November 6, 2025
Canary in the data mine
FBI Tries to Unmask Owner of Infamous Archive.is Site
Canary tweets, FBI knocks, and the internet picks sides
TLDR: Archive.today posted a “canary” linking to an FBI order seeking its owner’s identity, sparking a firestorm. Commenters split between “protect history, not paywalls” and “rules matter”—with extra snark about the FBI’s priorities and unproven rumors fueling the drama. This matters for who controls online memory.
The internet’s favorite rule‑bending time capsule, archive.today (also seen as archive.is and archive.ph), flashed a dramatic “Canary” post linking to a supposed FBI court order demanding its identity from registrar Tucows—and the comments section detonated. One camp says this is a power play to control history. User superkuh mocked the “infamous” label and dropped an Orwell zinger about controlling the past, while others cheered mirrors and tossed around fresh links like confetti.
On the flip side, skeptics pointed out the FBI’s language—“part of a criminal investigation”—and the site’s long-time reputation for letting readers bypass paywalls, poking a sore spot for media companies. Some dragged in old accusations from bloggers about shady scraping and a possible Russian connection, but most tagged those as unproven drama fuel.
The meme of the day? “Canary in the data mine.” The snarkiest dunk: if the government can crack dark‑web crime rings, why can’t it ID a site on the open internet? Meanwhile, loyalists insist archiving keeps liars honest; critics say the rules‑don’t‑apply vibe finally caught up with them. The only consensus: the FBI vs. Archive showdown isn’t just about a website—it’s a fight over who gets to remember the internet, and how.
Key Points
- •Archive.today posted a “canary” on its X account linking to a PDF of a U.S. court order connected to an FBI effort to identify the site’s operator.
- •The order directs Canadian registrar Tucows to provide customer data for archive.today, including address, connection, and payment information, with penalties for non-compliance.
- •The authenticity of the court order has not been verified, and it is unclear how archive.today obtained it.
- •The FBI’s specific investigative focus is not stated; possible angles include copyright, financing, operator origin, or technical practices.
- •Prior research suggested archive.today may use a botnet to bypass anti-scraping measures and that the operator(s) could be based in Russia.