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

181–190 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#181

Post by pppppiiiiiuuuuu »

cyberax wrote: post #176
pppppiiiiiuuuuu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

The domestic violence thing was about a potential gun regulation, not a scenario. People with domestic violence convictions are overrepresented among murderers and mass shooters. So it would make sense to prevent them from obtaining guns.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#182

Post by herewulf »

eviks wrote: post #157
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this type of redaction eliminates the possibility to change text length 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…

> This is the only weakness of Barr's method. 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 the…

Reading through material in context and actively removing the telling bits seems very focused to me.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#186

Post by sneak »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #112
dragonwriter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's different from a dictatorship, 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.

> Its exactly equivalent to a dictatorship by the head of the CIA No it's not. I can commit all manner of illegal acts in my home unnoticed, that doesn't make me a dictator.

The CIA ran torture prisons, got caught, then there was a congressional inquiry, and they hacked into the computers of the congresspeople to delete the evidence of torture.

Then they got caught hacking congressional computers to delete evidence.

Nothing happened to them.

They are above the law. You are not.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#187

Post by mapontosevenths »

plantain wrote: post #136
eviks wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but smart AF. When Barr’s DOJ released a redacted version of the Mueller Report, they printed the whole thing, made their redactions with actual ink, and then re-scanned every page to generate a new PDF with absolutely no digital trace of the original PDF file. 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 te…

>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...

I'm not so sure it's about knowing his own limitations, rather it's about building a reliable process and trusting that process more than either technology or people.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#188

Post by jibal »

bdangubic wrote: post #167
jibal wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"rare setback"

it is not a setback, they have to play a little game now and again to entertain the masses. scotus as it was before doesn’t exist anymore and won’t for decades, it now just rubberstamps

I quoted the media. The main point in this context is the "rare" part. I'm well aware of the nature of the GOP operatives on the SCOTUS. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all voted in Trump's favor. That Beerhead, Ms. IDreamOfGilead, and "Citizens United/I hate the VRA/worst chief justice since Taney" voted to temporarily uphold the stay actually surprised me (Bart O' said he would have given Trump more leeway) but yes, it's theater.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#189

Post by Sceptre6 »

echelon wrote: post #88
tim333 wrote: post #24

It's quite funny really. Apparently you just cut and paste the text into Word. They just had the pdf put black rectangles on top.

Why reveal the trick before all the papers have been released?

I don't think there is a grand conspiracy here. Any schmoe can download these files, select with their mouse, and copy paste into a document.
Post reply on HN