I know :)))
But take into consideration that today is not the first of April.
This event can also mean that the website was breached or that some admin just made a mistake
It actually is not the same image that was used in the April Fools prank. I believe this is either a legitimate seizure, or someone hacked the site. It is far more likely that this is an actual seizure, as their means of contact are all down and their Twitter account is silent.
Quick question, who makes that embedded image, the FBI? It has a specific WeLeakInfo logo on it, so it's not just a standard image they can reuse with each domain seizure.
The logos of the law enforcement agencies probably change every time as well. This one shows the logos of German, English, Irish, Dutch and US law enforcement agencies.
the difference is that selling the information itself is technically illegal, but since these databases were leaked online you're only providing access to view them in a format which isn't necessarily illegal but governments can force their way to shutting them down. next best thing is for WLI or their next counterpart to just crop up a domain in Luxembourg.
I've used them before to lookup my own addresses and see how up to date the passwords. HIBP is great but sometimes you get hits for accounts you never remember making or were made as some one-off forever ago. It's helpful to see what actually got leaked, though obviously there are those using it for nefarious purposes.
To be honest, it just makes more sense to use a image rather than a HTTP error return for the regular user to see and understand what is going on at the moment with said website.
I've heard that an HTTP 451 is for when a country prohibits your service in their country. Like, if you wanted to access a VPN providers website in a country where they cannot do business, the provider would return a 451 to indicate they are not allowed to serve your request.
Have there been other cases where government seized websites return a 451?
Your free speech doesn't extend to someone else's rights. In this case they were selling other people's account credentials to bad actors who wanted to misuse those credentials.
"Free speech advocates" should rightfully stay away from defending obviously illegal and immoral behaviour that causes actual harm. There's no abuse of power here; it was rightfully shuttered.
That argument suggests libraries should pull copies of "The Anarchist's Cookbook", doesn't it? If the misuse is being done by the purchasers, not the broker, why does the broker's site get seized?
The Anarchist's Cookbook was not trafficking in stolen goods. The stolen data may not have been hosted on this site directly, but it was certainly knowingly trafficking the data.
