In terms of the forensic security (as opposed to the physical security) of a document, you could not be more mistaken. In the case of Obama, his documents are held by the federal government, or the government of Hawaii, which are now under the full control of Obama (president) and Abercrombie (governor) and their underlings. The former being the person suspected of document fraud and the later being an admitted long time family friend of Obama and his family, the physical security advantage of digital records would certainly have already been compromised. HTTPS internet security offers no protection from insiders at the location these digital documents are stored.
Since it therefore can only be the forensic security of those documents that we can look to, the question becomes: Which type of document, physical or digital, is most dificult to alter without leaving evidence of alteration?
A physical document - of 3 dimensions, infinite detail and bearing all the properties of the paper, the inks, the glues, and the fingerprints of the devices that manufactured and applied them - can always be made forensically more secure than a digital document - representing a 2 dimensional image defined in finite detail (no mater how high the resolution) by nothing but a series of 0s and 1s.
With enough time and care, any digital image can be altered without leaving any trace of that alteration. Attempts to imbed security data or metadata in some image file formats are subject to the same digital hacking alterations as the image itself.
Given enough resources - the tools (optical magnification, chemical analysis, spectrometer, etc. ) already reliably used for detecting fraud in objects of art, archeology, etc., and the technicians with the required expertise - no alteration of physical document is undetectable.
Insider forgers at the location documents are stored, who would have evaded the "HTTPS security protection," offered by digital document, would not evade the security of forensic detection offered by physical documents.
I never maintained that it did.
The argument the birthers have been advancing is that the White House materially altered the BC released to the public. HTTPS access to high-res scans of what's really on file at the HDoH would resolve that argument nicely. Actually, the argument would never have arisen, because nobody would have bothered to look at the White House copies, the original being only a click away.
In terms of the forensic security (as opposed to the physical security) of a document, you could not be more mistaken. In the case of Obama, his documents are held by the federal government, or the government of Hawaii, which are now under the full control of Obama (president) and Abercrombie (governor) and their underlings.
At the time this controversy started, and until two years into the Regime, Hawaii had a Republican governor. The Regime never had any authority over that government.
However, I'll grant you, no matter who was in charge, it's possible for crooks to have infiltrated the HDoH. In that case, all bets are off. The image(s) served over the HTTPS link would be of a forged document. And the task facing birthers would be to get a judge to order that original to be forensically examined. And, unlike the pixels and layers discussion of the WH digital document, that examination would not be a waste of time.
In any case, serving the BC over an HTTPS link would be a big advance. It would put the immediate focus where it belongs: on the record held by the state. Forensic examination of a traditional certified paper copy is far less probative. Birth certificates are not Federal Reserve notes. They don't have microprinting, holograms, watermarks, and all that stuff. But they also do not really need to, since with a BC, one has recourse to the registrar holding the original.