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

171–180 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#171

Post by jdadj »

throwup238 wrote: post #45
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…

> - 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. 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…

> 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?

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#172

Post by cryptoegorophy »

There is a book by Richard Dawkins- I am me I am free or something like that, and it has a main picture of Richard standing naked and having a private part being covered by black rectangle but somehow my laptop back then was slow and when you scrolled it would temporary remove the square for a split second

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#173

Post by pppppiiiiiuuuuu »

cyberax wrote: post #166
DANmode wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell us more about the sane (“common sense”?) gun laws! I love these.

I'd love to limit the semi-auto rifles like the infamous AR-15. Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense. In exchange for country-wide reciprocity for concealed carry and firearm transportation.

> Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#174

Post by eviks »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #161
eviks wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also had this first thought, but then a hack could just be a way around a limit/lack of authorization, doesn't have to be unknown/sophisticated, so copy of black boxes fits

> limit/lack of authorization 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…

That's not true, you can mistakenly receive data you're not authorized to have (might even be criminal to have!)

> 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 "

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#175

Post by nothrabannosir »

bdangubic wrote: post #163
nothrabannosir wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is there a single thing “President” cannot do right now 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 a…

we are 11 months in, please be patient while the process is taking place, be right with you with your list :) lots of these are of course also just a distraction to discuss at Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner vs you know, other things

You said "right now". If you want to change to "will be able to do in the near future, before the end of his second term", that's a (slightly?) different list. But it's also a different comment.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#176

Post by cyberax »

pppppiiiiiuuuuu wrote: post #173
cyberax wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to limit the semi-auto rifles like the infamous AR-15. Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense. In exchange for country-wide reciprocity for concealed carry and firearm transportation.

> Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense. 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.

> I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for inference people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#177

Post by gjm11 »

cryptoegorophy wrote: post #172

There is a book by Richard Dawkins- I am me I am free or something like that, and it has a main picture of Richard standing naked and having a private part being covered by black rectangle but somehow my laptop back then was slow and when you scrolled it would temporary remove the square for a split second

Are you sure? I can't find any trace of any book by Richard Dawkins with a title much like that, and that doesn't seem like a very on-brand sort of cover pic for a book by him, and an image search for "Richard Dawkins book cover" doesn't turn up anything like it.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#178

Post by DrJokepu »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #107
digitaltrees wrote: post #106

Its not a hack to copy and paste text that is part of the document data. The incompetence of the people responsible to comply with the law doesnt mean its reasonable to label something a hack. Please change the title.

If I open your laptop and guess your password then that counts as hacking you in both legal and security terms You don't need to do some sophisticated thing for it to be considered hacking

I’m not an attorney or anything, but the relevant federal statute is explicitly about unauthorized access of computer systems (18 USC 1030).

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#179

Post by awesome_dude »

eviks wrote: post #162
plantain wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>exactly what "stupid" people do when their are somewhat aware of the limits of their competence Being aware of one's limitations is the strongest hallmark of intelligence I've come across...

So following that strange logic if a dumb person knows he's dumb, he's suddenly become intelligent? Or is that impossible by your peculiar definition of intelligence?

Knowing your limits has to be a sign of intelligence.

"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...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#180

Post by HKH2 »

eviks wrote: post #162
plantain wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>exactly what "stupid" people do when their are somewhat aware of the limits of their competence Being aware of one's limitations is the strongest hallmark of intelligence I've come across...

So following that strange logic if a dumb person knows he's dumb, he's suddenly become intelligent? Or is that impossible by your peculiar definition of intelligence?

Yeah that sounds like wisdom, not intelligence.
Post reply on HN