←back to thread

492 points vladyslavfox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
myself248 ◴[] No.41896048[source]
I'd like to imagine a world where every lawyer, when their case is helped by a Wayback Machine snapshot of something, flips a few bucks to IA. They could afford a world-class admin team in no time flat.
replies(2): >>41896197 #>>41897663 #
thaumasiotes ◴[] No.41896197[source]
That's a terrible solution. The Wayback Machine takes down their snapshots at the request of whoever controls the domain. That's not archival.

If the state of a webpage in the past matters to you, you need a record that won't cease to exist when your opposition asks it to. This is the concept behind perma.cc.

replies(3): >>41896261 #>>41896697 #>>41896848 #
myself248 ◴[] No.41896261[source]
Ooo, excellent. Yes, hiding items is imperfect, but I understood that it was legally required or something. (IANAL and IDFK, TBH) I wonder how perma.cc gets around that.
replies(2): >>41896643 #>>41896764 #
1. immibis ◴[] No.41896643{3}[source]
Most likely by breaking the law.