Some Epstein file redactions are being undone
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
- Paul Manafort court filing (U.S., 2019) Manafort’s lawyers filed a PDF where the “redacted” parts were basically black highlighting/boxes over live text. Reporters could recover the hidden text (e.g., via copy/paste).
- TSA “Standard Operating Procedures” manual (U.S., 2009) A publicly posted TSA screening document used black rectangles that did not remove the underlying text; the concealed content could be extracted. This led to extensive discussion and an Inspector General review.
- UK Ministry of Defence submarine security document (UK, 2011) A MoD report had “redacted” sections that could be revealed by copying/pasting the “blacked out” text—because the text was still present, just visually obscured.
- Apple v. Samsung ruling (U.S., 2011) A federal judge’s opinion attempted to redact passages, but the content was still recoverable due to the way the PDF was formatted; copying text out revealed the “redacted” parts.
- Associated Press + Facebook valuation estimate in court transcript (U.S., 2009) The AP reported it could read “redacted” portions of a court transcript by cut-and-paste (classic overlay-style failure). Secondary coverage notes the mechanism explicitly.
A broader “history of failures” compilation (multiple orgs / years) The PDF Association collected multiple incidents (including several above) and describes the common failure mode: black shapes drawn over text without deleting/sanitizing the underlying content. https://pdfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/High-Security-PD...
What happens in a court case when this occurs? Does the receiving party get to review and use the redacted information (assuming it’s not gagged by other means) or do they have to immediately report the error and clean room it?
Edit: after reading up on this it looks like attorneys have strict ethical standards to not use the information (for what little that may be worth), but the Associated Press was a third party who unredacted public court documents in a separate Facebook case.
I know and am friends with a lot of lawyers. They're pretty ruthless when it comes to this kind of thing.
Legally, I would think both parties get copies of everything. I don't know if that was the case here.
Typically, two copies of a redacted document are submitted via ECF. One is an unredacted but sealed copy that is visible to the judge and all parties to the case. The other is a redacted copy that is visible to the general public.
So, to answer what I believe to be your question: the opposing party in a case would typically have an unredacted copy regardless of whether information is leaked to the general public via improper redaction, so the issue you raise is moot.
Curious. I am not a litigator but this is surprising if you found support for it. My gut was that the general obligation to be a zealous advocate for your client would require a litigant to use inadvertently disclosed information unless it was somehow barred by the court. Confidentiality obligations would remain owed to the client, and there might be some tension there but it would be resolvable.
This is the moment when that mistake was revealed in court: https://youtu.be/pgxZSBfGXUM and this is the hearing for the emergency motion to suppress that data: https://youtu.be/dKbAmNwbiMk
If it's worth so little to your eyes/comprehension you will have no problem citing a huge count of cases where lawyers do not respect their obligations towards the courts and their clients...
That snide remark is used to discredit a profession in passing, but the reason you won't find a lot of examples of this happening is because the trust clients have to put in lawyers and the legal system in general is what makes it work, and betraying that trust is a literal professional suicide (suspension, disbarment, reputational ruin, and often civil liability) for any lawyer... that's why "strict" doesn't mean anything "little" in this case.
There are almost 2000 disbarments annually in the US.
The california bar recieves 1 compliant for every 10 law licenses in the state every year.
There's a wikipedia page on notable disbarments.
Legal malpractice suites are on the rise.
If you are going to assert that legal malpractice is not legitimate concern, I think the burden of evidence is on you.
> … disbarment is the presumptive form of discipline for an attorney who steals clients’ money, Best says.
> Disbarment is more likely when the attorney committed fraud or serious dishonesty, particularly in front of a tribunal or to a client. Similarly, priority may be given to cases where an attorney is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, Levin says.
> Priorities also change in response to society’s changing values and when there’s a belief that tightening down on types of cases will help the profession as a whole, Best says.
> For example, in Massachusetts, there has been an increased focus on violations relating to the administration of justice, such as when prosecutors engage in racist behavior.
> And while, in the past, an attorney’s drunk driving or domestic violence would probably not have led to sanctions (because they were seen as unrelated to the attorney’s legal work), they now might result in discipline, Best says.
The Trump 2.0 administration, in contrast, is staffed top to bottom with fools."
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/12/23/trump-doj-pdf-r...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/russian-spies-chemical-weapo...
Anyone remember how the Trump I regime had staff who couldn't figure out the lighting in the White House, or mistitled Australia's Prime Minister as President?
Please tell me they were saving them for expensing.
Knowing they would die in the attack, the terrorists just didn't care if their identities were known.
However I'm 100% sure that that was not a real spy incident. But rather just a 'message' to be sent from the Russian govt. The same way they have infiltrated our airspace with TU-95 bombers nearly every month for decades. Just a message "Hey we are still watching you".
When you see how ridiculously incompetent they were, not just their phone history but also the gear they had with them. It amounts to nothing more than a scriptkiddy's pineapple. There's no way they would have been able to do any serious infiltration into any kind of even remotely competent organisation.
Also the visible fumbling about in a carpark with overly complex antennas instead of something more hidden (e.g. an apartment across the street, a cabling tent or something). IMO the objective here was to get caught and stir a fuss.
They had a great playbook in Project 2025. I'm not convinced Trump ever had the smartest people executing it.
I may have disagreed with them on virtually every policy point, but they seemed to disagree with the most harmful Trump policies as well.
We would have never agreed on the right policy, but we definitely agreed that his policy was not the right one.
I imagine Republicans such as this still populate a majority of the house and Senate. If they disagree, they are sure making an effort to do so silently.
I disagree. It felt that way for the first few months, but the wheels are coming off. Trump is too old and unpopular to steal a 3rd term. Therefore everyone around him has to worry about what will happen in 3 years, and plan for post-Trump rather than forever-Trump.
This is a dumb way of doing that, exactly what "stupid" people do when their are somewhat aware of the limits of their competence or only as smart as the tech they grew up with. Also, this type of redaction eliminates the possibility to change text length, which is a very common leak when especially for various names/official positions. And it doesn't eliminate the risk of non-redaction since you can't simply search&replace with machine precision, but have to do the manual conversion step to printed position
Being aware of one's limitations is the strongest hallmark of intelligence I've come across...
"Dumb" people (FTR the description actually refers to something rather than that which you think it does...) run around on the internet getting mad because they haven't thought things through...
Knowing your limits is a sign of intelligence, but it's not the only one, and it's not a requirement. Meaning that not having that understanding doesn't exclude you from being intelligent.
Intelligence would be knowing they exist (I know that I cannot fly by flapping my arms, it took intelligence to deduce that, wisdom tells me not to try and jump from a height and flap my arms to fly. Further intelligence can be applied, deducing that there are artificial means by which I can attain flight)
Any process that relies on 100% accuracy from either people or technology will eventually fail. It's just a basic matter of statistics. However, there are processes that CAN, at least in theory, be 100% effective.
This is the only weakness of Barr's method.
> it doesn't eliminate the risk of non-redaction since you can't simply search&replace with machine precision
Anyong relying on automated tools to redact is doing so performatively. At the end of the day, you need people who understand the context to sit down and read through the documents and strike out anything that reveals–directly or indirectly, spelled correctly or incorrectly–too much.
Of course it isn't, the other weakness you just dismiss is the higher risk of failed searches. People already fail with digital, it's even harder to do in print or translate digital to print (something a machine can do with 100% precision, now you've introduced a human error)
> At the end of the day, you need people who understand the context
Before the end of the day there is also the whole day, and if you have to waste the attention of such people on doing ink redactions instead of dedicating all of their time to focused reading, you're just adding mistakes for no benefit
Furthermore, reading through long winded, dry legalese (or the like) and then occasionally marking it up seems like an excellent way to give the brain short breaks to continue on rather than to let the mind wander in a sea of text.
I am for automating all the things but I can see pros and cons for both digital and manual approaches.
> give the brain short breaks
Set a timer if you feel that's of any use? Why does the break have to depend on the random frequency of terms to be redacted? What if there is nothing to redact for pages, why let the mind wander?
> I am for automating
But you're arguing against it. What's the pro of manually replacing all 1746 occurrences of "Trump" instead of spending 0.01% of that time with a digital search & replace and then spending the other 1% digitally searching for variants with typos and then spending the last 99% in focused reading trying to find that you've missed "the owner of Mar-a-Lago Club" reference or something more complicated (and then also replace that variant digitally rather than hoping you'd notice it every single time you wade through walls of legalese!)
Because none of this involves a focussed reading. It's the same reason why Level 3 can be less safe than Level 4. If you're skimming, you're less engaged than if you're reading in detail. (And if you're skipping around, you're missing context. You may catch Trump and Trup, but will you catch POTUD? Alternatively, if you just redact every mention of the President, you may wind up creating a President ***, thereby confirming what you were trying to redact.)
If it doesn't matter, automate it. If you care, have a team do a proper redaction.
That's not a pro, thats an incorrect rejection of the pro of the alternative. The thing is is that it does not preclude focused reading, I don't understand why you make up the "skipping around/skimming" alternative when I've expclitily mentioned that the is that 99% of time you spend on focused reading. It's just when you do that focused reading, you don't have to waste time on trivial redactions that you've already done automatically, and instead you can dedicate that time to catching POTUDs. So in total, you can spend more time on focused reading.
> may wind up creating a President **
How? Even if your 1% on digital alternatives somehow doesn't include this obvious combination, why would the word "President" in "President **" be harder to redact during focused reading?
> If it doesn't matter, automate it. If you care, have a team do a proper redaction.
I don't get, where is the actual option that I've described - do both while saving time???
Forget about typoes. Until recent LLMs, machines couldn't detect oblique or identifying references. (And with LLMs, you still have the problem of hallucinations. To say nothing of where you're running the model.)
> if you have to waste the attention of such people on doing ink redactions instead of dedicating all of their time to focused reading
You've never read a text with a highlighter or pen?
Out of curiosity, have you worked with sensitive information that needed to be shared across security barriers?
> you can't simply search&replace with machine precision
Sure you can. Search and somehow mark the text (underline or similar) to make keywords hard to miss. Then proceed with the manual print, expunge, scan process.
> that's very difficult to unintentionally screw up.
You've already screwed up by leaking length and risking errors in manual search&replace
These are roughly equivalent. The point is having a hard copy in between the digital ones.
They're equivalent in security. The digital method is more convenient (albeit more error prone). What confers the security is the print-scan step. Whether one is redacting in between or before doesn't change much.
You'd still want to do a tabula rasa and manual post-pass with both methods.
> point was about the chance of making mistakes in redaction
Best practice is humans redacting in multiple passes for good reason. It's less error prone than relying on a "smart" redactor, which is mostly corporate CYA kit.
They aren't, security is defined as the amount of information you leak. If you have an inferior process where you're substituting the correct digital match with an in incorrect manual match, you're reducing security
> albeit more error prone
The opposite, you can't find all 925 cases of the word Xyz as efficiently on paper without the ease of a digital text search, my guess is you just have made up a different comparison (e.g., a human spending 100hrs reading paper vs some "smart" app doing 1 min of redactions) vs. the actual process quoted and criticized in my original comment
> Whether one is redacting in between or before doesn't change much
It does, the chance to make a mistake differs in these cases! Printing & scanning can't help you here, it's a totally set of mistakes
> Best practice
But this conversation is about a specific blogged-about reality, not your best practice theory!
The fact that this release process is missing this key step is significant too imho. It makes it really clear that the people running this didn't understand all of the dimensions involved in releasing a redacted document like this and/or that they weren't able to get expert opinions on how to do this the right way, which just seems fantastical to me given who we're talking about.
In other threads people are discussing the possibility of this being intentional, by disaffected subordinates, poorly vetted and rushed in to work on this against their will. And that's certainly plausible in subordinates but I have a hard time believing that it's the case for the people running this who, if they understood what they were tasked with would have prevented an entire category of errors by simply tasking subordinates to do what you described regardless of how they felt about the task.
So to me that leaves the only possibility that the people running this particular operation are incompetent, and given the importance of redacting that is dismaying.
Regardless of how you feel about the action of redacting these documents, the extent to which it's done and the motives behind doing it, the idea that the people in charge of this aren't competent to do it is not good at all.
So it's likely there simply isn't the time to do extended multi-step redactions.
What's happening is a mix of malicious compliance, incompetence, and time pressure.
It's very on-brand for it to be confused, chaotic, and self-harming.
It's clearly a superior process that provides ease of use, ease of understanding, and is exceedingly difficult to screw up. Barr's DoJ should be commended for having selected a procedure that minimizes the risk of systemic failure when carried out by a collection of people with such diverse technical backgrounds and competence levels.
Notably, had the same procedure been followed for the Epstein files then the headline we are currently commenting under presumably wouldn't exist.
It has direct relevance since it describes the process as lacking the automated search and replace
> I refuted that
You didn't, you created a meaningless process of underlinig text digitally to waste time redacting it on paper for no reason but add more mistakes, and also replaced the quoted reality with your made up situation to "refute".
> and is exceedingly difficult to screw up.
It's trivial, and I've told you how in the previous comment
> Notably, had the same procedure been followed for the Epstein files then the headline we are currently commenting under presumably wouldn't exist.
Nope, this is generic "hack" headline, so guessing a redacted name by comparing the length of plaintext to unmask would fit the headline just as well as a copy&paste hack
Can't leak a file that doesn't exist.
And the "obvious word needle in a haystack of many thousands of pages" isn't as self-healing as you appear to think it is.
I suppose a global search/replace to mark text for redaction as an initial step might not be a bad idea, but if one needs to make sure it's correct, that's not enough.
Don't bother with soft copy at all. Print a copy and have multiple individuals manually make redactions to the same copy with different color inks.
Once that initial phase is complete, partner up persons who didn't do the initial redactions review the paper text with the extant redactions and go through the documents together (each with their own copy of the same redactions), verbally and in ink noting redactions as well as text that should be redacted but isn't.
That process could then be repeated with different people to ensure nothing was missed.
We used to call this "proofreading" in the context of reports and other documents provided as work product to clients. It looks really bad when the product for which you're charging five to six figures isn't correct.
The use case was different, but the efficacy of such a process is perfect for something like redactions as well.
And yes, we had word processing and layout software which included search and replace. But if correctness is required, that's not good enough -- a word could be misspelled and missed by the search/replace, and/or a half dozen other ways an automated process could go wrong and either miss a redaction or redact something that shouldn't be.
As for the time and attention required, I suppose that depends upon how important it is to get right.
Is such a process necessary for all documents? No.
That said, if correctness is a priority, four (or more) text processing engines (human brains, in this case) with a set of engines working in tandem and other sets of engines working serially and independently to verify/correct any errors or omissions is an excellent process for ensuring the correctness of text.
I'd point out that the above process is one that's proven reliable over decades, even centuries -- and doesn't require exact strings or regular expressions.
Edit: Fixed prose ("other documents be provided" --> "other documents provided").
According to a random dictionary I found:
To trump. Verb. Surpass (something) by saying or doing something better.
Increasing the size of the redaction box to include enough of the surrounding text to make that very difficult.
I mean, sure, you can make the whole paragraph/page blank, but presumably the goal is to share the report removing only the necessary minimum?
No, this is an example of someone understanding the limits of the people they delegate to, and putting in a process so that delegation to even a very dumb person still has successful outcomes.
"Smart" people like to believe that knowing enough minutiae is enough to result in a successful outcome.
Actual smart people know that the process is more important than the minutiae, and proceed accordingly.
Oh, man, is he the only smart person in the whole department of >100k employees and an >x contractors??? What other fantasy do you need to believe in to excuse the flaws? Also, if he's so smart why didn't he, you know, hire someone smart for the job?
> even a very dumb person still has successful
Except it's easier to make mistakes following his process for both smart and dumb people, not be successful!
> Actual smart people know that the process is more important
So he's not actually smart according to your own definition because the process he has set up was bad, so he apparently did not know it was important to set it up better?
> important than the minutiae
Demanding only paper redactions is that minutiae.
You mean the guy who covered up for Epstein's 'suicide' and expected us morons to believe it?
Let's assume that's true. How does it clash with him being "contemptible...but smart AF"?
Oh he's smart AF, all right.
That's not very competent.
> going analog is foolproof
Absolutely not. There are many way's to f this up. Just the smallest variation in places that have been inked twice will reveal the clear text.
Sure. But anyone can visually examine this. That means everyone with situational context can directly examine the quality of the redaction.
Contrast that with a digital redation. You have to trust the tool works. Or you have to separate the folks with context from the folks with techical competence. (There is the third option of training everyone in the DoJ how to examine the inner workings of a PDF. That seems wasteful.)
They can't, if the variations are subtle enough. For example, many people are oblivious to the fact that one can extract audio from objects captured on mute video, due to tiny vibrations.
Analog is the worse option here. Simple screenshot of 100% black bar would be what a smart lazy person would do.
Can they? In principle it could be the difference between RGB 0.0,0.0,0.0 and RGB 0.004,0.0,0.0, that could be very difficult to visually see, but an algorithm could unmask the data with some correlation.
If you do it digitally and then map the material to black-and-white bitmap, then that you can actually virtually examine.
> Contrast that with a digital redation. You have to trust the tool works.
While true, I think the key problem is that the tools used were not made for digital redaction. If they were I would be quite a bit more confident that they would also work properly.
Seems like there could be a product for this domain.. And after some googling, it appears there is.
Adobe Acrobat's redaction tools regularly feature in this sort of fuck-up, and they are (at least marketed as being) designed for such use
The larger point is that the "usual" redaction involves a tape pen or paint-style ink (dries opaque), IIRC, then photocopy, because the blocked out area is opaque. Scanner is probably no different than photocopy for these purposes.
I'm probably overthinking this one but the various lengths of the redaction bars would provide some information perhaps? So three conspirators with names like Stonk, Hephalump and Pragma-Sasquatch would be sort of easy to distinguish between if the public had a limited list of people who might be involved?
You're definitely not overthinking this. Fitting words by length is the attack vector if the blanking itself has been done correctly.
Absolutely. It’s why officially-redacted documents typically take out entire sentences and paragraphs, wiping just names only sparingly.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/28/23777298/sony-ftc-microso...
You’re more likely to get at least one inept agent in a random sample of 1000 than a sample of 10.
There is a lot of incompitence when it comes to file formats.
Though, makes me wonder if someone has intentionally sent out offers like that with lower numbers to make people think they're outsmarting them.
Don’t underestimate work shoved onto a university intern.
Hundreds of people might be involved, but the only key factor required for a single point of failure to propagate to the deliverable is lack of verification.
And God knows how the Trump administration is packed with inexperiente incompetents assigned to positions where they are way way over their head, and routinely commit the most basic mistakes.
I'm kinda surprised (and disappointed) nobody has done a Snowden on it though.
If I have a sheet of paper and I color a section black. That's it. It's black. No going back.
So I can see people thinking the same for PDFs. I drew the black box. It's black. Done. They don't realize they aren't dealing with a 2D sheet of paper, but with effectively a 3D stack of papers. That they didn't draw a black box on the page, they drew a black box above the page over the area they wanted to obscure.
The fact that this happens a lot is an indication that the software is wrong in this case. It doesn't conform to user expectations.
The most recent analogy I have is field techs in IT work. A company sends out "truck roll" tickets, and then complaints when there is a 40% failure/re-work rate on said truck rolls.
A single or handful of techs with said failure rate? Yep, perhaps incompetence.
A global failure rate across dozens of cities/countries and 40+ technicians total? No longer incompetence. At least at the field tech level. That's a documentation, process, and standards problem 100% guaranteed.
That some above average highly competent "hero" technicians are able to compensate for it is irrelevant.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/weaponized-incompe...
They fired/drove away/reassigned most of those who are competent in the executive branch generally, it is pretty easy to believe that none of those managing the document release and few of those working on it are actually experienced or skilled in how you do omissions in a document release correctly. Those people are gone.
Not that it matters much what the law says if the goal is to protect the man who hands out pardons...
Of course if it's in the middle of an investigation it can spoil the investigation, allow criminals to cover their tracks, allow escape.
In such case the document should be vetted by competent and honest officials to judge whether it is timely to release it, or whether suppressing it just ensures that investigation is never concluded, extending a forever renewed cover to the criminals.
There was also a process on how to communicate top secret information, but these idiots prefered to use signal.
I'm completly lost on how you can be surprised by this at all? Trump is in there, tells some FBI faboon to black everything out, they collect a group of people they can find and start going through these files as fast as they can.
"When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king; the palace instead becomes a circus."
I'm not familiar with the term, and Urban Dictionary only has "fake babboon" which I suspect is not the intent here - what does it mean?
You can still open it with Illustrator if you want to see: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss...
So I just looked into this, and it's specifically Mixed Raster Content pipeline (ISO/IEC 16485) used in lots of different scanners. There's no need to find which specific software generated it because it's used by lots of them.
It's a technique used to attempt to isolate font characters of the same size and style as separate layers before OCR-ing to make OCR more accurate.
ABBYY FineReader, for example, is mentioned as producing the exact same type of results. But there's no guarantee that was the actual software because lots of scanning software does it -- it's a general technique. Plus it won't even be deterministically reproducible if it was e.g. scanned and OCR'd at higher resolution and then saved at a lower resolution, as is generally considered best practice for maximizing accuracy while keeping file sizes lower.
https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-cert...
So this is very much a nothingburger. It's not an "alternative theory", it's a complete and total explanation.
Scan (600 dpi) > MRC (600 dpi) > OCR (600 dpi) > Downsample (150 dpi) > Save to PDF (150 dpi)
The image is saved in raster format at 150 dpi. That's the document, but not at the original scanning resolution. If you performed MRC and OCR at the 150 dpi level, you'd get different/worse results than were originally gotten at 600 dpi. Which is why you always OCR before downsampling, and you downsample for smaller files.
This isn't changing anything about the Snopes article. It just explains why if you run MRC/OCR at the PDF resolution, you won't deterministically reproduce it because it's not the resolution it was originally run at.
You do understand that this OCR is only for being able to search and highlight text? It's not changing what's displayed. That's still the pixels.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss...
If you don't see jaggy pixel edges to the letters and form elements, what do you see?
I genuinely don't know what you're saying.
> Like, do you think that I think that scanners have come to operate on pure platonic forms and no longer use the concept of pixels? That would be really cool, wouldn't it.
Yes, because that is absolutely a thing. That's what Adobe ClearScan does, converting pixels to smooth vector outlines. Zoom in, and zero pixels in OCR'd text. That's not the case in this file though.
> I have yet to see someone show the original scribbles or ink marks that these OCR layers were generated based on. That's what I meant by "destructive".
I still genuinely don't know what you mean. The original scribbles and ink marks are a physical piece of paper. The MRC layers are generated from the scan and don't destroy anything, they only separate. The resulting layered bitmap is identical, pixel-for-pixel. My best interpretation of what you're saying is you want a higher-resolution scan? But why? Again, nothing "destructive" has happened except maybe reducing the resolution. But "destructive" is not a word people usually use for that.
> so you might want to just cut your losses and stop trying to educate me and let me be uneducated in this matter
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I am genuinely happy to help you understand, but if you really don't want to then obviously I won't spend any more time replying. But if you're going to publicly throw suspicion on the validity of the birth certificate, I feel it's important to correct the record here on HN simply for other people who might read this exchange.
> Now, it seems like you were saying that the text layers are just the pixels from the page moved up to a new layer. I said that I think that's surprising.
That's indeed all it is. It may be surprising, but that's how it works. Absolutely nothing about the pixels are changed as part of the process of that text layer separation. Later when saving the final PDF there's normal lossy compression, same as any JPEG, but the layer process actually preserves the text edges better than JPEG.
So I do hope you're satisfied now that everything about this is just normal image processing, and that nothing has been destroyed, there's no "missing evidence" or anything. And that the whole idea that the layers imply some kind of manipulation or forgery is false. What you're seeing is just the scan itself, saved (presumably) at a lower resolution and with the normal image compression scanners produce. The layer separation process is completely non-destructive and doesn't manipulate pixels at all.
This is easily explained by the character separation software being not 100% accurate.
It's not at all explained if someone is fraudulently adding text. Why would someone put half of the character in 1 layer and half of the character in a different layer?
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2007/11/you-can-swi...
IIRC there was a Slashdot discussion about it that went "Oh yeah, obviously you need to black out the face entirely, or use a randomized Gaussian blur." "Yeah, or just not molest kids."
I've seen lawyers at major, high-priced law firms make this same mistake. Once it was a huge list of individuals names and bank account balances. Fortunately I was able to intervene just before the uploaded documents were made public.
Folks around here blame incompetence, but I say the frequency of this kind of cock-up is crystal clear telemetry telling you the software tools suck.
If the software is going to leverage the familiarity of using a blackout marker to give you a simple mechanism to redact text, it should honour that analogy and work the way any regular user would expect, by killing off the underlying text you're obscuring, and any other correponding, hidden bits. Or it should surface those hidden bits so you can see what could come back to bite you later. E.g. It wouldn't be hard to make the redact tool simultaneously act as a highlighter that temporarily turns proximate text in the OCR layer a vibrant yellow as you use it.
Placing a black rectangle on a PDF is easier than modifying an image or removing text from that same PDF.
https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/resources/how-to-redact-a-pdf....
That failed redactions happen over and over and over is kind of amazing.
I agree that affordances are good, but tools are tools, they can have rough edges, it's okay that it occasionally takes more than zero knowledge and attention to use them.
The problem is that the user generally doesn't have a functioning mental model of what's actually going on. They don't think of a PDF as a set of rendering instructions that can overlap. They think it's paper. Because that's what it pretends to be.
The best fix for this in almost any organization is the one that untrained humans will understand: After you redact, you print out and scan back in. You have policy that for redacted documents, they must be scanned in of a physical paper.
Sorry, but a professional user not having an operational understanding of the tools they're working with is called culpable negligence in any other profession. A home user not knowing how MS Word works is fine, but we're talking desk clerks whose primary task is document management, and lawyers who were explicitly tasked with data redaction for digital publication. I don't think we should excuse or normalize this level of incompetence.
Have you ever had to actually react a document in acrobat pro? It's way more fiddly and easy to screw up than one would expect. Im not saying professionals shouldn't learn how to use their tools, but the UI in acrobat is so incredibly poor that I completely understand when reaction gers screwed up. Up thread there's an in complete but very extensive list of this exact thing happening over and over. Clearly there's a tools problem here. Actual life-critical systems aren't developed this way, if a plane keeps crashing due to the same failure we don't blame the pilot. Boeing tried to do that with the max, but they weren't able to successfully convince the industry that that was OK.
That's true, we blame the manufacturer and demand that they fix their product under threat of withdrawing the airworthiness certification. So where's the demand for Adobe to fix its software, under pain of losing their cash cow?
Yet, people here are arguing that it is perfectly OK that professionals keep working with tools that are apparently widely known to be inappropriate for their task. Why should we not blame the lawyers that authorized the use of inappropriate tooling for such a sensitive task as legal redaction of documents?
I guess if you really want to defend users here you could say people are desensitized so much by popup spam that a popup prompt is gonna just be click through’d so fast the user probably barely recognizes it, but that’s not the software’s problem. For whatever reason some users would prefer to just put black boxes over obfuscated text, so here we are
If software developers designed hammers, you'd have to twist the handle before each swing to switch from tack to nail mode. And the two heads would be indistinguishable from each other.
If business MBA's designed them, you'd wind up with the SaaSy Claw 9000, free for the first month then $9.95 in recurring subscription fees, and compatible only with on-brand nails that each have a different little ad imprinted on the head.
But it doesn't matter, because by the end of the year all construction will be vibe-built from a single prompt to Clawde.ai, which will pound non-stop, burning through $1T of investor funds, and confidently hallucinate 70% of the nails until the roof collapses on the datacenter destroying the machine and civilization along with it, and a post-singularity survivor picks up a rock and looks calculatingly at a pointy shard of metal...
If they get caught, they just take the document down and deny it ever got posted. Claim whatever people can show is a fake.
Since they control the levers of government, there's few with the resources and appetite for holding them accountable. So far, we haven't un-redacted anything too damning, so push hasn't come to shove yet.
The only might change if there's a "blue wave" in the midterms, but even then I wouldn't count on it.
Absolutely. They know this is confusing, and they're bound and determined not to fix it. At the least, they need a pop-up to let you know that it's not doing what you might think it's doing.
This was basically the only reason we were willing to cough up like $400 for each Acrobat license for a few hundred people. One redaction fuckup could cost you whatever you saved by buying something else.
I would like to believe that the DOJ lacking the proper software might have something to do with DOGE. That would be sweet irony.
Now much more people will be aware of the issue.
Unfortunately the E in DOGE should have been for Effectiveness. That is, is the system shooting at the right target, and how close is it to hitting that target.
You can be very efficient but if you’re doing the wrong thing(s) you’re ultimately wasting resources.
The irony is, DOGE got the E wrong. It’s efficient but not effective
Putting the obvious aside, sure, it’s Trump’s fault the system was so mismanaged that he’s been able to get elected. Twice. You’d think that after the first term the system would have gotten the message. It did not.
My recommendation to you is ask: How did we get here? And who is accountable for this?
There’s a very good chance those giving you your current narrative marching orders are on that list. Funny, right? Why own their failure when they can convince fools to blame a symptom?
Properly implementing redaction is a complicated task. The redaction can be applied to text, so the software needs to find out which text is covered by the rectangle and remove it. The redaction can be applied to images, so the software needs to edit a dizzying array of image formats supported by PDF (including some formats frequently used by PDFs but used basically nowhere else, like JBIG2). The redaction can be applied to invisible text (such as OCR text of a scanned document). The redaction can be applied to vector shapes, so some moderately complicated geometry calculations are needed to break the vector shapes and partially delete them.
It's very easy to imagine having a basic PDF editor that does not have a redaction feature because implementing the feature is hard.
For the same reason, a basic PDF editor does not have a real crop feature. Such an editor adds a cropbox and keeps all the content outside the cropbox.
No surprise non-experts muck it up and I don’t see that changing until they move to special-purpose tools.
Any lawyer should be like "I don't know what I'm doing here I'll get an expert to help" just like as a software developer I'd ask a lawyer for their help with law stuff...because IANAL uwu
there's white-out on my monitor.
> ...frequency of this kind of ...
sometimes I wonder if it is plausible deniability. Like people don't WANT to cover this up and do it in a certain way.
The offices responsible for redactions are usually in-house legal shops (e.g., an Office of Chief Counsel inside an agency like CBP) and the agency’s FOIA office. They’re often doing redactions manually in Adobe, which is slow, tedious, and error-prone. Because the process is error prone, the federal government gets multiple layers of review, justified (as DOJ lawyers regularly tell courts) by the need to “protect the information of innocent U.S. citizens.”
But the “bad at redactions” part isn’t an accident. It functions as a litigation tactic. Makes production slow, make FOIA responses slow, and then point to that slow, manual process as the reason the timeline has to be slow. The government could easily buy the kind of redaction tools that most law firms have used for decades. Purpose built redaction tools speed the work up and reduce mistakes. But the government doesn't buy those tools because faster, cleaner production benefits the requester.
The downside for the government is that every so often a judge gets fed up and orders a normal timeline. Then agencies go into panic mode and initiate an “all hands on deck.” Then you end up with untrained, non-attorney staff doing rushed redactions by hand in Adobe. Some of them can barely use a mouse. That’s when you see the classic technical failures: someone draws a black rectangle that looks like a redaction, instead of applying a real redaction that actually removes the underlying text.
I didn't really know how they slept at night, but I don't know how a lot of people sleep at night. I only had to be involved because I had to do the actual trawling through the emails. They spent their time trying to narrow the keywords that I'd have to search, and trying to figure out new definitions of the words "related to."
In another episode they’re trying to find out the length of a stealth submarine for construction planning purposes of a port or something, and they have to go through endless layers of security checks with the military that lead nowhere. In the end a reporter filming a documentary episode on the government agency tells them the length because they were allowed to film the submarine on another program.
Definitely recommend the show and my friends in government say it’s scarily accurate.
No, there isn't an enormous cohort of bureaucrats going to work every day, collectively wringing their hands and saying "haha, we're going to be STUPID today!"
> Some of them can barely use a mouse.
How/why are they employed for that position then?
I always felt paranoid (without any real evidence, just a guess) that there would always be a chance that anything done in software could be reversed somehow.
how much lower can they go ?!
- Leave NATO
- Start openly supporting Russia and North Korea
- Arrest whole International Criminal Court
- Preventively invade China
Same with cops.
They also oppose removing things like three strikes laws that haven't done a damn thing to make our country "safer" or better.
Reintroduce death penalties on public squares.
Taking Greenland and Venezuela is given, as they took most of Latin America already. Just the new Mexican president looks like the next thorn in their eyes. Too competent, too social, too anti-corruption.
Already done.
What the fuck are you talking about? Someone should tell Russia.
This is because if Trump
Trump tore up Iran's "we won't do nukes" deal, doesn't matter whether you think they were genuine or not, it demonstrates we will go back on a deal so our word isn't worth anything.
Ukraine shows that the west will not actually protect you like they claim, so your only option is getting nukes to really deter people.
North Korea and Pakistan demonstrate that you can pretty much do whatever you want with just a couple nukes, the west will cower in fear over idle threats.
No country would look at any of this and conclude that they have any choice but to build nukes to protect themselves.
The main flow of capital in the US had been going to the mil.industry, but that is not the case anymore. It is mainly surveillance tech that is receiving capital. In a very unhealthy economy, this all looks eerily pre-'30s.
The US, right now, is only threatening weak countries, they don't have the industrial power to confront China, nor do they want it. This shouldn't be a surprise, some ideologues behind this maga-project belief in an America from one pole to the other. They believe in "spheres of influence", and as such China has their own sphere of influence. A sphere of influence means a kind of colony, where natural resources, people and industry are all resources to be extracted by them. It is the Russian model, it is the model of criminal mobs, it is might makes right, it is a multi-polar world.
Meanwhile, re-industrialization projects have been scrapped, partners have been scared of, and tariffs have hit the industry that was still left in America.
Monopolists are parasites on the economy, and the US is already very weakened from that. As the Japanese said, the US is still a great power, but the throne is empty. I suspect there will be skirmishes with other "great powers" over exploitable resources like Africa, Middle East, Europe, but I don't expect the current crop to go all-in on China.
No longer committing to defend other NATO countries, even if their military spending exceeds the target, is abandoning the alliance though. NATO is little else than that commitment.
I didn't even mention the US lol, I think you're paranoid but please, correct me ...
I mean, I didn't phrase it as Trump being a part of NATO, but he's not actually a country.
I waffled a bit in my reply to not rub it in too hard.
And do you want to contribute with something other than nitpick or insult?
Do YOU think that an informed and intelligent person can conclude that Trump is secretly a Russian agent, given he was the driving force behind a massive hike in NATO spending (which Putin really hates)?
I'm not calling Trump competent, or consistent, or benevolent. You can say he has a weird crushed on Putin and is easily manipulated and corrupt.
You can even suggest a lot of the MAGA people who surround Trump are actually working for Russia, since Russia tries to influence a lot of groups and Trump's cronies (and the influencers Trump listens to) are often compromised.
But do you think Trump is actually consistently taking orders from Putin because of some kind of leverage Putin has? Because people say this constantly and it's (in my opinion) almost as embarrassing as Republicans and the Pizza conspiracy. Trump has done some things that are increadibly damaging to Russia, and blackmail doesn't work on a pathological liar with no sense of shame.
I'm sure you're smart enough to agree with pretty much all of this. But you disingenuously attack me because I'm attacking people who are on your side, even if you would privately admit they are dumb.
My point was that by doing so you yourself add weight (a very little weight) to the thesis of the grandparent that, at least in people's perceptions, the US has left NATO. It wasn't just a nitpick, but at the same time I did not intend to join this side or that side in some mad argument that is playing out in your mind. I freely admit that at this point I am not reading all your output.
Trump is the person who demanded the 5% target; Trump forced NATO to adopt a 5% target.
Trump also ordered ICE to deport more illegal / undocumented migrants, does this suggest that ICE is not a part of the US?
Trump forced the US to impose sanctions, does this suggest the US is not a part of the US?
How else would you phrase "Trump forced organisation x to do y"?
Russian asset, not necessarily agent. At least that's the commonly spread idea, for which there is at least some circumstancial evidence: commercial projects in Russia for several decades and well documented links to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs under Trump I just to name two.
I'm more concerned with them dragging everyone else down, and someone much worse taking their place.
(Note there's also other metadata in a PDF, which you may not want your recipient to know either.)
Image files usually have substantially less metadata by default, unless it's one taken by a camera.
So with this technique, you can definitively say "Redacted-file-A is definitely a redacted version of Origin-file-A". Super useful for identifying forgeries in a stack of otherwise legitimate files.
Also good for for saying "the date on origin-file-B is 1993, and the file you've presented as evidence is provable as origin-file-b, so you definitely know of [whatever event] in 1993".
>... and therefore you can unredact them
from that readme is just not true then I guess?
I think the word should be "redact".
If you don't know the provenance of images you are putting black box on (for example because of a rogue employee intentionally wanting to leak them, or if the image sensor of your target had been compromised to leak some info by another team), your redaction can be rendered ineffective, as some images can be made uncroppable by construction .
(Self-plug : https://github.com/unrealwill/uncroppable )
And also be aware that compression is hiding everywhere : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_sensing
Edit: I checked it out, nice, I like the lower res stenography approach, can work very nicely with good upscaling filters - gave it a star :)
That is not cropping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(image)
>Cropping is the removal of unwanted _outer_ areas from a photographic or illustrated image.
I used it at the time as a reference to the "PNG aCropalypse" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35208721 where I originally shared it in a comment).
The algorithm does also work if you remove the outer areas of the photo.
If you compare an image to another image, you could guess by compression what is under the blocked part, that makes some sense to me conceptually, what I don't get is for the PDF specifically why does it compressing the black boxes I put have any risk? It's compressing the internal image which is just the black box part? Or are you saying the whole screenshot is an internal image?
16 shades of grey (not 50) is plenty enough for text to still be smooth.
I do it for several reasons, one of them being I often take manual notes on official documents (which infuriates my wife btw) but then sometimes I need to then scan the documents and send them (local IRS / notary / bank / whatever). So I'll just scan then I'll fill rectangle with white where I took handnotes. Another reason is when there's paper printed on two sides, at scan times sometimes if the paper is thin / ink is thick, the other side shall show.
I wonder how that'd work vs adversarial inputs: never really thought about it.
Also if doing it right means more work?
Source: I'm the guy everyone wanted on their group science project in high school, because I'd feel responsible for doing all the work while they smoked weed. I have brothers both in and out of government who work equally hard at similar jobs, and I see the dispatity of motivation.
When opening the file in my slow computer, I could see all the rendering of the watermark happening in slow motion until the white box would pop up on top of the text.
Randomly removing these by trial and error will usually quite easily allow you to find the watermark and nix it, with the advantage that even a sophisticated recipient will not be able to find out from the pdf file what the watermark was.
I could then open up the postscript, delete the commands that rendered the watermark, save it, then I converted it to PDF so it would be easy to print.
Let all the files get released first.
Then show your hacks.
Keeping that secret would require sponaneous silence from everyone looking at these docs which is just not possible.
The Trump team knows that nobody is gonna buy whatever they put out as being the full story. Isn't this just the perfect way to make people feel like they got something they weren't supposed to see? They can increase trust in the output without having to increase trust in the source of it
And as far as I've heard there hasn't been anything "unredacted" that's been of any consequence. It all just feels a little too perfect.
And in terms of no big news in “unredacted”, it’s likely names that don’t mean anything to the average voter but damaging material for K Street.
Whether breaking a law actually matters anymore is another question though, as crime is legal now.
If they do it, it's not a crime.
Back in the day they had true masters of the Dark Arts. The forged letters about Bush's service were incredibly convenient in helping Bush beat Kerry. I am not alone in thinking it to be masterminded by Karl Rove.
With how they have pushed out any career public servants who were good at their jobs in favor of sycophants and loyalists, I'm not sure government organizations are still capable of playing 4D chess, if they ever were.
And yes, I've heard of Hanlon's Razor haha
The CIA, for example, is entirely above the law.
Its exactly equivalent to a dictatorship by the head of the CIA, unless the CIA is effectively answerable to some other authority despite not being answerable to the law, and then it is equivalent to a dictatorship by that higher authority.
No it's not. I can commit all manner of illegal acts in my home unnoticed, that doesn't make me a dictator.
Then they got caught hacking congressional computers to delete evidence.
Nothing happened to them.
They are above the law. You are not.
One, source?
Two, this above reproach. Not above the law. They deleted the evidence, they didn't just blow the scandal off. (Historically, our IC was popular. Right now, it's the deep state. You're seeing political appointees at the FBI and CIA exert control.)
Analogies don't work when they aren't analogous.
My point is their actions are committed outside the law. They've just been able to avoid punishment by covering it up. What they are not is above the law, at least not in the long run. (There are absolutely short bouts where the CIA acts above the law overseas, and rare cases where it has done so domestically. But the fact that they're covering it up betrays that they're crafty bastards, not invincible ones.)
Being above the law is necessary but not sufficient to be a dictator.
We also don’t know enough about the internal politics of the CIA to assert much about the head of the CIA.
Anything else could blow the cover for next time.
To be exact, CNN reports that for the period Sep - Dec there have been ~30 boats destroyed in ~26 attacks, with at least ~105 deaths in these operations.
The US govt is of course claiming narcotics smugglers ("narcoterrorism") while others say they are not. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween, though who knows one which end of the spectrum.
What I think is maybe more interesting is the general pressure being applied to Venezuela by the US and the EU.
Stand in the middle of fifth Avenue and shoot someone :)
Have political enemies executed
Get his face on Mount Rushmore
Disband congress
Disband the Supreme Court
Keep Jimmy Kimmel off air
Get Jon Stuart to shut up
Get James comey indicted
Get a national holiday named after him
Etc.
Even when we focus on things he tried to do, there is a lot he couldn’t. Let alone when you look at things he didn’t try to do.
lots of these are of course also just a distraction to discuss at Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner vs you know, other things
You said "anything", in the context of dictatorship. I only used items in this list which IMO you can reasonably say Putin, an actual dictator, can do. Right now. Except the first one! Because that was a joke, a reference to something he himself said he could do.
If you want to change to "anything which has backroom deal importance, not just bread and games for the masses, but the real things, if you know you know", that's a (slightly) different list.
But, it's also a different comment.
I think he could succeed in principle re: Mount Rushmore, to be honest. I think eventually people will cave in and agree to do it, and then they will just pray to cholesterol that they can wait it out.
I believe Trump will manufacture a crisis before he's out of office in a bid to maintain control. I believe he will have learned from Bush Jr. that a simple war isn't good enough, and it needs to be a genuine emergency.
I believe he'll do whatever he can to make that happen. Native born terrorist, or war with a close country, or absolutely over the top financial crash. Something awful that lets him invoke some obscure rule that lets him stay in power with congressional approval - he'll just skip the congressional approval part like he already does.
See you in about 2 years.
There is literally no such obscure rule, and a new Congress will be seated two weeks before the 2029 Presidential Inauguration.
Elections, and the compulsory ends of terms, inauguration of new Congresses, etc, happen on schedule without regard to any exceptional cases, including Civil War.
If he can get a majority of the Electoral College for a third term, and a majority in both houses of Congress in 2028, then things get much more complicated.
But there is no other path. Elections matter, and don't let anyone discourage you from believing that they don't matter enough to vote.
Fewer than you would a year or nine ago, certainly, and a lot of people are working very hard on closing the gap.
Democracy is a spectrum. There have always been significant flaws with American democracy, but you'd be mad to not observe significant, active regression and effort by the government to replace it with something else.
Wasn't too hard to put together a quick graph of the past decade for the U.S. using the World Press Freedom Index (relative ranking and score) - an annual ranking of 180 countries published by Reporters Without Borders that measures the level of press freedom.
If it swings as far back you might even see universal health care, sane gun laws, fair wages, campaign finance reform, reproductive freedom, science based policy making, reigning in billionaires, etc.
I love these.
I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for instance people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed (that is what I would cite as "common sense"), but this statement really damages your credibility. Of course semiautomatic rifles are useful for both hunting and for self defense. They are effective weapons. That's the problem.
Whut? How the fuck did you make that jump?
AR-15 rifles are useless for hunting. They are too small to reliably kill large game (deer) and too large for small game (rabbits). Sure, they're fine for coyotes, but if you're buying an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, then you should just stop.
AR-15s are also useless for self-defense. They are too bulky for indoor use, and the bullets can penetrate multiple walls. A regular semi-auto handgun is far superior if you're looking to protect yourself against domestic violence.
It's useless for hunting, but you identify circumstances it's useful in. You say it's useless for self defense because it's bulky, I've heard a hundred people say it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol.
Say whatever you want, but when you make absolute statements like that, it damages your credibility. That's my feedback for you.
Could you describe a specific scenario one of those hundred people might be imagining?
So a shotgun then?
Or post a link to a tiresome comment sections where it's been done countless times.
But until 2A is amended there's nothing we can do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
That’s why I love the conversations.
One of my favorite trivia questions is: how long has it been since Congress has had staff scientists?
That sounds reinsuring, but it is completely false. The idea that the pendulum swings is just regression to the mean: sure, after a terrible president, the next one is likely to be less terrible. But there is nothing that implies that after a far-right regime will come a far-left one. In fact, if you look at History in various countries around the world, this seems very unlikely.
> If it swings as far back you might even see universal health care, sane gun laws, fair wages, campaign finance reform, reproductive freedom, science based policy making, reigning in billionaires, etc.
Don’t count on it. In all likelihood it will regress to the centre. The American culture hasn’t changed that much and American leftists did not suddenly become competent at getting popular support.
Looking at the history of left wing movements in countries post-WWII, can you think of a reason why they wouldn't be successful and far-right ones would? The Cold War may have been a factor.
> Don’t count on it. In all likelihood it will regress to the centre.
The center doesn't exist anymore. The right-wing has labeled the US Democratic Party as extreme left. There should be a term for 'forcing your opposition to materialize because you are unable to distinguish between propaganda and reality'.
In western democracies, I can think of a couple. For example, the wave of left-wing intellectualism that was prevalent up until the 1980s got somewhat lost and lost contact with the lower classes, which left an opening for far-right populists.
> The center doesn't exist anymore. The right-wing has labeled the US Democratic Party as extreme left.
You’re right. In that frame of reference, it might indeed regress to the far left, but that would still be slightly to the left of Bill Clinton. The US don’t strike me as having a particularly strong left-wing culture and I don’t see it appearing any time soon.
> There should be a term for 'forcing your opposition to materialize because you are unable to distinguish between propaganda and reality'.
I don’t think the word exist, but the concept proved very useful to a lot of dictators.
They will find excuses to reverse. There will be some technicality, made up historical precense or some actually untrue fact about the world that wil totally make the situation different.
Conservative heretage foundation group has outcome in mind ... and "opposition" is not their preffered outcome.
The other day there was news about some ICE members who blew up the door to a family's home in order to detain a man. The man was a citizen. They knew that. They came to intimidate him because a few days earlier he tried filming their cars on a public street. That's just one example but these cases are only becoming more common.
One thing that's clear is that if he tries to overturn an election again, he is way better positioned to succeed this time. ICE is now the 5th most heavily funded military in the world and the whole point of DOGE[0] was to centralize the government and fill only with loyalists.
[0] NYT investigation recently proved there were little savings https://archive.ph/y5guv
Undocumented immigrants can be detained and deported by the U.S. government but they are still legally entitled to due process.
What is happening is aggressive enforcement and detention that can feel like “disappearing,” but it is not the same thing as extrajudicial abduction in the legal sense.
When people use the word "disappeared" they usually mean families temporarily can't find someone after detention, detainees are transferred far aways, no lawyer automatically assigned, communication is difficult, deportation happens very quickly. While this is real harm, it is not the same phenomenon as disappearance under international law.
The U.S. is aggressively detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants under civil law, sometimes with minimal process and poor transparency — but not through secret, extrajudicial disappearances. Due process is thinner than for citizens, enforcement can be opaque and traumatic, but this is not the same as "vanished" outside the legal system.
Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.
Same reason unions always work hardest when fighting on behalf of the worst workers. If you go to bat for a man who can't do better elsewhere he'll go to bat for you in return.
But wait, the situation is more complicated than that you say? Why yes, that's exactly the point. Two of us can play at the stupid smug oversimplification game.
While the effect being described is real to an extent, distilling it to the point you did is useless because there is so much more nuance. Why assume the place was staffed with first rate talent to begin with? And even if there is a lot of first rate talent many will stick around because they don't care who they serve (people not like this don't tend to make careers in government TBH).
It's not like a few more stories of Trump raping $whomever are going to move the needle at all, especially with how the media is on board with burying negative coverage of the regime.
Also if you're wondering how this activity isn't some kind of abuse of government resources, keep in mind that thanks to the Supreme Council's embrace of the Unitary Executive Theory (ie Sparkling Autocracy), covering up evidence about Donald Trump raping under-aged sex trafficking victims is now an official priority of the United States Government.
For context, lawyers deal with this all the time. In discovery, there is an extensive document ("doc") review process to determine if documents are responsive or non-responsive. For example, let's say I subpoenaed all communication between Bob and Alice between 1 Jan 2019 and 1 Jan 2020 in relation to the purchase of ABC Inc as part of litigation. Every email would be reviewed and if it's relevant to the subpoena, it's marked as responsive, given an identifier and handed over to the other side. Non-responsive communication might not be eg attorney-client communications.
It can go further and parts of documents can be viewed as non-responsive and otherwise be blacked out eg the minutes of a meeting that discussed 4 topics and only 1 of them was about the company purchase. That may be commercially sensitive and beyond the scope of the subpoena.
Every such redaction and exclusion has to be logged and a reason given for it being non-responsive where a judge can review that and decide if the reason is good or not, should it ever be an issue. Can lawyers find something damaging and not want to hand it over and just mark it non-responsive? Technically, yes. Kind of. It's a good way to get disbarred or even jailed.
My point with this is that lawyers, which the Department of Justice is full of, are no strangers to this process so should be able to do it adequately. If they reveal something damaging to their client this way, they themselves can get sued for whatever the damages are. So it's something they're careful about, for good reason.
So in my opinion, it's unlikely that this is an act of resistance. Lawyers won't generally commit overt illegal acts, particularly when the only incentive is keeping their job and the downside is losing their career. It could happen.
What I suspect is happening is all the good lawyers simply aren't engaging in this redaction process because they know better so the DoJ had the wheel out some bad and/or unethical ones who would.
What they're doing is in blatant violation to the law passed last month and good lawyers know it.
There's a lot of this going on at the DoJ currently. Take the recent political prosecutions of James Comey, Letitia James, etc. No good prosecutor is putting their name to those indictments so the administration was forced to bring in incompetent stooges who would. This included former Trump personal attorneys who got improerly appointed as US Attorneys. This got the Comey indictment thrown out.
The law that Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey co-sponsored was sweeping and clear about what needs to be released. The DoJ is trying to protect both members of the administration and powerful people, some of whom are likely big donors and/or foreign government officials or even heads of state.
That's also why this process is so slow I imagine. There are only so many ethically compromised lackeys they can find.
MAGA is a cult and every cult has a mission. MAGA's mission is to uncover the elite pedophile ring. A cult can only be sustained so long as the mission is incomplete. Epstein is core foundational mythology. It's going to be really difficult if not impossible to redirect this.
You'll notice that Mike Johnson once again has put Congress in recess to avoid it taking action, this time a day before the 30 day deadline. The last time was for 7 weeks to try and get Republicans to remove their names from the discharge petition to avoid all this. Republicans know what a core problem this is.
So it's politically damaging with his base for Trump to pardon attorneys involved in obstructing this. But even if he weathers that, it doesn't solve his problem.
For one, any attorneys despite any pardon are subject to disciplinary proceedings (including disbarment) as well as possible state charges.
For another, this stuff is simply going to get out. Where previously a DoJ attorney would be committing career suicide if they got caught leaking things like grand jury testimony and confidential non-prosecution agreements, now they're obligated to. So they're not leakers anymore, they're whistleblowers who are following the law.
Congress will eventually have to come back into session and Pam Bondi may actually face a real risk of impeachment. If that happens, who is going to want this job when the key requirement is being such a loyalist that you have to break the law?
Congress will also seek compliaance from DoJ and hold investigations as well as drip feed their own documents from,say, the House Oversight Committee.
And in the wings we still have Ghislaine Maxwell who is clearly operating under an implicit understanding that she will get a pardon or, more likely, a commutation. Her move to a lower security prison that isn't eligible for her type of offenses was (IMHO) clearly a move to buy her continued silence until it became politically possible to free her. I don't think that's ever going to be possible other than maybe a lame duck pardon when leaving office.
This story is only getting bigger.
My guess is that someone suggested to Trump that they could redact most of the bad bits and plausibly deny that they were doing that, and he decided that this was the path of least resistance.
So I don't think there is any chance that he will easily allow any more votes to go the way of putting more pressure. Unless the pressure gets so bad that he has no choice (read: Newsmax and FoxNews both start pressure campaigns).
The GOP are masters of using parliamentary procedure to avoid votes that would pass that they don't want to pass, nominations and bills that they can't defend voting against.
This was a big issue in the Obama era where Mitch McConnell was determined to make Obama a one term president and decided to "obstruct, obstruct, obstruct" on things that historically never been obstructed, or at least not to the degree they were under Obama. For example, judicial appointments would get stuck in committee and never come up for a vote because the vote would pass. The most famous example of this was the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination that was never given a vote for 11 months, which was completely unprecedented.
The GOP has a narrow working majority in the House. The House, unlike the Senate, has the discharge petition process where if a majority of House representatives sign it, it forces a vote. All the Democratic reps signed on so it only took about 4 GOP reps for it to pass.
The lengths Mike Johnson went to to avoid this were unprecedented. 3 Democratic reps have died in office this Congressional session. Texas has consistently delayed a special election to avoid a replacement. Arizona had a special election. A Democrat won and Johnson avoided swearing her in for 7 weeks because she would be the 218th and final signature on the discharge petition.
4 GOP reps signed on and the White House and the Speaker both put incredible pressure on them to change their mind. It was a big part of why Trump fell out with Marjorie Taylor-Greene (she was one of the 4).
Why go to all this effort? Because Epstein was core foundational mythology for MAGA, reps couldn't defend voting against it and everybody knew it.
Johnson then tried to use a procedure to pass a vote called unaminous consent. Basically, rather than go through a roll call of up to 435 members, the House is given the option to object. If anyone does, it forces a vote. Why would he do this? Because there's no voting record for unanimous consent. It gives members cover to say they did or didn't vote for something. A roll call is an official record. Democrats objected and thus we got an official vote with only 1 "no" vote (Rep Clay Higgins).
The SEnate passed it with unanimous consent.
This was a veto proof majority. So if it was so popular, why just not schedule a vote to begin with?
And the obstruction continues. Johnson again put the House in recess 1 day before the 30 day deadline. Coincidence? I think not.
And now we're getting illegal redactions, not meeting the 30 day deadline and a drip feed of document releases because (IMHO) they can't find enough ethically-challenged lackeys to do doc review and redact the names and images of Trump and powerful people, many of whom are likely donors.
Johnson may well lose his position over this. The Attorney General has a non-zero chance of being impeached and removed over it.
There is no putting this genie back in the bottle. It's not going away and at no point was the Trump circle comfortable they could redact their way out of it. They are in full on panic mode right now.
> So in my opinion, it's unlikely that this is an act of resistance. Lawyers won't generally commit overt illegal acts,
Political redaction in this release under the Epstein Transparency Act is an overt, illegal act.
Does that reconfigure your estimation of whether DoJ attorneys that aren't the Trump inner-circle loyalists installed in leadership roles might engage in resistance against (or at least fail to point out methodological flaws in the inplmentation of) it?
I'm leaning towards negligence though.
Any major documents/files have been removed all together. Then the rest was farmed out to anyone they could find with basic instructions to redact anything embarrassing.
Since there's absolutely zero chance anyone in the administration will ever be held accountable for what's left, they're not overly concerned.
The thing that I've been waiting to see for years is the actual video recordings. There were supposedly cameras everywhere, for years. I'm not even talking about the disgusting stuff, I'm talking security for entrances, hallways, etc.
The FBI definitely has them, where are they?
What about Maxwell's media files? There was nothing found there? Did they subpoena security companies and cloud providers?
The documents are all deniable. Yes video evidence can now be easily faked, but real video will have details that are hard to invent. Regardless, videos are worth millions of words.
I guess the big take-away is scrape everything ASAP when it comes out. I haven't found any meaningful differences yet, but file hashes are different in the published data set zip files available today versus when Archive.org took a snapshot a few days ago.
I did write a bit of a tool which will detect and log and dump the text of affected PDF's, since redacting via drawing black boxes as well as using dark-colored highlights are both programmatically detectable. Pretty trivial to do so. Happy Holidays for anyone else who has the day off!
Of course I'm probably the odd one out, wanting to apply that modifier to my own nitpick comments, so that idea probably wouldn't end up being very useful in general.
(There is also some irony in me commenting on your comment here where it's completely unrelated to the actual post...)
Please change the title.
You don't need to do some sophisticated thing for it to be considered hacking
Hacking is unauthorised use of a system. Reading a document that was not adequately redacted can hardly be considered hacking.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what the law has to say about this. But I do have at least a small handful of brain cells to rub together, so I know what the law _should_ say about this.
Absent that excluding other default protections like copyright, what I do with it should fall under the assumption of "basically anything".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States
Opening someone else’s laptop and guessing the password would absolutely fall under that definition, but I think it’s very much questionable if poking around a document that you have legitimately obtained would do so.
By serving up the PDF file I am being authorized to receive, view, process, etc etc the entire contents. Not just some limited subset. If I wasn't authorized to receive some portion of the file then that needed to be withheld to begin with.
That's entirely different from gaining unauthorized entry to a system and copying out files that were never publicly available to begin with.
To put it simply, I am not responsible for the other party's incompetence.
> That's entirely different from gaining unauthorized entry to a system and copying out files that were never publicly available to begin with.
That's not the sum total of hacks, if you have publicly accessible password-protected PDF and guess the password as 1234, that's a hack. Copy& paste of black boxes is similarly a hack around content protection
> To put it simply, I am not responsible for the other party's incompetence.
To put it even simpler, this conversation is not about you and your responsibility, but about the different meanings of the word "hack "
Not the layman, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Yes, certain licensed professionals can be subject to legal obligations in very specific situations. But in general, if you screw up and mail something to me (electronic or otherwise) then that is on you. I am not responsible for your actions.
> if you have publicly accessible password-protected PDF and guess the password as 1234, that's a hack
Sure, I'll agree that the software to break the DRM qualifies as a hack (in the technical work sense). It also might (or might not) rise to the level of "lack of legal authorization". I don't think it should, but the state of laws surrounding DRM make it clear that one probably wouldn't go in my favor.
However that isn't what (I understood) us to be talking about - ie legal authorization as it relates to black box redaction and similar fatally flawed approaches that leave the plain text data directly accessible (and thus my access plainly facilitated by the sender, if inadvertently).
> this conversation is not about ...
You are the only one using the term "hack" here. Please note that I had responded to your "limit/lack of authorization" phrasing. Nothing more.
That said, while we're on the topic I'll note the ambiguity of the term "hack" in this context. Illegal access versus clever but otherwise mundane bit of code (no laws violated). You seem to be failing to clearly differentiate.
Are you not aware of content that is criminal to possess? Like CP is the most common example.
> I am not responsible for your actions.
I've already addressed this confusion of yours - this is NOT about your responsibility for someone else's actions, but about your own actions and whether they constitute a "hack".
> You are the only one using the term "hack" here. Please note that I had responded to your "limit/lack of authorization" phrasing. Nothing more.
Please open a dictionary for the word hack to understand this conversation! And note the word "authorization" in the definition.
> However that isn't what (I understood) us to be talking about - ie legal authorization
Understandably you're confused, the legal limit is your own making, authorization is way broader than that.
> I'll note the ambiguity of the term "hack" in this context
Exactly!!! Keep looking into the definition to resolve the ambiguity!
> You seem to be failing to clearly differentiate
No, your differentiation is wrong
Beyond that you're clearly just trolling at this point, going to great lengths to manufacture an argument about a term that I never used to begin with. "Lack of authorization" has a clear legal meaning whereas "hack" does not.
For the 3rd time, this conversation is not about YOU and not about what surprises you!
> "Lack of authorization" has a clear legal meaning whereas "hack" does not.
No, you've made up this limit to some "legal meaning" (also wrong here, large variety there as well but wouldn't want to endulge you further). Again, open up a dictionary on "hack", then follow the definition of "authorization" from there, if you only find "legal" in there, get a better dictionary, journalists / commenters are usually not lawyers, so they wouldn't accept your artificial legal limits on meaning!
I think this is the greatest proof of the simultaneous validity of two different arguments. Disclaimer, I'm assuming (I think fairly) that you're in good faith.
The funny thing is, to me, the other commenter's arguments are quite clear/obvious to me and make sense. Not that your points are wrong - but... I'm 99% sure the other person isn't trolling in the slightest. Y'all are just talking across each other.
Initially, perhaps. However note that my attempts to clarify exactly that are repeatedly followed by misconstruing my position. It's not so much that we disagree as that the supposed disagreement is about things I never said. The repeated failure to respond to what was actually said coupled with the combative tone is pretty much the definition of trolling. Of course that term does assume intent to an extent - if he's just having a bad day I'm not sure that technically qualifies. The end result is the same though.
BTW if you feel I've missed some insightful point of his do please elaborate.
I'd say any technical or legal restrictions or possible means to enforce DRM ought to be disabled or absent from the media format used when disseminating content that must be disclosed.
Censorship (of necessary) should purge the data entirely,ie: replace by ###
Still technically a hack.
This isn't about knowledge or expectations. They didn't use colored boxes to jazz up the presentation, they _intended_ to prevent you from reading it, and now you can, with this, again incredibly _lame_ almost meaningless even-my-five-year-old-could-do this "hack."
HN discourages editorializing headlines.
While I wouldn't call it a "hack," common usage even here on HN isn't limited to "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)" [0]
That's also why a mafia extorts and doesn't run complex businesses in general.
Perhaps the US can survive this administration. But somewhere down the line it will become broken.
May it continue to work in the decades to come!
Two things come to mind:
* Some things Indyke did fall outside the scope of lawyer-client privilege. It would be bad for certain people to get him on a stand and force him to spill the beans. He was never interviewed re: Epstein [1]
* He's a very talented lawyer, insofar as a competent lawyer with, at least, extreme discretion, is talented.
[1] https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_doj-f...
Yep. I think this sort of thing is actually their biggest concern with releasing the docs. They can redact or lose documents that say anything directly incriminating about Trump and his associates and dismiss everything Epstein and testimonies from the 2020s say about him as confabulation, but there are other people who might want to take the administration down with them if they get caught or even just get fed up of being doorstepped by the media, and some of them might have receipts.
It's why deleting documents outright is something we aren't really seeing. Those docs can still be floating around and, worse, there can be references to missing docs within the released docs.
And with just the sheer volume of documents that are being released, it's clear to me why the Trump admin didn't release anything sooner. There's simply too much and the effort to prune it down to a specific narrative is too much of a monumental undertaking. It'd involve too many people which ultimately means it's more likely to leak out.
You can open up any popular conservative forum/watch any mainstream conservative pundit and they are all saying the same thing: “there’s nothing here it doesn’t matter, Trump is just being photographed with women sometimes who cares?” Then some deflection about Bill Clinton, making sure to bring up the hot tub photo.
The reason it hasn’t gone away though, despite this often being a very effective approach, is because too many of them hung their hats on Epstein conspiracy theories from 2020 to 2024. It made a lot of people a lot of money and catapulted more than a handful of political careers. Now they have the means to be transparent and they can’t make an acceptable excuse not to be since they were all so loudly chest pounding about it, including the vice president himself.
I think almost all the discussions about Epstein are incredibly crass and gross. It’s not about the victims or justice, it’s about politics. I think there are obviously legitimate reasons to redact portions because we don’t want to ruin more lives (not that this was a real good faith attempt at that). But there is still a small part of me that can’t help but enjoy watching the Trump administration simmer in the pot they so clearly made for themselves over the last five years.
It's clear from early on when they just re-released the same already public docs that the Trump admin thought "Ok, this is over, we can just move on now". But that basically backfired, especially because the expectation from conspiracy theorists was that every single democrat would be implicated. When nothing new came out it drove for more questions and kept this alive as an issue.
Now, I think they are continuing a bungled approach. These partial releases with aggressive redactions are only serving to keep the story alive. Ironically, if they'd complied with the law I could totally see the "this is a nothing burger" defense being something they'd pull off. But now with the seemingly daily revelations of "oh wow, Epstein was friends with famed abuser Nadler! And he said that Trump shared a taste in women!"
These sorts of revelations really mostly only work because they are tied to being "new information just released".
This also puts all conservative media on a backfoot. It's very hard for them to craft any sort of good narrative when every other day we are seeing wild and unexpected things like "Trump may have participated in murdering a baby".
> [Indyke] was hired by the Parlatore Law Group in 2022, before the justice department settled the Epstein case. That firm represents the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and previously represented Donald Trump in his defense against charges stemming from the discovery of classified government documents stored at Trump’s Florida estate.
So I don't know about "not a Washington person", but clearly connections exist to the current administration.
From the Guardian UK https://archive.md/lO08a
This is like putting a post-it on a printed document and circulating it as "redacted" -- and calling anyone who lifted the post-it a criminal/thief.
As of February, it’s sensible to ask if there’s an OIG.
But on principle, what right does the government have to keep secrets from its own people? I don’t believe we had that button at the founding, it was added somewhere along the way. I’m asking what is the justification for this, and whether in the grand scheme of things that outweighs the principle of the government not being a separate entity from the people.
There are multiple ways to approach witness protection. For example if we have a problem with witnesses being harmed we could make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense. We can probably think of other options besides the government being allowed to keep secrets from its own people.
Every government everywhere has and has always had state secrets e.g. names of spies.
>make being involved with witness harm at any layer of indirection a capital offense.
People still commit capital offenses. This just makes it much easier to get to that witness and get away. We also know from empirical evidence that the death penalty is not useful for deterring crime.
Witness protection is also getting to start over without everyone in your neighborhood knowing you were a criminal. It's part of the deal.
If we fix the second one, we only have the first group. We can fix the second group, and the remaining first group, while it does apply to capital offenses in general, does not apply to violence against witnesses.
It seems like killing witnesses (after the fact, since witness protection does not intervene during the initial crime being witnessed to protect the witness mere moments after their witnessing) actually requires impulse control, because to do it you need to a) anticipate an abstract threat b) formulate a plan in advance c) carry out the plan. This is why it is typically executed in organized crime by bosses, and not by people engaging in random violence.
I’m not saying no one carries out capital offenses, I’m just saying that no one engages in witness directed violence due to lack of impulse control, they do it because they don’t think they will be caught, and more thorough rules enforcement does address that.
On witness protection making one’s criminal record secret. Okay? One can easily be opposed to that practice. How about we don’t make deals to hide relevant safety information from the public? It seems pretty easy to oppose. Just because the government does it, doesn’t mean it is a good reason. Are you defending the reason, or just stating what is? If you are just stating what is, I don’t see how that’s relevant.
Otherwise, just don’t do war. It’s pretty simple. Especially when you have zero need for land.
Witness protection is a compensation for an inadequate and overly soft criminal justice system. If the person calling the hit fully expected to die by hanging for calling the hit, he would not call the hit.
Pragmatically, I think it's easy to recognize that the government should be allowed to have some secrets from the public. I think the clearest and most extreme example is the details of our nuclear armaments.
But the question of where the line is is a tricky one. IMO, we definitely allow the government far more secrets than it should have.
The only two reasons that redactions are allowed are a) to protect the privacy of victims and b) to protect the integrity on ongoing investigations.
- To protect victims
- Redact people that are currently under investigation
But here they are clearly blacking out potential co-conspirators, without them being under investigation or having been charged with anything.
Seems like they are just backing out powerful people not to embarrass or implicate them.
1: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HFqpFLOJgYLiAgjT...
Still suspect that someone can undo this from data may have been accidentally steaganographed across non-deleted parts of the image.
However, I wonder whether heavily compressing the redacted image would help remove any unwanted artefacts. But the best solution is probably to render the original file from scratch, without compression, before redacting the image.
Redacting documents is hard for people who didn't learn how to properly do it, and don't have the right tools. But for courts, the FBI or the DOJ this shouldn't apply. They know how to do it right.
I can only imagine, that some people didn't redact the documents properly on purpose. Plausible deniability.
PDF is an absurdly complex file format. It's part of the reason there is no single "good" PDF reader, just a lot of mediocre PDF readers that are all terrible in their own way. Which is a topic for another day.
There are several ways to remove data in a PDF:
- Remove the data. This is much harder than it sounds. Many PDF tools won't let you change the content of a PDF, not because it isn't possible, but because you'll likely massively screw up the formatting, and the tools don't want to deal with that.
- Replace the data. This what what all the "blackout" tools do, find "A" and replace with "🮋". This is effective and doesn't break formatting since it's a 1-to-1 replacement. The problem with "replacing" is that not every PDF tool works the same way, and some, instead, just change the foreground and background color to black; it looks nearly the same, but the power of copy-and-paste still functions.
- Then you have the computer illiterate, who think changing the foreground and background color to black is good enough anyway.
Not kidding - it's a ~~~billion dollar market haha
Make an MVP/Show HN :-)
Should take... a weekend tops? ;) PDF is crazy and scary
Wait, this is more complete than SOAP. It may be a good idea to redo the IPC protocol with a different serialization format!
Society would probably never recover if we started implementing RPC-in-Postscript though.
As far as I understand it, at its core, pdf is just a stream of instructions that is continually modifying the document. You can insert a thousand objects before you start the next word in a paragraph. And this is just the most basic stuff. Anything on a page can be anywhere in the stream. I don't know if you can go back and edit previous pages, you might have a shot at least trying to understand one page at a time.
Did you know you can have embedded XML in PDFs? You can have a paper form with all the data filled in and include an XML version of that for any computer systems that would like an easier way to read it.
> - Remove the data. This is much harder than it sounds. Many PDF tools won't let you change the content of a PDF, not because it isn't possible, but because you'll likely massively screw up the formatting, and the tools don't want to deal with that.
Compared to other formats this is actually relatively easy in a PDF since the way the text drawing operators work they don't influence the state for arbitrary other content. A lot of positioning in a PDF is absolute (or relative to an explicitly defined matrix which has hardcoded values). Usually this makes editing a PDF harder (since when changing text the related text does not adapt automatically), but when removing data it makes it much easier since you can mostly just delete it without affecting anything else. (There are exceptions for text immediately after the removed data, but that's limited and relatively easy to control.)
> - Replace the data. This what what all the "blackout" tools do, find "A" and replace with "🮋". This is effective and doesn't break formatting since it's a 1-to-1 replacement.
That's actually rather tricky in PDFs since they usually contain embedded subset fonts and these usually do not have "🮋" as part of the subset. Also doing this would break the layout since "🮋" has a different width than most letters in a typical font, so it would not lead to less formatting issues than the previous option. Unless the "🮋" is stretched for each letter to have the same dimensions, but then the stretched characters allow to recover the text.
> The problem with "replacing" is that not every PDF tool works the same way, and some, instead, just change the foreground and background color to black; it looks nearly the same, but the power of copy-and-paste still functions.
PDF does not have a concept of a background color. If it looks like a background color in PDF, you have a rectangle drawn in one color and something in the foreground color in front of it. What you usually see in badly redacted PDF files is exactly this, but in opposite color: Someone just draws a black box on top of the characters. You could argue that this is smarter since it would still work even if someone would chnage colors, but of course, PDF is a vector format. If you just add a rectangle, someone else can remove it again. (And also copy & paste doesn't care about your rectangle)
To be fair, this works if you print out those copies and then re-scan them.
>- Replace the data. This what what all the "blackout" tools do, find "A" and replace with "🮋". This is effective and doesn't break formatting since it's a 1-to-1 replacement. The problem with "replacing" is that not every PDF tool works the same way, and some, instead, just change the foreground and background color to black; it looks nearly the same, but the power of copy-and-paste still functions.
You're making it sound way harder than it is, when both adobe acrobat and the built-in preview app on mac can both competently redact documents. I'm not aware of instances of either (or any other purpose-made redaction tools) failing. I wouldn't homebrew a python script to do my redaction either, but that doesn't mean doing redactions properly in some insurmountable task for some intern.
The most reliable way is to just screenshot the document or print and scan it, effectively burning it down and recreating it in a new format that has no concept of the past. This works across basically all formats, too, and against all tools.
Anyway, if you click on a "redaction", you're clicking on the box and can't select the text underneath, but if you just highlight the text around it, you can copy all the original text.
It's a bizarre oversight.
The only safe way for journalists is to paraphrase what the document said and to say "an unnamed source claims that ..." and to guarantee with your reputation, and the reputation of your publisher, that you are being faithful to what the original source said. For even better results, combine multiple sources.
Unfortunately paraphrasing things and taking editorial responsibility have both been deprecated in favour of rereleasing press releases in the house style, so it's difficult to get the actual journalism these days.
There would also be a mix of text documents, and image scans. The way to censor each is different.
Perfectly censoring documents, particularly digital ones is actually surprisingly difficult.
But the difficult part is easily repeatable once it's figured out, which is why it surprises me that it's not built into Acrobat as a tool already.
Firstly, calling this redaction implies that the data is missing, and calling what was done "unredacting" is akin to saying someone "decrypted" a cryptographic hash function.
Nobody unredacted anything here, they merely discovered that it hadn't been redacted, and simply looked like it was redacted.
Calling this a hack places responsibility on the people who discovered the information, rather than on the people were put in charge of handling the redaction and screwed it up.
https://www.underhanded-c.org/_page_id_17.html
And the winner's solution is incredibly simple and clever.
So I don’t think there will be jail time if that’s what you’re referring to.
(1) Considering it was a rush job (2) general ineptness of this administration and (3) the management wouldn't have defined the explicit job description ("completely black out, not use black highlighter"), the likeliness that there is any evidence that this was intentionally malicious is pretty low.
Unfortunately “hack” became a catch all word long ago. Just look at “life hacks”.
(A better analogy might be the original physical document with redaction marks. If the text is printed using a laser printer or a type writer, and the marker used for redaction uses some other kind of ink - let's say one that doesn't dissolve the text's ink or toner in any way - then you can in principle distinguish between the two and thus recover visibility of the text.)
Plain text and flat images are my preferred formats for things which must be redacted. Images require a slight bit of special care, as the example in the underhanded C contest highlights, but it's possible to enforce visible redaction and transcription steps that destroy hidden information.
Also, in light of everything that is happening, is incredible that the top comment on this thread is about some minor semantic definitions.
If you say “they failed to redact data” to a layperson looking at a visibly redacted document they’re going to be confused.
Special effects in movies? AI
Some edited photo? AI
Illustration for advertising? AI
They are not. They are factually incorrect. Look up the various definitions of redacted. They fit perfect for the title. Arguing otherwise suggests you are making up definitions and words, in which case, I am still correct.
To the journalist, it looks like "hackers at work" because the result looks like magic. Therefore their editor attaching "hacks" to the title for additional clickbait as well.
To us technical people, who understand the concept of layers in digital editing, it is no big deal at all (and is not surprising that some percentage of the PDF's have been processed this way).
When someone then shows them how to copy/paste out the original text, because the PDF was simply black stick-it notes above the text, it appears to them as if that someone is a magical wizard of infinite intelligence.
It’s really not that hard; as someone else on this thread pointed out even my grandma knows this…
You can find out the technical details in one quick search.
How someone like this gets a paying job as a journalist is beyond me.
That's the first sentence of the article, and that's all there is to it.
Some folks had to be taught on how folder structures work because they grew up with the appliance we called a "phone" as opposed to a real computer that also happened to be known as a "phone".
I’m sorry, but “this text is black on black background; the actual letters are still there” isn’t “black magic” unless someone is being deliberately obtuse.
State magicians have a whole range of different ways to make something seem like it's levitating, or to apparently get a signed playing card inside a fruit that they get someone in the audience to cut open to reveal.
To a magician, these things are cute, not mysterious.
To the general public… a significant percentage have problems with paged results and scroll bars. Including my dad, who developed military IFF simulation software before he retired, and then spent several years of retirement using Google before realising it gave more than three results at a time.
Would he, with experience working with the military, have made this soecific mistake about redaction? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the level of ignorance was well within his range. (I'm not better, it's just my ignorance is e.g. setting fire to resistors).
*Our* "common sense" isn't universal.
There are undoubtedly some people who would be fooled by this, but you don’t have to be technical in order to not be one of them.
That's *literally* what "redaction" is.
These people are bad at magic, were told to do magic, fooled only themselves and other people who are also bad at magic.
I’m guessing to you, it is also black magic.
You seem highly confused on what a journalists job is in this era. Very few publishers are about correctness. It's about speed of getting the article out and getting as many eyeballs as possible to look at the ads in the article.
Or as the saying goes, A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
Although I don’t completely disagree with your cynical take I don’t think that’s actually the case for most of the Guardians journalists, they do a lot of quality reporting too
Sure, deep investigative jounalism with real skill and effort behind it is a thing; but it is an expensive thing, and opinion pieces disguised as jounalism are much cheaper, as is reporting on other people's reports.
We're already seeing this happen.
Going forward the full stack of perpetrators, unindicted coconspirators, lawyers, judges, legislators, journalists, editors, fact checkers, ... it'll all be LLM all the way down such that nothing will be trustable save something akin to Stephenson's gargoyles and Flock cameras for which people will conduct spectacles to shape the salience landscape.
Most “bullshit jobs” are already being replaced. The era of bullshit jobs is coming to an end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
Als unless we come up with something like UBI or a dramatic rethinking of how capitalism works in our society there will probably be __more__ bullshit jobs.
Their job is to write coherent articles that gather views, not truly understand what it is they are writing about. That's why the Gell-Mann Amnesia [1] aspect so often crops up for any technical article (hint, it also crops up for every article, but we don't recognize the mistakes the journalist makes in the articles where we don't have the underlying knowledge to recognize the mistakes).
Journalists are people, like everyone else, and most people are bad at their jobs.
Plus, what even is the job? For most journalists out there, it's just writing something that draws ad impressions and clicks.
The percentage of journalists that work for outlets where the content itself is the cash source is very small (NYTimes, probably a bunch of other paid subscriptions). And even the NYTimes isn't above clickbait.
“People are People and therefore dumber than HN tech master race”
It's people who are very good with words, and at talking to anyone and everyone about anything, both is a friendly and confrontation way.
They also have almost no understanding of math, science or technology. If they did, they'd get better paying jobs.
Journalism used to be a well paid prestigious career that attracted brilliant people. There is not enough money in what's left of that industry to do that anymore.
They're not after money. They're motivated by prestige which CAN be money (ew, tacky) but is actually measured by access to key figures, your name being in the right places with the right people, and the cocktail party circuit.
My wife was a reporter in DC and she was at the White House Correspondents Dinner and everything. Living in those circles is surreal. The namedropping is a whole other level. When I realized I was doing it too (with some legit impressive names at the time), I gtfo. I'd rather be evaluated by what I've done or can do vs who I know or knows me.
Journalism school is "eye-wateringly" expensive:
> J-school attendees might get a benefit from their journalism degree, but it comes at an eye-watering cost. The price tag of the Columbia Journalism School, for instance, is $105,820 for a 10-month program, $147,418 for a 12-month program, or $108,464 per year for a two-year program. That’s a $216,928 graduate degree, on top of all the costs associated with gaining the undergraduate prerequisites. (Columbia, it seems important to say, is also the publisher of Columbia Journalism Review, the publication you’re now reading.)
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/do-we-need-j-schools.php
> It's people who are very good with words,
They are also not good with words.
And FWIW, in my very limited and anecdotal experience, the programs are inhabited by people who fully understand their employment and salary prospects, but believe in the work, and often have above-average family wealth to compensate for the gaps. They're good people, but they are not experts.
Me thinks the fool speaks of himself.
Obviously, "who becomes a journalist in this age" does not translate to "every person who is alive now who has ever been a journalist".
I'm not sure if your error lies in parsing colloquial English, or in basic statistics. Either way, I think you have fully illustrated the commenter's point.
Journalists are not reliably selected for, or demonstrative of, comprehension or accuracy.
Maybe Christmas just leaves the worst on HN … statistically.
Defending your mistakes doesn't either, but I can understand the confusion.
Happy holidays.
(You can’t engagement logically technically or even correctly here and keep Spouting others are wrong. Think hard on how poorly you comprehension here is even when explained why you are Wrong.)
Points have been illustrated contradicting the statement. No points have been made supporting it.
Your argument boils down to “all x is bad is valid by default and all Ys that contradict are inherently ‘statistically invalid’”. Do you not get how horribly dumb your logic is?
By this logic I could state all HNErs posting on Christmas are idiots and wrong by default. This of course can’t by contradicted by any statement you make because you are just a data point of one and therefore invalid. Also the original point is supported with exactly 0 data points so in actuality data point of 1 > 0. So my guy. Jesus. Learn stats. Or anything.
I know some journalists. They are smart people. However, they are not experts in math, science, or technology. They are experts in journalism. This wasn't any different at any time in the past.
My wife was a reporter with a top tier news agency in DC and I was shocked how they divvied up topics.
At best, it was "you're good with computers, go report on this hearing on cybersecurity" but more commonly, it was "who has this morning open? You do? Great. Go cover this 9am on the Israel-Palestine negotiations and what the implications are. We'll do a segment in the 11am hour."
The error is consumers believing journalist news is anything but uninformed, hot take heresy; spun in the most sensationalistic way.
They are hired to get eyeballs for advertisers. Not to be accurate, thorough truthful, or unbiased.
But I'd also bet the editors technical knowledge of how this "revelation" of the hidden material really works is low enough that it also appears to be magic to them as well. So they likely think it is a 'hack' as well.
A lot of people in the thread here are calling them a non-technical English major who doesn’t understand the technology. Word processors also happen to be the tools of their trade, I am sure they understand features of Word better than most of the computer science majors in this thread…
You are supposing. The article doesn't read like that at all. Your post smells of exceptional tech elitism.
True story: one time I used that technique to ask for a higher credit card limit than the options the website presented. Interestingly enough, they handled it gracefully by sending me a rejection for a higher amount and an acceptance for the maximum offered amount (the one I edited). And I didn't get arrested for hacking!
Yes, but you see it says "view source" not "edit page live". Don't really see why it wouldn't be "omg" for them.
They had been asked for an assignment as part of the interview process, where they were supposed to make suggestions regarding the company's offers. They showed up on the (MS teams) interview having revamped what looked like the live website (www. official website was visible in the browser bar).
The interviewers gave them the job pretty much on the spot, but did timidly ask at the end "do you mind putting it back though, for now?", which we still laugh about 5 years later
*: disclaimer, I didn't attend MIT, but did hang out with greybeards on 90s IRC
If you are CIA / FBI / Court / Lawyer or professional full time redactor of documents you should know that the highlighter doesn't delete the text underneath it.
Regardless, redaction does not imply that data is missing. The words were censored or obscured. That's it. Simply looking at the documents proves that. Interacting with them showed how easy they were to uncensor, but the simplicity of the method doesn't change facts.
By all means, complain about definitions and words, but get it right.
That ship sailed a long time ago. The “phone hacking scandal” in ~2010¹ was mostly calling answering services that didn't have pins or other authorisation checks set.
These days any old trick gets called a hack, heck tying your shoelaces might get called a miraculous footwear securing hack.
--------
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...
"The glitch appears to affect only a tiny number of the hundreds of thousands of documents that the Justice Department has posted online this past week because of a new Epstein-related transparency law. And it appears this redacting error wasn’t committed by the Justice Department – but rather by the Virgin Islands’ attorney general’s office when it first posted the original court filing onto a public docket in 2021."
Great contest. And a great entry, I had a big chuckle running it and unredacting my documents, even photos!
They are unredacted because either those in charge are not familiar with basic office tasks, or someone wanted this stuff to leak and nobody checked thier work. Either brand of incompetance should cause heads to roll. But, just like the signal fiasco, nothing will happen. When your brand is perfection, you cannot ever admit a mistake.
Yes, USDOJ is incompetent and dysfunctional, but this is not why. But sure, whatever, carry on...
It's the standard practice.
https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court Records/Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Deceased, No. ST-21-RV-00005 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2021)/2022.03.17-1 Exhibit 1.pdf
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/02/report-missouri-governor...
Luckily someone eventually talked sense into the governor, despite him ignoring the FBI originally when they told him it wasn't a hack
Look at the early quotes where Trump complains about Epstein being a creep. The main problem Trump had was that Epstein poached Trump’s favorite kids for prostitution years after they were hired by Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct...
1. Draw a black box over it in image editor, save a screenshot
2. Crop the info out
Are there other good ways?
You can't possibly know that!
(Sorry, watching Grinch, Jim Carrey spoke through me).
The names of involved powerful people were NOT supposed to be censored. All those names except Bill Clinton name were redacted. To protect Trump and everybody else involved in the scandal except said Bill Clinton. But especially to protect Trump.
Victim?
They had 30 days to process 10s of thousands of documents. The rumors floating around is they had to pull in people from other departments to work on the task.
It's pretty plausible that someone thought a black highlighter was good enough for redaction.
You think you uncovered the hidden layer but that was just a decoy.
You guys are too gullible.
Case ID #: 50D-NY-302757
Witness Information
First Name: Donald
Middle Name:
Last Name: Trump
Age: 70
DOB:
Additional Info: Again, just trying to find out the NYPD detective on the FBI sex trafficking task force that called me a couple of weeks ago and spoke to me about some of these issues.
How is Contact Known: He participated regularly in paying money to force me to ‐----- with him and he was present when my uncle murdered my newborn child and disposed of the body in Lake Michigan.
Type: Business
Address:
City: Washington DC
State: District of Columbia
Zip: 20500
Country: United States
At least it gives the US a better chance of doing a u-turn on the steep downhill path it recently took. Maybe it was intentional incompetence.
just wow.
The British media also attempted to bury this story several times but couldn't, because it was so big in the USA, and Americans don't take orders from them. The BBC royal coverage has never been anything but propaganda and flattery.
Anyway, the name should be Windsor-Mountbatten, not the other way round (or the string of German names they were anglicised from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Battenberg etc)
This would be comical if it weren’t so serious.
> It was unclear how property material complies with the redaction standard under the law.
In other words, who knows what else was redacted that is unrelated to either the victims or jeopardizing an active federal investigation (are there any related to Epstein? I thought those all got killed, except those ordered by Trump to investigate Democrats of course.)
When do we find out that the nuclear launch codes got changed to "YoureFired!".
We Just Unredacted the Epstein Files
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46364121
I tried to ascertain, but am not certain, this is the original blog source. Maybe they made some prior X posts.
It seems that my novel "razor" is misunderstood. The article attributes bad redacting to gross incompetence. But what if the person having done this bad redacting is instead doing sabotage with plausible deniability "lol, those damn PDF tools, you never know how they work"?
It makes this story more interesting, and it allows one to see an outline of the future film scripts that will be written about this period. The courageous saboteurs at the dawn of american fascism.
I do still think incompetence is more likely to be the explanation. Incompetent redactions are a perennial problem even in much less controversial situations.
copy and paste people, the idiots have taken over
Username: admin
Password: password
More "info": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_conspiracy_theory#Da...
Careful, this will get you labeled an antisemite
Every slide towards authoritarianism is gradual, there is no announcement.