UK Conservative party attempts to erase speeches from internet, is kind of successful - Polidicks

[quote=The BBC] The Conservative Party has deleted speeches and press releases published on its website between 2000 and the 2010 general election. The archive has also been hidden from search engines. [/quote] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185[/URL] [URL]http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2013/11/conservatives-erase-internet-h.html[/URL] In short, the conservative party (you know, the majority of the current government) has removed all of its speeches prior to the 2010 election (with things like, you know promises in them) from their website and then forced (via very specific settings in its robots.txt) the internet archive to also remove them. This isn't the end of the world as I assume other people have copies of them, but it still hilarious in a 1984 kind of way.

that's a hell of a purge, wonder what they've got to hide

[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-UU5Sk5Qt60/S7eezuDSvfI/AAAAAAAADHc/RfktbW7H0es/s1600/chicken.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=aznz888;42862027]that's a hell of a purge, wonder what they've got to hide[/QUOTE] Nothing of course! They were just doing some spring cleaning of their website...

If it's only blocked for search engines, someone needs to grab the files and share them on his website or something. Would be even more hilarious when they try to shut him down and drift further into 1984

[QUOTE=TorashVD;42862044]If it's only blocked for search engines, someone needs to grab the files and share them on his website or something. Would be even more hilarious when they try to shut him down and drift further into 1984[/QUOTE] The files don't exist any more, the blocking of search engines on those individual files has the side effect of causing the internet archive to delete it (its how they allow webmasters to delete sensitive things that really shouldn't be archived)

I don't really see any problem with this, promises that long back in time isn't exactly relevant now. Nor do I see why people start referencing to 1984, there are things that actually are worthy of being compared to it, this is not one of those.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862260]I don't really see any problem with this, promises that long back in time isn't exactly relevant now. Nor do I see why people start referencing to 1984, there are things that actually are worthy of being compared to it, this is not one of those.[/QUOTE] They are removing a large amount of articles, speech's, etc that were documented on their site for everyone to view. This is not about promises which for some reason you think is. This is about them actively trying to remove historical information about them and more from their website.

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;42862401]They are removing a large public archive of their own history and everything they've done in the past. This is not about promises which for some reason you think is. This is about them actively trying to remove historical information and more from their website.[/QUOTE] So? first of all, it's their material, so they can do what they want with it. Second up, I doubt they want to keep hosting all outdated information, and would not want it to get mixed up with their policies from today. Third, I don't see how any old information has any relevance or importance at all? I just don't get the whole controversy over it. It's not exactly like they murdered someone and tried to hide it or something, they removed old information that is no longer relevant, most likely because they don't want to waste bandwidth and/or space on it.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862447]So? first of all, it's their material, so they can do what they want with it. Second up, I doubt they want to keep hosting all outdated information, and would not want it to get mixed up with their policies from today. Third, I don't see how any old information has any relevance or importance at all? I just don't get the whole controversy over it. It's not exactly like they murdered someone and tried to hide it or something, they removed old information that is no longer relevant, most likely because they don't want to waste bandwidth and/or space on it.[/QUOTE] because of the robots.txt stuff they're hiding it even when it doesnt cost them anything to display it

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;42862461]because of the robots.txt stuff they're hiding it even when it doesnt cost them anything to display it[/QUOTE] I still don't see why they should keep outdated information around, and what relevance or importance does it have today?

[QUOTE=The fox;42862473]I still don't see why they should keep outdated information around, and what relevance or importance does it have today?[/QUOTE] yeah let's delete past information about a political party not important

[QUOTE=The fox;42862473]I still don't see why they should keep outdated information around, and what relevance or importance does it have today?[/QUOTE] because it's not -them- keeping it it's a third party web archiver

[QUOTE=Lukeo;42862489]yeah let's delete past information about a political party not important[/QUOTE] You still don't explain why it is important to keep outdated information around. Would you even have given an ounce of a care if any other party did this? I can bet you this is not the first, nor the only political group that removes old policies and ideas in a manner similiar to this.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862503]You still don't explain why it is important to keep outdated information around. Would you even have given an ounce of a care if any other party did this? I can bet you this is not the first, nor the only political group that removes old policies and ideas in a manner similiar to this.[/QUOTE] It's history? It displays the changes the political party made and what they used to promise (and lied about)? I would care if any party did it.

[QUOTE=Lukeo;42862531]It's history? It displays the changes the political party made and what they used to promise (and lied about)?[/QUOTE] Sure, I can agree with that, I just don't get the whole 1984 references in that case, though. It's like they admited to the crime of the century and are trying to clean it off, rather than disgard old policies and lies. Though, once again, I am sure there are plenty of other parties who hide their lies in a similiar manner to this, yet none really seems to care.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862503]You still don't explain why it is important to keep outdated information around. Would you even have given an ounce of a care if any other party did this? I can bet you this is not the first, nor the only political group that removes old policies and ideas in a manner similiar to this.[/QUOTE] I believe its their responsibility to allow people to view their past policy's, promises, etc on the party so the public may be better informed. The old information that you speak of is history. Its their history and they are removing the most easily accessible archive of that information and actively trying to remove that information on third party archives.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862541]Sure, I can agree with that, I just don't get the whole 1984 references in that case, though. It's like they admited to the crime of the century and are trying to clean it off, rather than disgard old policies and lies.[/QUOTE] You have to admit though, there's a difference between going "we were wrong about things we've said in the past", and actually trying to erase any evidence of the things that have been said in the past. Surely you can't object to having a record of what a political party has stated or proposed in the past? [QUOTE=The fox;42862541]Though, once again, I am sure there are plenty of other parties who hide their lies in a similiar manner to this, yet none really seems to care.[/QUOTE] They are the party currently in power, and they got caught doing it. That's why people care.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;42862610]You have to admit though, there's a difference between going "we were wrong about things we've said in the past", and actually trying to erase any evidence of the things that have been said in the past. Surely you can't object to having a record of what a political party has stated or proposed in the past?[/quote] I wouldn't mind having it around, though as long as they are only taking down their own documents of it, and aren't threatening anyone or such, it is well within their rights to do so, no matter how stupid or unfair it may seem. [quote]They are the party currently in power, and they got caught doing it. That's why people care.[/QUOTE] I suppose you got a point there, still pretty bad that people are so apathetic towards it if it isn't a election year/for a party that holds majority.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862633]I wouldn't mind having it around, though as long as they are only taking down their own documents of it, and aren't threatening anyone or such, it is well within their rights to do so, no matter how stupid or unfair it may seem.[/QUOTE] That's the thing though, they didn't only take down their own copies of it, they also managed to get it deleted from the Internet Archive, which is a totally separate organisation and isn't there to serve this (or any other) party's interests by removing information.

By the way [URL]http://www.conservatives.com/xmlFeeds/GoogleSitemap.aspx[/URL] I dont know what exactly they removed but I think they may have failed at it I also found this [URL]http://www.conservatives.com/People/Peers/Black_Guy.aspx[/URL] (Apparently a special advisor, URL is still funny though)

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;42862681]That's the thing though, they didn't only take down their own copies of it, they also managed to get it deleted from the Internet Archive, which is a totally separate organisation and isn't there to serve this (or any other) party's interests by removing information.[/QUOTE] [quote]While we collect publicly available Internet documents, sometimes authors and publishers express a desire for their documents not to be included in the Collections (by tagging a file for robot exclusion or by contacting us or the original crawler group). If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in our Collections, then we may remove that portion of the Collections without notice.[/quote] As I said, it is their texts and documents, they have a right to do as they please with it, as they are not doing anything illegal. A bit silly and perhaps unfair? Sure. Orwellian, though? Not even close.

[QUOTE=The fox;42862473]I still don't see why they should keep outdated information around, and what relevance or importance does it have today?[/QUOTE]Because they're removing primary sources for promises they made before the election. When someone says that they broke an election promise (promises that contributed to them being [I]elected[/I]), it's now that much harder to prove they made that promise in the first place. [editline]14th November 2013[/editline] They're manipulating their image to attempt to avoid the same fate Obama is suffering i.e. failed promises. Same reason they use the Lib Dems as a human shield for the backlash from their policies (although they're hardly a decent party themselves)