Wayback Machine as Evidence of Historical Internet Content

[Ian Curtis]

I found an article about a Federal Court test case from a couple of years ago about this matter.

Although an exception was made in this case,
"there is no guarantee that evidence from the Wayback Machine will be admissible and accepted as reliable in Court."

Historical web pages are one thing, but what about current web pages which may be deleted by the time the hearing takes place? Is there some sort of certifiable way to access a web page before it is deleted? eg can I get a JP to access a web page and then sign a stat dec to confirm that a printed screenshot is identical to the web page on that day?

There is a service (which kind of does what I just suggested a JP might do) called SafeStamper but I don't know if it is acceptable in an Australian Court although it does say "These guarantees are also reinforced with an audit process of all signed and dated blockchain3 documents, making their validity unquestionable in any other legislation that could challenge European regulations, thus giving coverage to possible litigation in any nation."

 

[Tim W]

There's also the Australian National Library PANDORA archive.
What fact are you trying to establish here?

 

[Ian Curtis]

[EDIT: I see now that my use of the word "historical" is confusing. I merely meant web pages which no longer exist. Sorry about that.]

Am not sure that my specific interest is relevant to my general question but your recommendation of Pandora suggests my question was not understood so here is an example...

Friend has been defamed on Facebook. He is about to spend his life savings on the case but I worry his legal team is taking him for a ride because all they have is screenshots of the Facebook comments and I don't think they are certified. Screenshots are easy to forge in Photoshop.

 

[Tim W]

Even that is not clear.

Who do you say is taking your friend for a ride? His own lawyers?
What do you mean by "taking him for a ride"?

Who is the "they" you say (only) has screenshots?
Is "they" your friend's own lawyers, or is "they" the other side?

 

[Rod]

The evidence is stronger if the lawyers took the screenshots and produce an affidavit saying so.

 

[Ian Curtis]

Even that is not clear.

Who do you say is taking your friend for a ride? His own lawyers?
What do you mean by "taking him for a ride"?

Who is the "they" you say (only) has screenshots?
Is "they" your friend's own lawyers, or is "they" the other side?

"They" = Private Investigators who have given screenshots to the Lawyers

"Taking for a ride" = giving their client (my friend) the impression that they have strong evidence to proceed with the case (which will cost about $100k)

My friend is not tech savvy so it was hard for me to even explain to him that a screenshot can easily be Photoshopped (he does not even understand know what Photoshop is).

 

[Tim W]

"They" = Private Investigators who have given screenshots to the Lawyers

"Taking for a ride" = giving their client (my friend) the impression that they have strong evidence to proceed with the case (which will cost about $100k)

My friend is not tech savvy so it was hard for me to even explain to him that a screenshot can easily be Photoshopped (he does not even understand know what Photoshop is).

Whose private investigators?
On.Which.Side ?

 

[Ian Curtis]

Whose private investigators?
On.Which.Side ?

The defendants (the defamers) have not been served yet. The private investigators and lawyers I am talking about are the ones hired by my friend who is being defamed. I fear they are accepting his money without strong enough evidence to win the case.

I said...

He is about to spend his life savings on the case but I worry his legal team is taking him for a ride because all they have is screenshots of the Facebook comments and I don't think they are certified.

He/his/him = my friend
they = my friend's legal team, except for...
I don't think they are certified = I don't think the Facebook comments are certified

Seems logical. No? The pronouns are all used to refer to adjacent subjects. I am not sure why you think I would have pronouns refer to external hitherto unmentioned subjects.

Japanese hate using pronouns for this reason. They think it is rude to force the reader to make the associations regardless of how logical they are. Westerners on the other hand can get offended if the writer refuses to use pronouns because they think it rudely assumes the reader cannot figure it out. Admittedly there were a lot of pronouns in my example, so I should have maybe taken a middle path.

 

[Tim W]

The defendants (the defamers) have not been served yet. The private investigators and lawyers I am talking about are the ones hired by my friend who is being defamed. I fear they are accepting his money without strong enough evidence to win the case.

Concern for your friend is admirable.
And your suspicions are... prudent.
Was it the lawyers or your friend directly who engaged the investigators?
And to what end? What exactly are they looking for?

Do you know if anyone has told your friend that mere embarrassment is not enough to found a defamation action?


I am not at all sure of the relevance of any of this:

Japanese hate using pronouns for this reason. They think it is rude to force the reader to make the associations regardless of how logical they are. Westerners on the other hand can get offended if the writer refuses to use pronouns because they think it rudely assumes the reader cannot figure it out. Admittedly there were a lot of pronouns in my example, so I should have maybe taken a middle path.

 

[Ian Curtis]

Was it the lawyers or your friend directly who engaged the investigators?

My friend engaged the PI's (whom he has used in the past). PI's happen to work in the same building as the lawyers though and I think they know each other. I must ask if the lawyers have been collaborating with the PI's yet.

And to what end? What exactly are they looking for?

Clear my friend's name from the defamation. And not just a public apology but to punish the defamers. It is not just a case of exaggerated accusations without evidence, they are without any basis and have been maliciously fabricated to do damage. I know my friend is innocent of the defamatory accusations and there are security cameras which could prove it (although it is up to the defamer to prove their claims).

Do you know if anyone has told your friend that mere embarrassment is not enough to found a defamation action?

Accusations of criminal behaviour: sexual sexual harassment and stalking. It has damaged his "clientelle" (though not monetary losses because it is an activist group he leads).