▲ 595 ▼ FBI Tries to Unmask Owner of Infamous Archive.is Site (www.404media.co) submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 44 points 1 year ago (3 children) "Infamous"? More like wonderfully useful. permalink fedilink source hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) It occasionally catches things that archive.org misses too. Also really nice to have an alternative. It’d be nice to have a way of doing decentralised archiving while still keeping the trust. If you’re trying to prove that a site really said something at a certain date to another person, pointing to your own archive is kinda useless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Blockchain? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 2 points 1 year ago It would help! It would establish that an archive was made no later than the date it was recorded on a blockchain (assuming the archiver isn’t also the one the made the original content in which case they can upload it after making the “archive”). You would still need to prove the trustworthiness of the archived data and at the moment the only thing we have for that is just trusting the archiver. You could do something like have multiple archivers archive the same site in s stripped down for like plain text (so that differences caused by time or day, ads, etc don’t change the hash) and that way you can say that X amount of archivers agree that the site looked like that at that time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) It occasionally catches things that archive.org misses too. Also really nice to have an alternative. It’d be nice to have a way of doing decentralised archiving while still keeping the trust. If you’re trying to prove that a site really said something at a certain date to another person, pointing to your own archive is kinda useless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Blockchain? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 2 points 1 year ago It would help! It would establish that an archive was made no later than the date it was recorded on a blockchain (assuming the archiver isn’t also the one the made the original content in which case they can upload it after making the “archive”). You would still need to prove the trustworthiness of the archived data and at the moment the only thing we have for that is just trusting the archiver. You could do something like have multiple archivers archive the same site in s stripped down for like plain text (so that differences caused by time or day, ads, etc don’t change the hash) and that way you can say that X amount of archivers agree that the site looked like that at that time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Blockchain? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 2 points 1 year ago It would help! It would establish that an archive was made no later than the date it was recorded on a blockchain (assuming the archiver isn’t also the one the made the original content in which case they can upload it after making the “archive”). You would still need to prove the trustworthiness of the archived data and at the moment the only thing we have for that is just trusting the archiver. You could do something like have multiple archivers archive the same site in s stripped down for like plain text (so that differences caused by time or day, ads, etc don’t change the hash) and that way you can say that X amount of archivers agree that the site looked like that at that time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 2 points 1 year ago It would help! It would establish that an archive was made no later than the date it was recorded on a blockchain (assuming the archiver isn’t also the one the made the original content in which case they can upload it after making the “archive”). You would still need to prove the trustworthiness of the archived data and at the moment the only thing we have for that is just trusting the archiver. You could do something like have multiple archivers archive the same site in s stripped down for like plain text (so that differences caused by time or day, ads, etc don’t change the hash) and that way you can say that X amount of archivers agree that the site looked like that at that time. permalink fedilink source parent