Comment on FBI Tries to Unmask Owner of Infamous Archive.is Site
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
“Infamous”? More like wonderfully useful.
Comment on FBI Tries to Unmask Owner of Infamous Archive.is Site
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
“Infamous”? More like wonderfully useful.
conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 4 months ago
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.
InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Blockchain?
conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 4 months 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.