Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#501

Post by pwg »

skeltoac wrote: post #495
pwg wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the…

The journalist is not necessarily responsible for the title. Editors often change those and they don’t need to get the approval of the journalist. The editor knows what they are doing and that it will irk some tech folks.

As far as creating a click bait title, yep, the editor knows what they are doing, and most likely picked the word for the click bait factor.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#502

Post by stingraycharles »

sallveburrpi wrote: post #494
stingraycharles wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like to think this was maybe done as a form of malicious compliance. Someone inside the agency was tasked with redacting this, and found a way to sneak the information through but still getting it passed by their supervisors, so that the information got out.

To me this is the only explanation that makes sense. However wouldn’t they risk repercussions when this is inevitably found out? I assume they have records who redacted which documents

Yes they may get fired, but it will be difficult to prove intent and very easy to claim incompetence.

So I don’t think there will be jail time if that’s what you’re referring to.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#503

Post by kiba »

sallveburrpi wrote: post #493
pwg wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the…

I would consider it gross negligence on the journalists part to not know the technical details here. 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.

To us, it's a life skill. To a non-technical person, it's black magic.

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".

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#504

Post by DerArzt »

sallveburrpi wrote: post #494
stingraycharles wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like to think this was maybe done as a form of malicious compliance. Someone inside the agency was tasked with redacting this, and found a way to sneak the information through but still getting it passed by their supervisors, so that the information got out.

To me this is the only explanation that makes sense. However wouldn’t they risk repercussions when this is inevitably found out? I assume they have records who redacted which documents

Some peopledo things acknowledging that there may be backlash for an action when they feel it's the right thing to do.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#505

Post by pixl97 »

sallveburrpi wrote: post #493
pwg wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the…

I would consider it gross negligence on the journalists part to not know the technical details here. 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.

>How someone like this gets a paying job as a journalist is beyond me.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#506

Post by seg_lol »

pwg wrote: post #475
Arch-TK wrote: post #462

It sets a bad precedent to call things like this hacks. 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 dis…

The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the…

> The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge ...

You are supposing. The article doesn't read like that at all. Your post smells of exceptional tech elitism.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#507

Post by seg_lol »

stingraycharles wrote: post #502
sallveburrpi wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this is the only explanation that makes sense. However wouldn’t they risk repercussions when this is inevitably found out? I assume they have records who redacted which documents

Yes they may get fired, but it will be difficult to prove intent and very easy to claim incompetence. So I don’t think there will be jail time if that’s what you’re referring to.

The mal-redacted file actually points to a crime itself of redacting things it shouldn't have.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#508

Post by SilasX »

pwg wrote: post #475
Arch-TK wrote: post #462

It sets a bad precedent to call things like this hacks. 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 dis…

The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the…

This. Similar issue if you introduce someone to how you can "view source" and then edit (your view of) a website. They're like "omg haxors!"

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!

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#509

Post by epolanski »

afavour wrote: post #472
Arch-TK wrote: post #462

It sets a bad precedent to call things like this hacks. 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 dis…

You’re absolutely correct but I think your comment also highlights something important: we don’t have a good word to represent what it is Unfortunately “hack” became a catch all word long ago. Just look at “life hacks”.

Just like my friends and family call everything AI now.

Special effects in movies? AI

Some edited photo? AI

Illustration for advertising? AI

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#510

Post by GuB-42 »

Arch-TK wrote: post #462

It sets a bad precedent to call things like this hacks. 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 dis…

The funny part is that people with screen readers may have gone through the redaction without realizing it.
Post reply on HN