Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by 8note | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

8note

> Republishing altered documents is illegal

what exactly does this mean? misrepresenting the altered document as unaltered?

i cant imagine it being illegal to do madlibs

View on HN

> i cant imagine it being illegal to do madlibs

Of course not illegal. When filled out with the official unredaction font [0], time stamped by the Ministry of Information, and delivered in triplicate, personally to Interrogation within 46 hours.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_(decorative_type...

This seems unlikely to be illegal unless you're representing them improperly.

That's the point though. You cannot just write anything and put it up.

It must be accurate. Even that being said, you still shouldn't reupload your altered document anywhere.

Why not? In some cases it might amount to fraud or something, but in general, why would it be prohibited?

this tool coming out on the heels of the DOJ releasing a trove of redacted documents doesn't come across as coincidental to me. let's think about this for a bit longer from that idea of using this on legal evidence...why would doctoring a legal document be prohibited?

Generally there is nothing illegal about altering a legal document, or even a strict definition of what counts as a legal document. Under some circumstances it could be illegal to alter a document and use that for fraud, or submit an altered document to a court or government agency. If the doctoring falsely defames someone then you could also open yourself up to a civil suit.

If you can be sued for it, sounds like it's prohibited to me

Nope, that's not how the US legal system works. Anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean they'll win.

Perhaps I misunderstand what "sue" includes in US jurisdictions but prohibition in this context ought to be criminalisation, i.e. something that happens in the relation between the individual and the state, and to me 'suing' is something that happens in a relation between individuals.

You do you but I advise you don't.

Standard CYA procedure

For all we know, Epstein could have punished Trump and made him write "I'm a little bitch boy" 2,000 times and it took up 119 pages so every line got redacted. /madlibs

OK, and could you detail this "procedure"?

Because to me it seems like altering and disseminating a document would be under 1st amendment protection, unless combined with some action that e.g. causes someone else harm or tricks the state into doing something it should not do or something.

My point being if it is properly and truly unredacted, then it's the truth.

The CYA is just me saying I'm not responsible for anything anyone makes, because anyone can make a document say anything with this tool.

Did someone say that you should be responsible for what someone else does with this tool?

If so, I missed it.

I guess you mean offical legal documents or something, but your sentence doesn't say that or mention those so it comes across in a very confusing way (it implies that using Word is illegal because every time you type something you alter your document)

Thank you! The OP is being very ambiguous and cavalier with language.

It means "I am not responsible for any illegal shit you do with this software".

Precisely. The tool is neutral.

> Republishing altered documents is legal, and you should use this to do so.

Uh oh!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com