|
Check the wayback machine if they're in it.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a brilliant way to lose a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
|
You should have archived it first. It's kinda your duty to gather "evidence", not the duty of the person you are accusing things of. "Hey there burglar, I have your fingerprints on the window ledge, do you mind not wiping them off until the police come and photograph them?"
|
|
|
|
|
Your own archive is rather meaningless as it could've been tampered with before submitting as evidence. As others have suggested, the Wayback Machine is a third-party with no vested interest, so it would probably carry more weight. Of course, IANAL.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh? What's the url of the Wayback Machine?
|
|
|
|
|
What happened? Is Google broken?
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to make sure we're thinking about the same site, why don't you let me know the url? I mean, there couldn't be some reason you don't want to, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, you get what I intended to say. I think we both know why you're trying to twist things. I was just giving an example.
All I'm saying is don't think one person can provide his own evidence in a court case, because you always have to question where that evidence, which can be fabricated, is coming from. If anyone's serious after going someone else, you get others involved and follow the established procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
You seem quite reluctant to supply the url? Is there a reason?
|
|
|
|
|
There is no "reluctance" from my part. Here it is. You could've googled it yourself:
https://archive.org/
But now that you have it, we both know exactly what you're planning next just to try to prove a point. Go ahead. I eagerly await your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah so "The Wayback When Machine" is archive.org....gee, maybe that's why people say "archive it" rather than "use the Wayback When Machine"?
|
|
|
|
|
Why is that distinction so important to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Because that's obviously what I meant when I said "archive it" in my original post.
|
|
|
|
|
My whole point was that you don't make your own "archive" and hope to be able to submit that as evidence. You could fabricate anything by tampering with your so-called archive.
A snapshot of a web site (if that was your only evidence) would carry a lot more weight, IMO, if you could show that anyone can go to archive.org (a third-party with no vested interest in the outcome) and look up a snapshot of a given site as it existed on a random date--not your own creation that's been sitting in your possession for some amount of time.
And of course I fully realize there's probably a dozen ways you could still get the returned results forged along the way. But it gets a lot harder to fake that sort of thing, than your own files.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: My whole point was that you don't make your own "archive" and hope to be able to submit that as evidence
Which is a strawman argument as that's not what I was suggesting.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: dandy72 wrote: My whole point was that you don't make your own "archive" and hope to be able to submit that as evidence
Which is a strawman argument as that's not what I was suggesting.
Well then pardon me for misunderstanding what you meant by:
You should have archived it first. It's kinda your duty to gather "evidence", not the duty of the person you are accusing things of.
|
|
|
|
|
When people say to archive a site they mean use archive.org. That site doesn't archive things automatically, you have to archive it yourself which is why I said it's your duty to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's news to me, and you'll forgive me if I'm incredulous about this claim. A company I used to work for (now defunct) has had a few snapshots of its site taken on a regular basis back when it was live, and I can guarantee you that nobody working there had ever requested that.
Besides, have you looked at the number of snapshots taken for some sites? Either the request process is automated, or some people have made a career out of requesting said snapshots every few minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably a bit of both, they probably trawl some sites themselves, others you have to enter the url manually. If what you're saying is correct then there's no issue, just go to the archive and it'll be there, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
That stinks. But be careful, they can countersue. Make sure you have a solid case.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
*Removed*
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
modified 21-Oct-20 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Puerile, but no more so than much of the content on Twatter.
|
|
|
|
|
Way to sneak in some Trump bashing.  
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
yep. it is fine for the others to be political or violate the board rules, but you and I get banned if we look at someone funny.
whatever.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
