Link Rot and the US Supreme Court

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Link Rot and the US Supreme Court

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 23, 2013 @06:30AM from the getting-old dept.

necro81 writes "Hyperlinks are not forever. Link rot occurs when a source you've linked to no longer exists — or worse, exists in a different state than when the link was originally made. Even permalinks aren't necessarily permanent if a domain goes silent or switches ownership. According to new research from Harvard Law, some 49% of hyperlinks in Supreme Court documents no longer point to the correct original content. A second study on link rot from Yale stresses that for the Court footnotes, citations, parenthetical asides, and historical context mean as much as the text of an opinion itself, which makes link rot a threat to future scholarship."

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

404 Not Found by themushroom · 2013-09-23 06:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Which is not what you want to see in, say, an Apple verses Samsung style case where "previous art" and earlier applications are all that separate you from being successfully sued into the Stone Age.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
1. Re:404 Not Found by mi · 2013-09-23 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  senile old coot, racist, anti-semite, and all-around waste of oxygen Scalia
  Why wouldn't you just compare him with Hitler (disfavorably) and be done for the day?
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think you'd be better served assuming whenever a case comes before the Supreme Court that the Government has over-stepped its Constitutional authority. Read the Declaration of Independence and see the list of grievances against the King of England and ask yourself do you really think those same people would have wanted the Federal Government to have all the power it currently has?
3. Re:404 Not Found by Zcar · 2013-09-23 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Some of them, yes, given that both a compromise documents. Some of the Federalists in particular would, I think, have been perfectly all right with expansive views of the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses.
4. Re:404 Not Found by Zero__Kelvin · 2013-09-23 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Why wouldn't you just compare him with Hitler (disfavorably) and be done for the day?"
  I'm curious. How would comparing him to Hitler favorably work? Can you give an example?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
5. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  solution: print web page to pdf
6. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Like Hitler he's a snappy dresser.
7. Re:404 Not Found by triffid_98 · 2013-09-23 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  I'm curious. How would comparing him to Hitler favorably work? Can you give an example?
  
  In my opinion Antonin Scalia is one of the most charismatic public speakers in history. To me his speeches are every bit as compelling as those of Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill or Zig Ziglar.
8. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-23 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still not sure what the takeaway from this is, save the fact that in addition to being a senile old coot, racist, anti-semite, and all-around waste of oxygen Scalia is also clueless about technology.
  In fact, generally assuming Scalia is wrong about everything will serve you well.
  If you are truly honest you would understand that when you look at the court that it is filled with activist judges who care very little if at all for the Constitution and are just looking to make law that reflects what they want.
  If you think it is just Scalia or just the Conservatives on the court that are evil you are either stupid or a liar,
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
9. Re:404 Not Found by lxs · 2013-09-23 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's a copyright violation. Let's hope that those court documents will never be seen by a lawyer.
10. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-23 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Hitler was dedicated to his work.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
11. Re:404 Not Found by zidium · 2013-09-23 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Just use the service PermaMarks.Net. http://www.permamarks.net/ That's what I use almost every day.
  
  --
  Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
12. Re:404 Not Found by TemporalBeing · 2013-09-23 09:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Which is not what you want to see in, say, an Apple verses Samsung style case where "previous art" and earlier applications are all that separate you from being successfully sued into the Stone Age.
  FYI - the courts require that web content have screen shots taken with time-date stamps to avoid this exact issue. The screen shots must also contain the information in a certain manner, only then can it be used as evidence/exhibits. If the lawyers are not doing that, then they are not properly writing/citing their court paperwork (briefs, etc).
  
  And no, it does not amount to a copyright violation.
  
  IANAL, but that's my understanding thanks to Groklaw and other sources.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
13. Re:404 Not Found by admiralh · 2013-09-23 09:46 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If you are truly honest you would understand that when you look at the court that it is filled with activist judges who care very little if at all for the Constitution and are just looking to make law that reflects what they want.
  Which Justices advertise themselves as "originalists" who the Constitution as a document chiseled in stone, where all interpretation of current law is based on the Founders' original intent, and then choose to throw that belief away when it's inconvenient? Hint: It's not the "liberals" (not that the Court actually has any liberals, but that's another argument)
  
  If you think it is just Scalia or just the Conservatives on the court that are evil you are either stupid or a liar
  Please elaborate on what Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, or the other "liberals" have done that is "evil". Or do you always speak in Limbaugh-ian hyperbole?
  
  --
  Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
14. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Just use the service PermaMarks.Net. http://www.permamarks.net/ That's what I use almost every day.
  Your link just gives me a 404 Not Found error.
15. Re:404 Not Found by admiralh · 2013-09-23 09:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Some of them, yes.
  Consider that the Constitution was the *second* attempt to unite the former colonies, since the Articles of Confederation was seen as being way out of balance, with the States having way too much power w.r.t. the Federal Government.
  And remember that the Declaration of Independence was the rhetorical culmination of the battle that started when Parliament wanted the colonists to pay the costs of the French and Indian War, and the rich New England colonists refused.
  
  --
  Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
16. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-23 10:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Each of them has taken an oath and each of them would rather have things go their way than to follow the constitution.
  Take the health care act. The court had to first rule that the congress meant the law to become something they specifically stated that it was not. A tax. Then make it legal that way. They stretched to make it "Constitutional". This is not something that has just happened lately either. The US Supreme court has been doing this type of thing for many, many decades. Once they did the stamp act for Machine Guns they made their statement then. "When we think something is right we will tear away at the constitution to implement it." Agree or disagree with the law itself the US Supreme Court is and has been filled with people who have taken an oath they have non intention of following.
  If it makes you feel better you can write me off as a non thinker who gets his marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity or Fox News. The truth though is I believe in the greatness of the country as founded. The libs want guns gone. The Pubs want to "protect my right to hunt and protect myself from other people."
  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
  Thomas Jefferson
  That is why you need an AR-15. They are already making information illegal. with information people can make guns and explosives and generally scary things. So they will "protect" us by vetting what information we can and can not have access to. "Just to protect the children and to save us from terrorists." Government is not your mother or your father. Government is not your uncle. Government is a needed service that can (if allowed to become to powerful) be your worst enemy.
  When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  Again Thomas Jefferson.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
17. Re:404 Not Found by harperska · 2013-09-23 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Take the health care act. The court had to first rule that the congress meant the law to become something they specifically stated that it was not. A tax. Then make it legal that way.
  Congresscritters can call legislation whatever they want in order to get votes for it. But that doesn't change its nature. If it looks like a tax, swims like a tax, and quacks like a tax, then it is probably a tax regardless of what some senator's PR page called it. SCOTUS ruled on what it was, not what it was called.
18. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-23 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  They did not pass it as a tax. All revenue bill must originate in the House. This bill did not. If they wanted they could have gutted a house bill and replaced the text with the affordable care act text and re passed the law. Then. With the rulling the Supremes made it would be a legal bill.
  The court ruling that a bill created in the senate can become a constitutional law based on the taxing powers of congress is a lie. You know this. Right? I do not care if the law itself is good or bad. Unconstitutional.
  Patriot Act, FISA Courts, EPA, Deptartment of Education, Homeland Security, Constitution Free Zones, Stop and Frisk, Officers arresting people for filming, the NSA scandals, IRS scandals. All these things are examples of a government gone wild. Not a conservative government gone wild or a liberal government gone wild.
  Government Gone Wild They do not care what party is in power. We are ruled by Senators and Representatives in what almost amounts to lifetime appointments and the bureaucratic machine that eats personal freedoms for each of its 12 meals a day.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
19. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  I don't want to accuse you of being someone who is a non-thinker who gets his marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, or Fox News, but...
  http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation
  Suggests that your quote re: Thomas Jefferson, is in fact, unlikely to be a TJ quote. It wasn't recorded in print prior to 1989, so I don't know how the Orlando Sentinel writer could obtain a quote that isn't attested to anywhere else.
  Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm sure even without the quote you feel like any abrogation of the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, and that's a fair view to have... But please don't tie your belief to a fictitious quote of dubious heritage.
20. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-23 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Never knew that. Interesting.
  Still feel exactly the same way about it even if the original quote came from someone crazy like Ron Paul.
  My point was that both the conservatives and the liberals are the enemy of the people. As long as they have the two groups fighting each other they can rape the people of their wealth and their freedoms with nothing to stop them.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
21. Re:404 Not Found by thunderclap · 2013-09-23 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Um, not the best example. Thats like making a comment and including Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and Mother Teresa. See the problem here?
22. Re:404 Not Found by TubeSteak · 2013-09-23 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  Again Thomas Jefferson.
  The problem is when the conversation is driven by groups that are unreasonably fearful of their government.
  
  Still feel exactly the same way about it even if the original quote came from someone crazy like Ron Paul.
  My point exactly.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
23. Re:404 Not Found by wbr1 · 2013-09-23 13:44 · Score: 2
  
  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
  The problem with this is that a gun or guns, or even a million people with guns has absolutely no chance against today's military. Blast your AR-15s at as many predator drones as you like. It will not do you a bit of good. If you do not win the military to your cause, then all the guns in the world will not help you fight physically against any tyranny the government pushes. It just will label you and your ilk as 'terrists'.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
24. Re: 404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  Having guns forces us all to be respectful and attempt diplomacy first. For example, the police would be a lot more willing to kick down doors if not for the immense danger in doing so. That said, obviously the police will triumph in the end, just like the military would, but that's not the point.
25. Re:404 Not Found by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-09-23 15:57 · Score: 2
  
  The libs want guns gone. The Pubs want to "protect my right to hunt and protect myself from other people."
  As a "lib"[eral/ertarian], I don't want guns gone. You want guns? Great. You want drugs? Great. Honestly, it's authoritarian libs who want guns gone just like authoritarian conservatives want to enshrine things like marriage, religion, etc in government. Oh, and most "Pubs" want guns to play with, be it play hunting or make believe that they're protecting themselves from other people. I say this because, honestly, guns are by design deadly weapons meant specifically for killing usually people--hunting wild game is a nice add-on.
  To that end, I don't think most people treat guns with the sort of respect that they should. I'd also note that, honestly, if one can truly be respectful of owning a gun, I see no reason they shouldn't be "allowed" to own a tank, a cannon, a B-52 bomber, or a nuclear weapon--allowed is a dubious word more or less because Constitutionally it seems pretty clear it'd all fall under a right and as such infringement upon that right is some sort of violation against humanity. They all stem from the same point, a means of unleashing possibly massive harm on other people. But the fact is, people who are against "hard" drugs are also against "hard" weapons. They cling to civil usages of them as justification for ownership. To me, that's either cowardice or a real unwillingness to accept exactly what is desired. Either way, as you say, the treatment by "libs" and "Pubs" is all very unconstitutional.
  
  --
  Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
26. Re:404 Not Found by davester666 · 2013-09-23 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  They are all people persons, right?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
27. Re:404 Not Found by davester666 · 2013-09-23 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I know, they all want/wanted to be know by their deeds, not their words.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
28. Re:404 Not Found by CaptQuark · 2013-09-23 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Adding a copy of the referenced material would be allowed by the Fair Use provision of the Copyright law.
  
  The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: [...] reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; [...] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
  
  ~~
29. Re:404 Not Found by serviscope_minor · 2013-09-23 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  If it makes you feel better you can write me off as a non thinker who gets his marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity or Fox News.
  The thing that makes it sound like you take marching orders from those people is not what you believe in, it's that you blame what's happening on "the liberals". The so-called conservatives are every bit as bad and do just as much albeit with a marginally different flavour.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
30. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  If it makes you feel better you can write me off as a non thinker who gets his marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity or Fox News.
  If you are going to continue to use meaningless terms like "activist judges" for rulings you don't agree with, you will continue to be written to be written off. The Affordable Care Act ruling was simple and clear and not surprise. Just because conservatives hate the act and the mandate which they themselves asked to be put in instead of something called a tax, doesn't mean any ruling allowing it to continue is evil. I have seen many "activist" style ruling applauded by talk radio. That isn't a place of intellectual debate. It's a place of name calling, hyperbole, and out right lying, just to get people upset. Upset people listen. Talk radio is entertainment. When you parrot it's talking points, you sound like an idiot.
31. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-24 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Unreasonable fear? Cops are arresting people for filming. You have no constitutional rights within 100 miles of the US border. The Government will come in and prevent you from building your house on your land if they find a rare mouse on it. People in prison for growing plants. Government is getting bigger and people are getting more dependent. This is fact. This is not good.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
32. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-24 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  If it makes you feel better you can write me off as a non thinker who gets his marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity or Fox News.
  The thing that makes it sound like you take marching orders from those people is not what you believe in, it's that you blame what's happening on "the liberals". The so-called conservatives are every bit as bad and do just as much albeit with a marginally different flavour.
  Umm. Read. Look at my posts. I make it pretty clear I feel that both the libs and the cons are ruining this country. That the Supreme Court Justices are activist judges on one side of the aisle or the other. That everyone of them have no intention of adhering to their oath from the moment they take it. Look at what I said as the GGP of your post. So again. If you you think that I am a Republican loving cow that gets every thought from Fox news you are wrong. You are not wrong because you lack information. You are wrong in spite of having proof of it right in front of your face.
  Knowingly wrong is something we already have a word for. Frankly it leads me to distrust anything you say.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
33. Re: 404 Not Found by admiralh · 2013-09-24 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Really? It will make the police *less* likely to kick in doors?
  What planet do you live on?
  If we look at what has actually happened, we see an increasing militarization of the police. They are much more likely to use overwhelming force in all situations (flash-bang grenades, large SWAT teams, etc.), because safest thing for them to do is ensure that the people inside have no time/ability to arm themselves.
  Ever watched "Cops"?
  
  --
  Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
34. Re:404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  So, let me see if I understand you, sir.
  Congress, which has the legitimate, constitutional power to pass taxes, passed what you refer to as a 'tax'. Is that correct?
  Really, is it so much to ask that those who are fortunate enough to make a profit in this economy help out those who are not as fortunate? Or are we, as a nation, dedicated to this idea that corporations can continue to turn the U.S. economy into their own "Company Stores" where workers have a lif-debt and connot quit or change jobs or else they LITERALLY die.
  What is wrong with you people?
35. Re:404 Not Found by admiralh · 2013-09-24 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  You really think an AR-15 will protect you from the government?
  You gun-rights libertarians are sooo cute when you're living in your fantasy world.
  How about instead of arming yourselves (and sending more profits to the gun manufacturers) we talk about de-militarizing the police and cutting military budgets, along with ending assaults on our liberty like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and breaking the culture of secrecy created by the Cold War.
  
  --
  Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
36. Re:404 Not Found by admiralh · 2013-09-24 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Politicians are not the source of the problem. They are the symptom. Jim DeMint resigned the Senate to become a lobbyist. If the Senate was all-powerful, why would he do that?
  The problem is the over-corporatization of society. Or as Mitt Romney said "Corporations are People too" (I know he didn't mean it literally, but still).
  This has lead to this incestuous revolving-door relationship between Government and Business.
  Personally, I feel that Government is the only thing we have that is big enough to be able to compete against Business.
  It can work, like how Teddy Roosevelt became the Trust Buster (Henry Clay Frick, the steel baron complained, "We bought the son of a bitch and then he didn't stay bought.")
  We need Business, but we also need a referee strong enough to enforce the rules. And Government is the only thing we have that is.
  
  --
  Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
37. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-24 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  It does not matter to me if an Activist judge is a lib ignoring that all revenue bills must originate in the house to make the Health Care Act legal or if it a conservative activist judge telling me that the NSA can do what ever it wants. The border regions where I can be searched and my laptop taken with no recourse. The US Supreme court is taking our freedoms, The ENTIRE court. Not just the left leaning ones or the right leaning ones. Every one of those fuckers are treasonous bastards.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
38. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-24 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  First. Again. All revenue bills must originate in the House. Not the Senate. They passed it as not a tax because of this. Once the Supreme court ruled that they could do it because of taxing powers they should have struck it down due to the House not originating it. Congress could then go back and pass it constitutionally. that is not what happened.
  Deciding you want Government health care should not mean that you are ok with them doing what ever it takes to give it to you.
  So. Are you arguing that revenue bills do not need to be started in the house? or, The health care act is not a tax? or That it does not matter if it is constitutional or not, It is a good idea and therefore what ever they need to do legal or not is fine?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
39. Re:404 Not Found by Dishevel · 2013-09-24 04:10 · Score: 2
  
  If you look at how Big Business rules your life you will see that it is because they use government regulations to restrict your freedoms. Reduce the power of the government to restrict your freedoms and you shrink the size of the hammer that big business is using to pound you into the dirt.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
40. Re:404 Not Found by kmoser · 2013-09-24 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  He made the trains run on time.
Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

They should just start linking through the Wayback Machine.
1. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-09-23 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They should just start linking through the Wayback Machine.
  ...which is precisely what I did when I went back to university. I gave all citations with the original URL and an archive.org one. I hoped at the uni would pick up on it and recommend it to the other students, but it never happened....
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
2. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Frojack123 · 2013-09-23 06:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  They should just start linking through the Wayback Machine.
  Interesting concept, but Wayback is not always complete.
  Perhaps the court should create an exemption to copyright, that allows the creation an internal copy (perhaps in image or pdf format) of the page for anti-link-rot protection.
  I'm sure with clever wording they can manage to restrict this to lawyers and court proceedings, however:
  I could make the case that it should apply universally.
  After all, If you ever put up a page publicly on the net to content you were the rightful owner of, you have declared that version of that page to be a public document, and anyone should have the ability to make a static Image of that document. There are all sorts of copyright corner cases involved, but it is really no different than publishing your screed in the New York times or your local paper. There is no way to unpublish it, and no way to prevent it being archived.
  
  --
  F. Robert Jack
3. Re:Well that's easily remedied by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-23 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  There's already an academic exemption to copyright. Excerpting to relevant passage is quite legal.
4. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Tony+Isaac · 2013-09-23 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  That seems like a good idea, but what happens if the Wayback Machine decides to change their link format?
5. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Frojack123 · 2013-09-23 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  True, but for court cases, you may need the entire document. And academic may not be interpreted broadly enough in the case of internet archives. Is the whole work the entire website, and one page simply a reasonable passage? Or do pages stand alone as a entire work?
  
  --
  F. Robert Jack
6. Re:Well that's easily remedied by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-23 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, it's illegal for them, but who's going to sue the Supreme court?
7. Re: Well that's easily remedied by ibwolf · 2013-09-23 07:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Links to the WBM contain the original URL and a timestamp so it would be easy to redirect it. The issue is however unlikely to come up as Wayback links are meant to be long-term stable. They've already survived one complete rewrite of the underlying application.
8. Re: Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  True, but there are many other web archives out there that may have better copies. The original URL plus the timestamp /and a method to resolve that tuple/ is a much cleaner solution.
  Thankfully such a solution exists, and is in the final stages of getting an RFC: http://www.mementoweb.org/
9. Re: Well that's easily remedied by Minwee · 2013-09-23 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Links to the WBM contain the original URL and a timestamp so it would be easy to redirect it. The issue is however unlikely to come up as Wayback links are meant to be long-term stable. They've already survived one complete rewrite of the underlying application.
  And how are they going to survive being bought by Rupert Murdoch?
10. Re:Well that's easily remedied by lgw · 2013-09-23 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  Or they could just make the copy, and wait for the related copyright case to come to the Supreme Court. :)
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
11. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Darinbob · 2013-09-23 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just cite the original document? Do these no longer exist anymore? Ie, you cite the newspaper article itself, or a journal article, and so forth.
12. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  They won't. It's run by the Internet Archive, which are super duper hyper ultra mega giga double anal about precisely that sort of thing. URIs are data too, right? So they too have longevity characteristics.
13. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  And defend it by pointing out that the copyrighted work is now part of the public record (cite original decision which incorporated said work).
14. Re:Well that's easily remedied by networkBoy · 2013-09-23 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  /win
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
15. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Until the archive.org link vanishes because someone bought the domain and put a robots.txt exclusion on it!!!!!!!!!
16. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Gavagai80 · 2013-09-23 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  They remove past indexes based on a new robots.txt? They have no obligation to do that, so they shouldn't -- robots.txt should only prevent adding any new archives of the site.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
17. Re:Well that's easily remedied by CaptQuark · 2013-09-23 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Adding a copy of the referenced material would be allowed by the Fair Use provision of the Copyright law.
  
  The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: [...] reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; [...] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
  
  And posting something on the internet does NOT automatically make it public domain. Just because you see it on a web page does not mean you are free to copy it.
  
  ~~
18. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  Poster #44929107 here.
  Oh trust me, they do remove them. I can't recall an example right now, but there are rotted archive.org links based on a new owner adding a robots.txt link to their site. Not sure if it's intentional, but they really shouldn't do that.
19. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  Or rather than relying on a private organisation, they should task a government department, the LoC seems appropriate to me, to set up a mirror for these documents with a stable URL.
20. Re:Well that's easily remedied by Frojack123 · 2013-09-24 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  How could one possibly read a web page without copying it?
  Its copied to cache the instant you click the link.
  Its copied to the screen immediately thereafter.
  It stays in cache until I clear it or the cache reaches the maximum size.
  You can not post something in public and forbid all copying at the same time. It makes no sense.
  
  --
  F. Robert Jack
Appendices? by spamchang · 2013-09-23 06:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Should documents then start including snapshots of the site (Wayback Machine-style) in document appendices? It's more work, sure, but it seems to be an obvious solution.
1. Re:Appendices? by kimvette · 2013-09-23 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  . . . until robots.txt wipes out the archive.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
2. Re:Appendices? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Plus, that would violate copyright law unless they got permission from the author.
3. Re:Appendices? by Frojack123 · 2013-09-23 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  I often print to pdf pages that I would like to link to. Then I put a live link, and a pdf link on my pages.
  When the live link rots, I remove it and substitute the pdf link. I make very little effort to track down revised pages. (Putting in redirects is their job, not mine).
  So far, because of the topic area I do web construction for, I've only been called to task for this once, and that was from an agency that had a updated version of their rotted link, (and didn't know enough about redirects).
  Most rotted links are due to people not caring any more.
  
  --
  F. Robert Jack
4. Re:Appendices? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  robots.txt doesn't do that sort of thing
5. Re:Appendices? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  But that means getting permission from the copyright holder of the site first, if you want to play it legally safe - and as these are court documents, you can't really play it any other way.
6. Re:Appendices? by petermgreen · 2013-09-23 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  The wayback machine retroactively applies robots.txt and they don't seem interested in making any exceptions to that policy. Even in cases where the current owner of the domain is not related to the owner of the domain at the time the material was archived.
  The archive isn't strictly wiped out but from the perspective of us normal people it may as well have been.
  IIRC they even managed to pursude a court that making an exception so that someone could look stuff up for a legal case would be undue hardship and persude the court that they should instead force the site in question to change their robots.txt.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
7. Re:Appendices? by pspahn · 2013-09-23 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Back when people used to make me write papers and bother with writing all these silly citations, I always wondered why I could not simply cite Wikipedia, seeing as the wiki would then also include citations to all the things I was citing anyway.
  This was confusing to me. I knew that at some point in the future whatever I am citing is going to no longer exist, making that citation invalid (of course, who's going to be reading my paper in 20 years... but I digress).
  Why is it not perfectly acceptable to cite Wikipedia these days? It still relies on donations and such, but it's not going anywhere; once you cite something through Wikipedia, you are effectively future-proofing your citations.
  Seems a lot less redundant than citing the other pages that are cited on Wikipedia. I guess academia isn't terribly keen on their industry going belly-up because of obsolescence.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
8. Re:Appendices? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  that is why I use scrapbook. It is not a guarantee as there is a limit there, still it is something.
9. Re:Appendices? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-09-23 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  "Should documents then start including snapshots of the site (Wayback Machine-style) in document appendices? It's more work, sure, but it seems to be an obvious solution."
  This is simply and purely a failure of Government to properly archive, long-term store, and maintain its records.
  
  Anything cited in a Court decision should be saved, cataloged, and stored in a permanent place. Failure to do so is a big failure, indeed.
10. Re:Appendices? by kimvette · 2013-09-23 13:57 · Score: 2
  
  Read the FAQ on archive.org.
  If you want to delete the archive of your site, edit robots.txt to disallow them. They will wipe out the archive - or at least "tombstone" it so it is visible to no one (who knows if it's actually deleted behind the scenes)
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Wait a minute by Dunbal · 2013-09-23 06:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Link rot could be "a threat to future scholarship"? WHO SAID TRAINING FEWER LAWYERS WAS A BAD THING? I just don't see the problem.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'm an attorney you insensitive clod. So as we'd say it in court: my esteemed colleague can go fuck him/herself.
2. Re:Wait a minute by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-09-23 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Science also relies on scholarship. Legal scribes are not the only scholars.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
3. Re:Wait a minute by SlippyToad · 2013-09-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, training lawyers with incomplete information could lead to an unexpected revolution where we discard long-established precedents and rewrite all law as if it were born yesterday.
  Especially in law which relies heavily on precedent, being able to find the actual precedents for comparison's sake would be critical, IMHO.
  
  --
  One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
4. Re:Wait a minute by Antipater · 2013-09-23 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  "The same number of lawyers, now less informed" =/= "fewer lawyers".
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
5. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't we take it to the logical extreme... "an infinite number of totally uninformed lawyers".
6. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  I see you've been reading CNN and MSNBC and noticing how well that's been succeeding for journalism.
7. Re:Wait a minute by Albanach · 2013-09-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  WHO SAID TRAINING FEWER LAWYERS WAS A BAD THING? I just don't see the problem.
  Presumably you've never needed a lawyer.
  If you ever do, and your lawyer wants to cite to a case with a broken link referenced, it could impact you directly. Even if the linked page is still available somewhere, you might be paying $500/hour for your lawyer to find it.
8. Re:Wait a minute by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-23 07:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  * Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
  * Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
  * Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
  * Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
9. Re:Wait a minute by ColdWetDog · 2013-09-23 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  Why don't we take it to the logical extreme... "an infinite number of totally uninformed lawyers".
  Would we get Shakespeare out of that if we gave them a bunch of typewriters?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
10. Re:Wait a minute by Dunbal · 2013-09-23 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you are an attorney then on would think you would welcome fewer competitors.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
11. Re:Wait a minute by forkazoo · 2013-09-23 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  However many lawyers you have, it's obviously better for them to understand the logic behind a decision, rather than just accepting the whole system as "just the way it is."
12. Re:Wait a minute by Dunbal · 2013-09-23 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I have, but I live in a small, civilized country, where all its laws and codes fit into one medium sized cardboard box, not that nightmare of a country where it has become fashionable to see who can get the highest page count on their bills this session ("let's pass it and then we can find out what's in it") legal system.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
13. Re: Wait a minute by techprophet · 2013-09-23 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  No, we'd get the US tax code
14. Re:Wait a minute by dunkelfalke · 2013-09-23 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" part?
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
15. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  So as we'd say it in court: my esteemed colleague can go fuck him/herself.
  You work with an him/hermaphrodite?
  Do they really go fuck themselves?
  Court is no place for an esteemed colleague!
16. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  * Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
  * Witness: "No."
  * Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
  * Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
  * Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
  * Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
  Ooh I got that snopesworthy faggot email too! Did you get the one where Obama is the antichrist? Thats fucking awesome too - faggot-fuck. Americans. Full-of-shit and proud of it. Faggots.
Standardized Linking in the Face of Link Rot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 06:40 · Score: 1

Maybe instead of hyperlinks we need some kind of internet-ISBN and an archive of important data? Maybe the NSA is helping after all! *coughs violently*
Good thing the NSA has it all backed up! by the_scoots · 2013-09-23 06:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Good thing the NSA has it all backed up!
NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 06:43 · Score: 0

Just go to waybackmachine.nsa.gov
No. by glrotate · 2013-09-23 06:47 · Score: 0

As someone who has worked on multiple sc briefs, the contents of some website referenced in an opinion certainly do not "mean as much as the text of an opinion itself."
1. Re:No. by AK+Marc · 2013-09-23 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  If the references mean so little, why have them?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Ahh, love the whiff of that extreme arrogance.
3. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  A writer wanting to make a point usually references and makes citations correctly. Website links are just not enough. The parents moderation is weird.
Old news by onyxruby · 2013-09-23 06:50 · Score: 2

This has been a well known problem for at least a couple of decades. Google had their famous cache that was famous for saving peoples hides or embarrassing peoples mistakes. The people that run the Wayback machine have been fighting this problem for many, many years.
Their is a natural resistance to being able to preserve content as it was at the time. People, companies and governments like to make revisionist history and forget that certain things ever happened or change them after the fact. Specialized companies help with reputation management in ensuring that such things disappear for good.
It's a problem from tech support documentation that disappears to finding old employers that have changed their name and moved location. The only way to resolve the issue is to be able to preserve the content as it was for posterity. Always assume your links will vanish and turn your need pages into archive files. If you really want to do something about it donate to the Internet Archive.
1. Re:Old news by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-23 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  All good points. If I may add to it:
  I really wish web-sites would list the DATE as in month + year on their articles so can tell how old (or relevant) the information may be.
  Microsoft has a really annoying habit of moving pages around. At least Microsoft and Apple put an unique identifier so even if pages get moved you can find it.
  Whenever I come across anything interesting I usually "Print to PDF" so at least I have a semi-permanent form where I can search for keywords used in the document.
2. Re:Old news by sabt-pestnu · 2013-09-23 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Groklaw noted a number of instances where websites were changed as a result of information revealed in court ... or on Groklaw as a result of research prompted by court documents.
3. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  Archive.org doesn't really help as much as you'd think, because when a domain expires or is sold and the new owner plants the right robots.txt file, the entire Archive of the site gets wiped, even if both authorship and content are completely independent. As far as I know there are no efforts to make these illegitimately disappeared sites available again. Other mirrors like Archive.is will only help as long as they're operational and no one applies the wrong legal pressure.
  But that all doesn't really matter. Because unless the actual court dispute is about a URL or website, court findings should not contain URLs. And they should never rely on URLs, no exceptions. If a document is relevant to the finding, it should be included in the finding integrally.
screen capture + URL shortener by ffflala · 2013-09-23 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

For fuck's sake, this is one reason why PURLs exist. The trainwreck that is a constant string of dynamic URLs *printed* out in court opinions is an example of shameful institutional incompetence, regardless of whether it's willful ignorance or just plain ignorance.

What is required to address this is an official government domain that hosts static screencaptures of web pages, provides PURLs to point to them, and ideally uses a URL-shortening function like goo.go or bit.ly.

Then, instead of including a long, difficult-to-retype URL in the opinion, the short, easy-to-type PURL appears in the opinion. The supplemental info for the citation includes things like original URL and date accessed, and the given PURL will point to the material in question.

Opposed to this idea will be copyright owners who fear that court opinions will eliminate their revenues by providing free access to material they usually charge for. Because this kind of opposition is easy to use to score political points (big government! wasting taxpayer dollars!! eminent domain of the little guy's copyrighted material!!!), to make money, getting to this obvious solution will be long delayed. When it is ultimately decided upon, it will be thousands of times more expensive than need be, take three times as long to roll out, will be created using shoddy technology that will break very quickly, and be used as yet another example of government failure.
1. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by TheRealMindChild · 2013-09-23 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  and ideally uses a URL-shortening function like goo.go or bit.ly
  
  WHY? I never click on such links for the elementary fact that I have no idea where they lead
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
2. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by gstoddart · 2013-09-23 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  WHY? I never click on such links for the elementary fact that I have no idea where they lead
  Agreed. If I have no idea where a link is going, I'm sure as hell not trusting it enough to click on it.
  I want to know what domain I'm going to, and since .ly is Lybia, not exactly an entity I'm going to give blanket trust to.
  I don't trust URL shorteners because I have no idea who controls them or what's on the other end of a link. They've always struck me as a terrible idea.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  There's a .gov URL shortener already: go.usa.gov -- FAQ available at https://go.usa.gov/faq
  For my work, if I need to submit a web document, I tend to save either a stitched-together .jpg or a .mht (sorry) along with the evidence in documents. The judges like to be able to see the documents without having to wait for a pageload.
4. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by 0123456 · 2013-09-23 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  WHY? I never click on such links for the elementary fact that I have no idea where they lead
  That's not hard to work around. Bit.ly, for example, seems to use amzn.to for all shortened links that go to Amazon... if you click one of those links, you know it goes to Amazon and not Goatse. The US government could presumably afford to set up a link-shortening service of their own which you can trust to go to a government site.
5. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by Albanach · 2013-09-23 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. If I have no idea where a link is going, I'm sure as hell not trusting it enough to click on it.
  Did you even read the original post before replying? The poster wanted a US government site that hosts static screen captures of web pages referenced in official documents. By implication you would know exactly where the link was taking you - to a government server that hosts images or PDFs of web pages.
  Excepting the possibility that the NSA might be monitoring the documents you access, I can't really see why you would object to clicking through to such a site.
  The reason for a URL shortener would, I imagine, be to make citations more manageable. Ideally it could also strip out characters that are likely to be confused 1/I 0/O to make it easier to transcribe a url from the printed document.
6. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by cdrudge · 2013-09-23 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  So you never go to a new domain? You only stick to the well known domains that you're use to? I'm sure nefarious individuals would only use domains like .ly and would never use a .com/.net/.org domain name.
7. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by NatasRevol · 2013-09-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Clicking on a link is blanket trust?
  Who the fuck are you people that are scared of clicking on a link?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
8. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by gstoddart · 2013-09-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  So you never go to a new domain?
  Not without knowing what it is, and not in a browser that's allowed to do much more than load pages, ignore scripts, and block cookies.
  I don't make it a practice to go to random links I can't tell where I'm going or visit a web site I've never heard of unless I have some idea of what it is.
  I place very little trust in the internet as a rule.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by similar_name · 2013-09-23 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  You shouldn't really trust the domain either. It might lead you into thinking this is safe. NSFW.
10. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-23 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  People using Windows and Internet Explorer?
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
11. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by Minwee · 2013-09-23 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  What is required to address this is an official government domain that hosts static screencaptures of web pages, provides PURLs to point to them, and ideally uses a URL-shortening function like goo.go [sic] or bit.ly.
  
  Indeed. Nothing lends more credence to a US Government document then putting all of its external references under the control of Greenland (.gl) and Lybia (.ly).
12. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by RoboRay · 2013-09-23 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Heyooooo!
13. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by lgw · 2013-09-23 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone whose work connection is monitored has reason to distrust links that might go to porn. Anyone whose brain hasn't already had those circuits permanently fused has reason to distrust links that might be goatse, or worse. Plus of course there are always zero-days for every browser, and it's sometimes easier to link spam to get traffic than hijack an ad server.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
14. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by ffflala · 2013-09-23 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Great question. I'm not talking about a URL shortener than anyone can use and so could take you to blue waffles, goatse, or lemon party. The shortened links would be to a .gov domain, would originate from judges' chambers, and go through multiple levels of editing and review, including being approved by the Reporter of Decisions before publication.
15. Re:screen capture + URL shortener by ffflala · 2013-09-23 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I am aware that .ly indicates Libya, etc. Given that this is slashdot, I would have thought this knowledge would be accepted as commonly understood.
  
  I didn't think it needed explanation here, but yes you are indeed correct: obviously this model would have to end in .gov and be hosted in the states.
Plain text and grep are your friends here by MikeLip · 2013-09-23 07:00 · Score: 2

Everything goes on one massive drive, and you grep keywords. Bring along a donut and coffee - it may be a while!
1. Re: Plain text and grep are your friends here by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  GREP! That's what Sonic '06 did to game grumps.
improper assumptions by oneiros27 · 2013-09-23 07:00 · Score: 2

PURLs and the like assume that there's going to be someone around to maintain the content, and maintain the linkage to the content.
If a document is officially 'published' and given some sort of persistant ID (eg, DOI, ARK, Handle, whatever), then citing documents *should* use those over URLs.
If however, you're just citing an example that's just some web site on the internet ... then you're SOL. They have no reason to never change their materials, keep a given version around 'til the end of time, or inform you if it's been moved elsewhere.
eg, say that there's a complaint about some process, they cite Montgomery Ward's website as an example where it was done previously ... of course, the company doesn't exist any more. This is much different than someone locking up an article from a paywall -- they *want* you to find the item, so they can then try to get $30 or whatever out of you.
(of course, I've just spent the last week talking about all of these issues, between meetings of DataCite, Research Data Alliance and Force 11)

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Library of Congress 2.0 by Covalent · 2013-09-23 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

This should be a mission of the Library of Congress - to archive everything ever used by the government (including court cases), be it on the Internet or not.

While they're at it, they can probably archive nearly everything else.

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
1. Re:Library of Congress 2.0 by NatasRevol · 2013-09-23 07:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think that duty was passed to another part of the government.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
2. Re:Library of Congress 2.0 by Bacon+Bits · 2013-09-23 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're archiving everything ever used by the citizens. They don't care about documenting the government.
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
3. Re:Library of Congress 2.0 by AdamThor · 2013-09-23 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Pfff! That creates liability!
  
  --
  -- "Oh. This guy again."
4. Re:Library of Congress 2.0 by necro81 · 2013-09-23 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  to archive everything ever used by the government
  I can't work out in my head how large a database that would have to be. Could you please estimate it in terms of Libraries of Congress.
  
  Wait, is that recursive?
5. Re:Library of Congress 2.0 by lgw · 2013-09-23 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  How much data storage would that take, measured in Libraries-of-Congress?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
6. Re:Library of Congress 2.0 by mythosaz · 2013-09-23 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  How much data storage would that take, measured in Libraries-of-Congress?
  About 2.0
Memento project, yo. by infinite.intimation · 2013-09-23 07:02 · Score: 2

I would like to see participation in the memento project/stable URIs (http://mementoweb.org) become considered as a fundamental element of being considered "a journalist", part of the media, etc., in order to get the protections of that status. The lack of a consistent history in the web based media is harmful, and more than one massive corporation has used the "fluidity" of the web and hyperlinks to be more than fluid with the truth.
http://www.metafilter.com/98913/Ancestors-we-will-never-know-presage-feelings-we-can-never-have-now-go-forth-and-time-travel-on-the-web
Oh, and yeah, for e-laws and the presentation of findings of governmental groups and organizations, and those receiving governmentally recognized status as candidates of recognized parties with web presences... mandate that asap, and I will hug the government!
Transparency is only as good as your hyperlink protection and preservation plan.
An old joke by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:02 · Score: 1

Two guys rent a boat and go out fishing. They find a spot where there's lots to catch, and one of them makes a sign on the side of the boat pointing down to thwe water, and explains that it's so they can find the spot again. You fool, says the other, the next time we come we may not get the same boat.
1. Re:An old joke by Anne+Thwacks · 2013-09-23 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, them thar guys was lawyers!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
This is why I never started an educational site by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2013-09-23 07:04 · Score: 1

For one person to make all the content needed for a person to educate them K-12-college is impossible. However you could write a hypertext document that links to content to educate people from K-12-college. I did not do this however, because of link rot. The obvious solution for these lawyers is to backup any page they want and have it documented, and not simply use URLs.

Someday, someone will have a good system to educate people spoon fed style on the Internet. For now, learning on the Internet can be far superior to a university education, but you need to be proactive about how you go about doing it. People who don't know how to educate themselves on the Internet are the people who need an education the most. Maybe a site that would give people these tools would be of use, but I'm sure someone made one.

--
God spoke to me
Archive.org by ildon · 2013-09-23 07:05 · Score: 1

Isn't this precisely the type of thing archive.org exists for?
dupe story by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-23 07:11 · Score: 5, Funny

dupe
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/09/21/122210/implications-of-broken-links
1. Re:dupe story by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-23 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm out of mod points, sorry!
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Largest Citation Rot Study Link by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:15 · Score: 1

The largest such study ever done is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3459
We used every article on arXiv and in an institutional repository, looked up if it still existed and whether it was in a web archive. For those in the archive we also determine the difference between the time the article was published and the closest archived copy.
The bad news: Less than 25% of URIs referenced from the papers are currently archived. We need to be pro-active in archiving important web resources.
The good news: With perma.cc and more web archives coming online, plus active engagement (such as http://www.hiberlink.org/) we hope to see an improvement
-- Rob Sanderson (first author on the paper) // azaroth42@gmail.com
1. Re:Largest Citation Rot Study Link by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Until funding for wayback, hiberlink and perma.cc fall through.
  What happens when the gatekeepers of time bite the dust? Does someone archive their site?
  It's a pervasive problem technology wise... quite different then a physical, printed piece of paper. In fact, the only real solution is probably that: print it.
DOI by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 07:24 · Score: 0

Perhaps the legal world needs something similar to the DOI that academics use (http://www.doi.org/)?
CMS by Zamphatta · 2013-09-23 07:26 · Score: 1

Sounds like the Justice Dept. needs a better CMS.
1. Re:CMS by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-23 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  All branches of the government could use a better Crap Management System.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Intranets suffers too. by Z00L00K · 2013-09-23 07:29 · Score: 1

Company intranets suffers also from link rot, and some are doing it worse by using tools that inherently promote link rot.
The point is that files are moved around on filesystems now and then "for better structure", "making it easier to find" and other lame excuses, but if every file had an unique ID that could be used to link with then they could move around the files as much as they like without causing harm.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Growing idiocracy and creeping loss of knowledg by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-23 07:54 · Score: 1

Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Save it to write once media too. by beernutz · 2013-09-23 08:08 · Score: 1

I would also add that this should be done with a "write once" kind of storage back. This way we have some small assurance it was not modified.
You could go even further and keep a running log on the same medium that had an md5 of each previous content item which was then md5'd with the current.
This seems (to me at least) like it would provide a verifiable trail that shows the written contents were not tampered with.
Would this kind of scheme me useful? or am I missing something obvious?

--
(stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
The courts are already aware of this by DutchSter · 2013-09-23 08:12 · Score: 1

I have always found that whenever an opinion cites a URL the courts are careful to indicate the date that it was accessed. A hard copy (or at least a PDF) of the page as it existed at that time is then retained by the clerk in the case file. There's usually a footnote concerning this arrangement.
It's not that hard. No need for fancy technology or mass archiving of the Internet. The only thing they need is a basic PDF writer. Problem solved.
Why not just store all legal docs with their SHA1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 08:23 · Score: 1

Forget URLs that depend on some government site's web server filesystem layout, which might change, or some PHP script's specific dynamic URL syntax.. just throw all of the damn things into a flat filesystem or DB and fetch them by the SHA1 hash. (Or something larger if collisions are a problem).
Re:Why not just store all legal docs with their SH by mspohr · 2013-09-23 08:44 · Score: 1

I think that Julian Assange talked about doing this in an interview I read. It really does make a lot of sense. You can make sure you have the right document and that it has not been altered.
Ha! I found it! Interview with Assange and Eric Schmidt.
http://techpresident.com/news/23773/googles-eric-schmidt-and-wikileaks-julian-assange-get-one-anothers-jokes
"Schmidt asks Assange what technologies he's looking out for to make it easier for an anonymous sender to reach out to a dubious recipient. He responds:
The most important one is naming things properly. If we are able to name some... a video file or a piece of text in a way that is intrinsically coupled to the information there, so that there is no ambiguity-- a hash is an example of this--but then there's variations, maybe you want one that human beings can actually remember. Then it permits this information to be spread in such a way where you don't have to trust the underlying networks. And you can flood it."

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Why link? by thetoadwarrior · 2013-09-23 09:31 · Score: 1

For something as important as court cases surely you make a copy so it can't be lost.
What the hell...? by superdave80 · 2013-09-23 09:46 · Score: 1

Court documents actually just list a link? With no copy/printout of what it links to? Really? If ever there was a doubt about how stupid and clueless judges are, it's that fact they allow shit like this to exist in official court documents.
What next? Someone puts in their court document to "Google it"? Seems that would probably be better than a permanent link.
No problem by EuclideanSilence · 2013-09-23 10:03 · Score: 2

The only link that matters still works.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Too bad they can't reference this one more.
Embedded Document Sum? by nakedhitman · 2013-09-23 12:06 · Score: 1

Why not embed a checksum of the original document (probably just the plaintext) in every URL? It would allow search engines to help find archived copies of the document on other sites, and would be a trivial thing to automate in the major blogging engines. Heck, Apache/Nginx could be easily extended to automate this, along with a 404 handler that would generate a search query for the checksum it received. Good idea/bad idea/better idea?
They were intended to be permanent <EOM> by erichill · 2013-09-23 12:48 · Score: 1

-- member of Project Xanadu

--
Credo sim. - I think I am.
Re:They were intended to be permanent by erichill · 2013-09-23 12:49 · Score: 1

srsly, SCOTUS isn't the first place of long term reference to have this problem.

--
Credo sim. - I think I am.
I keep saying this, mod me down again, plz. by VortexCortex · 2013-09-23 13:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is because the current IP protocols are Dumb when it comes to data. I mean that with a capital D. Not that the designers are dumb, but the protocol itself is just dumb, in that it knows nothing about the data.
We suffer from the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 do not have store and forward. Instead of / in addition to endpoint IDs, all the routers need to have a large cache for versioned content. You can still have your frackin' unversioned uncacheable content, however we need a more permanent store and forward service. This will reduce bandwidth consumption, and is essential for bringing the Internet to space it's part of the Interstellar DTN (delay tolerant network).
Imagine the entire Internet as a hybrid between a decentralized distributed file store, and the current IP stack. Instead of requesting an endpoint we could request the data hash. A distributed hash table could serve the content from within the Internet. ISPs can vastly decrease bandwidth by increasing their cache duplication size (as we have currently), but when a cache miss happens it could be served by another cache in the distributed hash table on up the chain to the origin. "What about updates to documents? My cached pages!" Fools, the doc will have a different hash. We could actually SOLVE issues whereby resource names must be changed by simply requesting them based on their internal content hashes. Additionally, we can fix the issue of mixed secure / insecure content while we're at it. A resource referenced inside a secure document can include THE HASH ID of the resource. Thus, you know the insecure and cacheable content you're pulling in is unmodified...
Nope, we can't have nice things because you fuckers regard the old farts who designed the current antiquated systems as if they were gods, even though store and forward works beautifully for packet radio. (Hint: The FCC disallows any use of store and forward by unlicensed civilians.) Otherwise we could have a decentralized unsnoopable high-speed (largely) wireless Internet that grows organically with demand with little or no fees (everyone's a node hosting data, buy a box once and you're done).
The main barriers to solving the problem are ISP greed, draconian copyright laws, and desire for a surveillance state.
Note, this WILL all happen eventually anyway, you idiots are just too foolish to realize it, so it'll turn out to be a cluster fuck like "The Web" is now because the end result will be evolved by bolting on shite to the current systems over the years instead of being designed with the desired end result problem space in mind. Eg: Colocation fees? WTF? This is a hack to move data closer to endpoints... like store and forward achieves by design.
kthx.
1. Re:I keep saying this, mod me down again, plz. by dkf · 2013-09-23 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  We suffer from the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 do not have store and forward. Instead of / in addition to endpoint IDs, all the routers need to have a large cache for versioned content.
  No. You have no idea what you are asking for. There's far more to internet traffic than sending documents around. Let any caches be handled as a separate service, not as part of the basic message routing.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
embed/include original content? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-23 15:52 · Score: 0

Why don't they just put what was referred to as an attachment with the documents?
This is why violating copyright is mandatory by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2013-09-23 15:54 · Score: 1

Here's how to fix this: You quote, in total, the web page or article in question. Then, you *attribute* it to the url where you found it from, the date that you found it there, and the author/copyright holder. Now, it doesn't matter if the page changes or the site goes away. The content is preserved, the source is attributed. And, copyright troll lawyers aside, no one is harmed!

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Copy the site into an evidence database by Karmashock · 2013-09-23 18:02 · Score: 1

Every time you make a citation, copy it into a legal database, and then reference that entry into the database IN ADDITION to original URL. Include date and time... end of controversy.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And people make fun of me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 06:06 · Score: 0

And people make fun of me for saving web pages rather than bookmarking them. Link rot has always been my reason.