[juliet_dem]

obviously, using OCR or retyping you will create a new document, but it will be a forgery of documents, which is a court case. Our technology is created to secure documents with sensitive information that has value only when you have real evidence in the format of this document (its photo, screenshot, scan, hard copy). Our cases are when people take a photo of the confidential contracts, instructions, data from CRM or when they share sensitive documents with contractors

[anigbrowl]

What? It's not a forgery if you're not trying to pass it off as the authentic original. Journalists have other ways of authenticating things than just publishing the original.

Of course there are good reasons to want to track documents to prevent things like fraud, industrial espionage, and so forth. But your marketing specifically targets leakers, and leakers are often motivated to expose to the public secrets that corporate actors would prefer to keep hidden, perhaps illegally, eg the Panama papers or records of pollution violations. It seems that you're inadvertently or unintentionally offering 'retaliation as a service.'

[chuckee]

> Our technology is created to secure documents with sensitive information that has value only when you have real evidence in the format of this document (its photo, screenshot, scan, hard copy).

A business competitor wouldn't care about "real evidence", only that the information is useful. The only institution that I can think of that wants "evidence" is the court system.

Are you saying your tool is specifically intended to discourage people from submitting evidence to courts and the police?