Hacker News Reader

Comment by eternalban | Hacker News Reader

In an ironic turn of the universe we learn that archive.org didn't need a blockchain to maintain an authoritative record. #goodenough

View on HN

Is an archive.org entry admissible in court? Is there a legal precedent for this?

Would it be admissible as evidence of Russian war crimes in the Ukraine war for example? Evidence of ear crimes put up on social media, taken down because they violate terms of service, but still preserved in a way that validates they're legitimate.

Archive.org will remove content when requested by the website owner, and in other cases.

https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...

But at least they don't modify stuff. What they have you can trust to be accurate, but you can't trust it to still be there tomorrow.

Designing a system that can't be modified is an interesting exercise, and potentially could be one of the few where a blockchain might actually be useful.

Yes and yes: https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/04/wayback_machine_legit...

This may help dispel some errant thoughts: Unless there is an authority for verifying records made to an immutable, authenticated, verified, distributed, bft ledger, multiple distinct versions of the same event can be recorded and the act and content recorded for posterity. The ledger's guarantees merely cover the boundary of the act of recording, but not the thought that is recorded.

So, opinions alert:

Truth is not a balance sheet. It is not a mathematical object, in its entirety.

Authorities will always be necessary. This will require social trust.

Social trust is the natural byproduct of healthy societies and its erosion a leading indicator of subsequent demise.

I'm a bit confused by what you're saying. It sounds like you're implying there's 3 different objects here but then you talk about only 2 in your opinion. Accuracy/authenticity of the digital content, authenticity of the distribution of that content, and the interpretation of that content (using external context).

I'd think the first is a mathematical/cryptographically solvable problem, assuming you trust (human decision) whatever hardware/software generates the content. The 2nd is solvable in a decentralized way when the first is solved. and the latter is probably always a human/societal decision.

But why does the need for social trust impact technological solutions to the first two? Especially when deep fakes become more and more relevant in society.

> you talk about only 2 in your opinion.

Truth, authority, trust. (3)

The first is not mathematical. Any device that relies on mathematics at its core will fail to meet the demand of "is this true?" (Yes it can sign, authenticate, and verify (and store) sequences of 0s and 1s.)

The second is a social phenomena by definition. Authority affects the suspension of disbelief. That is [one of] its primary function. At best technology can stake a claim to subordinate qualities of reliability of function, and fidelity to specifications. This tech is certified implementation of such and such wonderful design. It's an 'authoritative' realization. There is the limit for authority of technology.

Finally, trust.

Picture this trial in an imaginary 'hate hour' type of country. The defendant is a political prisoner.

"Your honor, these facts have been established mathematically. Unequivocally, these messages were sent and signed by the defendant. This is a proven fact."

"Your honor, they put a gun to my client's privates and had him sign that message which he didn't even write with his keys."

So on to trust. Continue imagining that you are a "red-pilled" citizen of that society watching it on the tubes. Now try being blue-pilled and repeat the exercise. What technology will rid us of these pesky colored pills?

We should not waste resources on solutions that can not even theoretically address the critical issues around (perceived) truth, authority, and trust, since these are ultimately and fundamentally human social issues.

Beyond costs-benefits considerations, a secondary ill effect of the blockchain madness here is obfuscating the matter just discussed and creating a pervasive errant thought in a portion of the lay public that technology has obviated the need for authority and trust on certain matters, contrary to the actual state of affairs.

p.s. technology should only be pervasively adopted to improve the human condition.

Do you treat truth and authenticity as the same thing? A camera can take and sign a picture while proving it's not compromised. That picture is authentic but depending on the context the picture is presented in may or may not be true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com