3 ms·

> Because the document at that link can change. The document at the link is a PDF, so the "the document is changeable" problem could be addressed by downloadin

> Because the document at that link can change. The document at the link is a PDF, so the "the document is changeable" problem could be addressed by downloading the PDF and attaching it to the email agreement to serve as the record copy. TFA also points out that the document is at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://waypointnda.com/3.0.0 https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://waypointnda.com/3.0.0

robbedpeter 5y ago
Why are pdfs any more secure than a txt file, other than the editing being more obnoxious in the case of pdfs?
- dctoedt 5y ago
  Hard-copy documents can be fraudulently altered after signature too. The question is, how much more burden do you want to impose on the parties to address the infinitesimal fraction of cases where that kind of fraud might be involved. EDIT: Each party presumably will have email records with the PDF attachment — and if the attachments don't agree, then the parties' lawyers will be busy. But again, how likely is that to happen, and how much time and money do you want to spend to prevent it? At some point you hit diminishing returns (and OCD behavior).
  - sdoering 5y ago
    This reminded me of a great talk (in German) by David Kriesel about scanners not scanning correctly but replacing letters and numbers because of pattern matching (if I remember correctly). It was a really great talk. Not sure if there is an English version somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > Not sure if there is an English version somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 Seems to be: https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6558_-_de_-_saal_g_-_201412282300_-_traue_keinem_scan_den_du_nicht_selbst_gefalscht_hast_-_david_kriesel https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6558_-_de_-_saal_g_-_201412282... Direct: https://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2014/h264-hd/31c3-6558-de-en-Traue_keinem_Scan_den_du_nicht_selbst_gefaelscht_hast_hd.mp4 https://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2014/h264-hd/31c3-6558-de-... Which has german/english dual audio, but defaults to german (so presumably google ruined the english track on upload). If your video player doesn't support picking audio, you can probably fiddle with ffmpeg to strip out the german track.
Y_Y 5y ago
Why not just include the contract in the email then? It's just text right? Three's no special legal meaning to the markup.
- dctoedt 5y ago
  > Why not just include the contract in the email then? One of the advantages of a fixed reference document is that, apart from confirming that you have that document, you don't have to read it to know what it says — and to have a sufficient degree of comfort that the other side isn't trying to sneak something past you. In contrast, if Party A (or its lawyer) copies and pastes the contents of a reference document into an email, then Party B will have to read the thing, which will take time and, if a lawyer is involved, cost money in legal fees. An analog that comes to mind is the INCOTERMS rules for shipping goods: If you agree that the goods will be shipped DDP (Delivered Duty Paid), or EXW (Ex Works), or whatever, then you know what you're getting, without having to read the rule again to be sure the other party isn't trying to slip something in on you. Another analogy is arbitration: If you agree to the American Arbitration Association's rules for commercial arbitration, then all concerned can go to the AAA Website to get a reference copy.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    I see your point here, but I'd counter that it's technologically trivial to check that the text matches a reference. If you already have a copy of the contract that you've read and agreed to, and this email claims to have included the same contract in a standard form, then nobody needs to sit down and read the thing.
    - dctoedt 5y ago
      > it's technologically trivial to check that the text [of an email] matches a reference Remember who we're talking about here: Lawyers and business people — too many of whom don't even know how to use Microsoft Word "properly." [0] (You have no idea how many contract drafts I review in Word where the drafter used 'Normal' style for everything and just bold-faced the headings; used blank lines to put spacing between paragraphs; and didn't know how to do automatic paragraph numbering.) [0] Obligatory link to the famous comment about Dropbox's launch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
BlueGh0st 5y ago
>TFA also points out that the document is at the Internet Archive IME it seems to be trivially easy to have things removed from the Internet Archive. >How can I exclude or remove my site's pages from the Wayback Machine? >You can send an email request for us to review to info@archive.org with the URL (web address) in the text of your message. https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004651732-Using-The-Wayback-Machine https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004651732-Usin...
- adventured 5y ago
  It's not trivial. Archive.org intentionally makes it an annoying process to either have material removed or excluded from their index/ing. You also must own and control the domain in question where the content is located, which nullifies the premise here (waypointnda.com is owned by someone else). It used to be trivial to hide existing content in their index from being viewable (for your domains). They entirely changed that a number of years ago.

robbedpeter 5y ago

Why are pdfs any more secure than a txt file, other than the editing being more obnoxious in the case of pdfs?

dctoedt 5y ago
Hard-copy documents can be fraudulently altered after signature too. The question is, how much more burden do you want to impose on the parties to address the infinitesimal fraction of cases where that kind of fraud might be involved. EDIT: Each party presumably will have email records with the PDF attachment — and if the attachments don't agree, then the parties' lawyers will be busy. But again, how likely is that to happen, and how much time and money do you want to spend to prevent it? At some point you hit diminishing returns (and OCD behavior).
- sdoering 5y ago
  This reminded me of a great talk (in German) by David Kriesel about scanners not scanning correctly but replacing letters and numbers because of pattern matching (if I remember correctly). It was a really great talk. Not sure if there is an English version somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > Not sure if there is an English version somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 Seems to be: https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6558_-_de_-_saal_g_-_201412282300_-_traue_keinem_scan_den_du_nicht_selbst_gefalscht_hast_-_david_kriesel https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6558_-_de_-_saal_g_-_201412282... Direct: https://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2014/h264-hd/31c3-6558-de-en-Traue_keinem_Scan_den_du_nicht_selbst_gefaelscht_hast_hd.mp4 https://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2014/h264-hd/31c3-6558-de-... Which has german/english dual audio, but defaults to german (so presumably google ruined the english track on upload). If your video player doesn't support picking audio, you can probably fiddle with ffmpeg to strip out the german track.

Y_Y 5y ago

Why not just include the contract in the email then? It's just text right? Three's no special legal meaning to the markup.

dctoedt 5y ago
> Why not just include the contract in the email then? One of the advantages of a fixed reference document is that, apart from confirming that you have that document, you don't have to read it to know what it says — and to have a sufficient degree of comfort that the other side isn't trying to sneak something past you. In contrast, if Party A (or its lawyer) copies and pastes the contents of a reference document into an email, then Party B will have to read the thing, which will take time and, if a lawyer is involved, cost money in legal fees. An analog that comes to mind is the INCOTERMS rules for shipping goods: If you agree that the goods will be shipped DDP (Delivered Duty Paid), or EXW (Ex Works), or whatever, then you know what you're getting, without having to read the rule again to be sure the other party isn't trying to slip something in on you. Another analogy is arbitration: If you agree to the American Arbitration Association's rules for commercial arbitration, then all concerned can go to the AAA Website to get a reference copy.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  I see your point here, but I'd counter that it's technologically trivial to check that the text matches a reference. If you already have a copy of the contract that you've read and agreed to, and this email claims to have included the same contract in a standard form, then nobody needs to sit down and read the thing.
  - dctoedt 5y ago
    > it's technologically trivial to check that the text [of an email] matches a reference Remember who we're talking about here: Lawyers and business people — too many of whom don't even know how to use Microsoft Word "properly." [0] (You have no idea how many contract drafts I review in Word where the drafter used 'Normal' style for everything and just bold-faced the headings; used blank lines to put spacing between paragraphs; and didn't know how to do automatic paragraph numbering.) [0] Obligatory link to the famous comment about Dropbox's launch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

BlueGh0st 5y ago

>TFA also points out that the document is at the Internet Archive IME it seems to be trivially easy to have things removed from the Internet Archive. >How can I exclude or remove my site's pages from the Wayback Machine? >You can send an email request for us to review to info@archive.org with the URL (web address) in the text of your message. https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004651732-Using-The-Wayback-Machine https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004651732-Usin...

adventured 5y ago
It's not trivial. Archive.org intentionally makes it an annoying process to either have material removed or excluded from their index/ing. You also must own and control the domain in question where the content is located, which nullifies the premise here (waypointnda.com is owned by someone else). It used to be trivial to hide existing content in their index from being viewable (for your domains). They entirely changed that a number of years ago.