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

641–650 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#641

Post by mjevans »

calgoo wrote: post #500
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're likely viewing the electronic documents by analogy to photocopies with blacked out sections where there is nothing to distinguish the text from the redacting marks and nothing you can project out. They don't know the structure of the file format and how information in it is encoded or rendered, or even that there is a distinction between encoding and rendering. (A better analogy might be the original physical…

To complicated, the people doing the redacting pasted digital stickers ontop of the text, people are just removing the stickers.

File formats are complicated. The only reliable way to redact is to reduce that complication to one which humans can manage. This is even true for software that is written by humans.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#642

Post by kayodelycaon »

__alexs wrote: post #367
cmarschner wrote: post #14

Befuddling that this happened again. It’s not the first time - 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 remov…

This has happened so many times I feel like the DoJ must have some sort of standardised redaction pipeline to prevent it by now. Assuming they do, why wasn't it used?

They probably fired that department.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#643

Post by raincole »

vincengomes wrote: post #134

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoleon Bonaparte Let all the files get released first. Then show your hacks.

The whole thing is just too suspicious. Too good to be true. What's the chance of this being some 4D chess where the government has already edited the files, and then presented them as redacted so the "unredacted (but edited)" version looks more genuine?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#644

Post by FeteCommuniste »

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”.

I'd call it a "workaround," which has less connotation of technical cleverness (or malice) than "hack."

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#646

Post by rtkwe »

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

This happens too regularly across both minor and major issues for me to think this is entirely redactors intentionally messing up. It's just a lot of people being pulled on to the job and not all of them are competent. Maybe some of it is intentional but not all of it I'm certain.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#647

Post by tomjakubowski »

SilasX wrote: post #508
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…

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 edi…

Using view-source to accomplish something could be considered hacking in the old school MIT sense* of curious exploration of some place or thing for clever purposes.

*: disclaimer, I didn't attend MIT, but did hang out with greybeards on 90s IRC

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#648

Post by mbesto »

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

> I assume they have records who redacted which documents

(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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#649

Post by bird0861 »

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…

Typical quality of The Guardian unfortunately. Don't read their energy reporting if you're at all literate about any of those topics. Any time they do a story on fusion I just about have an embolism.
Post reply on HN