4 ms·
Even ignoring the historical value, it's easier to hack into a server and edit a file than it is to forge a legal document and break into an archive. Suddenly,
by notthemessiah 3y ago
Even ignoring the historical value, it's easier to hack into a server and edit a file than it is to forge a legal document and break into an archive. Suddenly, you're the legitimate heir to a castle.
- potatopatch 3y agoIf the point is continued legal meaning then it would be better to digitally publish in any way that allows distributed verification of the record as what was published and not challenged. Probably thousands of people have some means to tamper with that archive, but courts don't really care to revisit hundred year old wills in the ways soap operas imply.
- mayank 3y agoVery debatable, if both are done right.
- rsynnott 3y agoIn practice these are more of historical than legal interest.
- ahnick 3y agoThat must be why that Bitcoin thing didn't pan out.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y agoHuh? It's very strong at the moment
- phs318u 3y agoThis argument makes it seem like forged documents were never a thing.
- voltaireodactyl 3y agoIt’s more that the risks and expenditure of effort are so different between changing files on a server vs breaking and entering that it becomes a separate category.
- wkat4242 3y agoTrue but scanning them makes it a lot harder to determine if the original was a forgery.
- phs318u 3y agoTrue. You're at the mercy of whatever information was captured at the time using means available at the time. One reason we (hopefully) don't get rid of physical evidence from criminal cases.