them, too. Realistically, that is a far more likely scenario than a hacker.

Originally posted by Clancie
Hypothetically speaking, one could just alter posts in the archive -before- making copies, knowing that no one is going to proofread it all when they get it.

Absolutely. However, why should I be the only one taking copies? I have some nifty Perl-scripts that vacuum the site automatically (OK, you have to start the script yourself), and anyone can have them if they want to.

If I were to change the posts before shipping them, I would also have to know what to change - which means, I would have to be able to see into the future. Sure, it's possible that I can see into the future, but let me assure all of you, that if I could, I would not waste my time changing posts, but head down to Florida for my million bucks!!

The only way we can get as close to authenticity is to spread copies all over, which I have offered to do. The archives do get a bit big (that's an understatement, folks), and I am quickly running out of webspace on SR as it is. I simply don't have room for them.

That's technical, though, and can be solved. Archives should be spread to anyone who wants them. Trust therefore becomes a minor issue: The more copies, the less chance of one or two fibbing with them.

Personally, I feel it best if the believers among us also were willing to store copies. I have offered to do this, but no believer has expressed interest.

There are plenty of possibilities, so I think it is time for people to step up to the plate and agree to share the responsibility. I don't mind being the only one storing copies, but I do not appreciate it, if some insinuate that I change them, especially without any kind of evidence.

The possibility of me cheating is there. We have established that. There is no need to keep harping on this forever and ever. Now is the time for solutions.

Step up to the plate, people.

[Cleopatra]

I will take one and I am willing to cover the expenses for another two one for JREF (Linda) and of course for Col.Bidlack.

Edited. Make it three for JREF because I want Jeff to have his copy too with my compliments.

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra,

The problem with your choice of selected JREF staff members is that none are likely to participate in the debates.

You are one, though. Let's see some more hands.

[Cleopatra]

I know but I contacted the legal advisor of our website ( of the Chefs' I mean) in Chicago to ask about copyright issues and the first thing he told me is that forums "own" the posts of each poster. So, JREF must have those threads anyway.

[Darat]

The problem of authentication of any archive material isn't limited to the web.

With regards to the archives by Claus.

1) I believe he has offered in the past to share the scripts he runs to collect the data, so in future others could have an archive not reliant on Claus.

2) I keep all the posts I make and since I often quote other posters there is some way of collaborating a small subset of posts. (And I'm sure I can't be the only one to keep a record of their posts?)

3) I often make a copy of a thread if it interests me, so more duplication.


(Claus I have some webspace that I don't use - drop me a PM about seeing if I can host some of the overspill.)

[Skeptoid]

Claus,

I have 500MB of webspace and 5GB/month of bandwidth I'm not using, PM me if you think this webspace will be of any use to you.

[Luciana]

Now that I have a decent broadband service and lots of HD space, I can keep a copy of those threads.

More people need to offer to keep a copy because, as Claus and Earthborn said, the more people have it the more its authenticity is guaranteed. That would include believers, for sure.

Let's gather more people and then Claus could give us instructions on how to do it. Does that sound like a good plan?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
…snip…

Let's gather more people and then Claus could give us instructions on how to do it. Does that sound like a good plan?

Certainly is a good idea.

But I'm wondering how useful it will be in the future. Hopefully with the money from the fundraising the new system will

Be sufficient for the short to mid term requirements of the live forum
If for unforeseen circumstances it becomes necessary to "prune" again have sufficient storage to archive the "pruned" threads so that the content remains online, accessible and "searchable".
Be regularly backed-up so that in the event of hardware failure the forum is protected.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Skeptoid
I have 500MB of webspace and 5GB/month of bandwidth I'm not using, PM me if you think this webspace will be of any use to you.

Show-off! :p

But thanks, that will come in handy. :)

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Let's gather more people and then Claus could give us instructions on how to do it. Does that sound like a good plan?

Yeps. And we must have believers among The Archivists ™ ;)

Originally posted by Darat
But I'm wondering how useful it will be in the future. Hopefully with the money from the fundraising the new system will....

Naturally, it would be best if threads are never pruned, but that will take a huge server and a very fast CPU. Possibly something that begins to look slightly like mid-range to perhaps even mainframe capacity.

Until then, we can set up a system that stores old threads in different places around the globe.

"We got places all over the place"
Nice Guy Eddie, "Reservoir Dogs"

[PixyMisa]

I have 280GB of disk space and 500GB of bandwidth a month. :D

Actually, it wouldn't take much of a server to maintain the forum without pruning - as long as you had a solid database engine. I understand that JREF is in something of a bind in that respect.

Anyway, I could set up a dedicated account for holding the archives on my server - but I imagine there might be non-technical issues with this. (Copyright and such.)

[Pyrrho]

As I understand it, archiving will not be a problem for this Forum after the new server is live. For security reasons, I'm reluctant to share technical information.

In my conversations with Jeff, we both agreed that archiving other than that under direct JREF control was not an option. A while ago someone set up a "parody" duplicate of this Forum; when archives are not under our direct control, there is always the risk that someone could populate a bogus "JREF Forum" with content from such an archive.

We can't prevent anyone from archiving threads, nor would we wish to prevent it, but official archiving has to be under our direct control.

[PixyMisa]

Fair enough.

Even apart from the potential for tampering, there is the consideration that people post at JREF on the understanding that those posts will appear here - not in unkown archives elsewhere that they have no control over.

Of course, then there's Google. There's always Google. :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
I have 280GB of disk space and 500GB of bandwidth a month. :D

Perhaps people are not that aware of just how large data we are talking about. When I "sweep" JREF, I take the printable versions, because I don't want to save redundant graphics etc. A zipped version is about 145Mb, folks.

So, it's not 10-20 diskettes we are talking about here...

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Actually, it wouldn't take much of a server to maintain the forum without pruning - as long as you had a solid database engine. I understand that JREF is in something of a bind in that respect.

Yes, it would take quite a server.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Anyway, I could set up a dedicated account for holding the archives on my server - but I imagine there might be non-technical issues with this. (Copyright and such.)

For one zipped copy of one "sweep", yes. :)

Originally posted by Pyrrho
As I understand it, archiving will not be a problem for this Forum after the new server is live. For security reasons, I'm reluctant to share technical information.

No, we need the evidence! :j2: ;)

Originally posted by Pyrrho
In my conversations with Jeff, we both agreed that archiving other than that under direct JREF control was not an option. A while ago someone set up a "parody" duplicate of this Forum; when archives are not under our direct control, there is always the risk that someone could populate a bogus "JREF Forum" with content from such an archive.

Absolutely. However, I don't keep anything else but the text, so....

Originally posted by Pyrrho
We can't prevent anyone from archiving threads,

You sure can't! :)

Originally posted by Pyrrho
nor would we wish to prevent it,

Well, you can try, suit-boy....http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/moonsmilie.gif

Originally posted by Pyrrho
but official archiving has to be under our direct control.

Not a problem with me. I would still like to keep the old archives available for reference. There are a lot of good stuff that needs to be kept. For obvious reasons.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Perhaps people are not that aware of just how large data we are talking about. When I "sweep" JREF, I take the printable versions, because I don't want to save redundant graphics etc. A zipped version is about 145Mb, folks.

So, it's not 10-20 diskettes we are talking about here...

Yes, it would take quite a server.
Well, given that my background is telco billing systems, anything under 100GB is a baby database to me. :p

But a modest server these days has a 2GHz processor, 1GB of memory and 100GB or more of disk. That could easily handle a 5GB forum database using an up-to-date version of MySQL or PostgreSQL.

Now, the Ars Technica forums have 1.5 million posts in the "Lounge" alone. That's starting to get big.

[Darat]

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Well, given that my background is telco billing systems, anything under 100GB is a baby database to me. :p

But a modest server these days has a 2GHz processor, 1GB of memory and 100GB or more of disk. That could easily handle a 5GB forum database using an up-to-date version of MySQL or PostgreSQL.

Now, the Ars Technica forums have 1.5 million posts in the "Lounge" alone. That's starting to get big.

Something like:

By Jeff

All,

We have ordered the new server and it is scheduled to be shipped in a week.

For those of you who are technically saavy, here are the basic specs:

P4 2.4 GHz, 533 FSB
1 GB RAM
80 GB 7.2k IDE HD (x2), ATA 100, Raid 1

Once in, I will setup the system and make it live.

Regards,
Jeff

[PixyMisa]

Yep. That's a solid small server. Should handle JREF nicely.

I have an Athlon system, with an extra disk for backups, but otherwise the same basic specs.

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

Instead of posting a thread and asking for technical clarification you started posting you hypothetical accusations only to create a negative climate towards skeptics.
Actually, I did none of that.

You might notice (now that you know the facts yourself), that what I posted about Claus was factual. And what I posted about editing I clearly labelled "hypothetical" so there was no implication I was accusing anyone of anything improper, only that it technically is possible--actually, easy, to do. (And those posts, too, were factual).

This is what distinguishes a skeptic from a believer. It's the facts and truth that matters in order to take a decision not the hypothesis.
I knew what I was talking about, Cleopatra. I didn't -need- to ask anyone.

And, imo, raising factual points that involve truth (such as the point I made that the accuracy of archives is -not- hypothetically guaranteed once it leaves the forum's database...is, to me, being a good critical thinker. Critical thinking, skepticism, isn't just getting annoyed and defensive when you hear something you don't like--or reading accusations into factual clarification where no such accusations, in fact, exist at all.

[Cleopatra]

No Clancie you didn't know it. You never posted that you know for sure that somebody can modify the threads. Instead you implied that a skeptic ( and in our case the skeptic who had in his posession the saved threads is called Claus) is capable of modifying posts in order to prove other people are lying.That's why you asked for a new rule.

I repeat that I find quite disturbing the fact that you try to create a heavy climate in the community. If you didn't try to do such a thing:

1. You would accept from Claus a copy of the saved threads.
2. You would post with certainty that you know for sure that threads can be modified.

You didn't do anything of the above and the most funny thing is that you didn't have the courage to clarify if you were the author of those saved messages.You didn't have the courage either to accept that those messages were yours or accuse Claus of modifying them.If you didn't remember you had better not to say anything. This is what we would expect from somebody who preaches about ethics of posting on a daily basis.

[slimshady2357]

If it's still an issue, I would be willing to save a copy of one of Claus' 'sweeps'.

Better yet, is there someone out there willing to take his offer and accept the Pearl scripts to make their own sweep? I would also be willing to save a copy of this, if it's needed.

I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to use 'Pearl scripts'.

Adam

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
If it's still an issue, I would be willing to save a copy of one of Claus' 'sweeps'.

Better yet, is there someone out there willing to take his offer and accept the Pearl scripts to make their own sweep? I would also be willing to save a copy of this, if it's needed.

I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to use 'Pearl scripts'.

Adam

(Jots down slimshady2357)

[Cleopatra]

Have in mind that those saved threads can be used only as educational sources and not as profs regarding what somebody has posted in the past. It's not a trustworthy source for such a task and they shouldn't be used as such.

Of course there is a counter argument in that.

Pyrrho said that JREF wants to be in control of the saved threads. I have already said in this very thread that JREF must have a copy of "Claus' CD" as soon as possible. It's difficult to predict which quotes will be needed in a future debate in order to be modified but yet I suggest that the archive is distributed the soonest possible.