Surely those who are long-time users of the Internet Archive must have known about the parameter "noindex" in items which makes it hidden from the internal search engine, although remains on their servers. It works essentially like YouTube's "Unlisted Videos" in which to access the item, one need to have know the exact URL.
There are essential cases where which the uploader had uploaded content that is controversial in certain jurisdictions but doesn't violate US law in any way and they fear that making it publicly in search engines will invite unnecessary hassles and liabilities to the Internet Archive. Modi BBC documentary might be one tenuous parallel example.
Another legitimate purpose of the noindex value could include that of when patrons want to strike a delicate balance between privacy & preservation so that their digital lives could be preserved for good while preventing short-term negative consequences such as doxxing and harassment particularly if they are involved in politics and other social activism at all.
There was even an informal policy by Internet Archive to noindex some YouTube videos out of copyright-related reasons, per this.
However, they had restricted/removed the noindex value function to users from about May or June this year, while unhiding all of the items that are used to be noindexed, back into the search engine. Other user reported the same problem. Users who tried to set the noindex value true again are met with the error "Error processing your changes: Can't modify read-only field 'noindex'".
Therefore I had emailed the Internet Archive to ask for an explanation and to get them reverse the decision which I think is hare-brained.
After a few going forth and backs, including me sending a pseudocode to them to help them with a script to put "noindex" on the items again, they came with this reply which I feel is unsatisfactory:
There is no bug or mistake in removing no-index settings for many Internet Archive items in the Community collection.
At no point was the Archive contacted to arrange a situation of no-indexing (or Darking) items with an intention of later release; the no-index setting was not documented for this use, and represented a security hole that was closed. Tens of thousands of items were found, being used for encrypted files hidden from the search engine, and represented a major problem, so many items have been removed or set noindex quickly.
A number of people have contacted us explaining situations where items might need to be made no-indexed, in a collection for later or timed release for example, but they've done it with communication and discussing their needs, not just uploading files under disposable accounts and then assuming the archive would keep them un-accessible in perpetuity. In some cases their requests have gotten arrangements so that community items that were noindex are noindex again, in separate collections.
A situation can theoretically exist where the original uploader can e-mail us from their e-mail address and discuss arrangements, but you've indicated you intentionally obfuscated your location and have disposed your addresses. If you're able to gain access again, you can mail through those addresses.
An additional situation is you can e-mail info@archive.org if you want to report items at the archive (by identifier) that you believe might need to be removed from the archive; we receive a number of these requests throughout the months and respond according to policy.
It is as if enshittification which had plagued Reddit just not long ago, has now made its landfall to the Internet Archive. The removal of "noindex" had in my two cents, destroyed the chance to attain delicate balance between preservation and privacy, hence meaning increased vulnerability to privacy and copyright related risks.
Thus, could that be a violation of users right to privacy and the right to rectify data, in terms of GDPR? Since I prefer to remain anonymous at this point since I got too much to lose, could a whistleblower complaint sufficient enough? How should the other victims who want to take the actual legal route involving lawyers and the "cease and desist letters" proceed?