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

351–360 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#351

Post by ycombigrator »

yetihehe wrote: post #291
agentifysh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's absolutely bewildering how ridiculous everything has been so far in terms of competence and this really takes the cherry on the top near Christmas too. how much lower can they go ?!

USA is still very high, so they can go much much lower, but I think they might go to some still lower places, finding them where we didn't even know such places could exist. Some ideas: - Leave NATO - Start openly supporting Russia and North Korea - Arrest whole International Criminal Court - Preventively invade China

Trump is a born banana Republic dictator...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#352

Post by left-struck »

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.

Hacking is any use of a technology in a way that it wasn’t intended. The redaction is so stupid as to almost appear intentional, so maybe you’re right, this isn’t hacking because maybe the information was intended to be discovered.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#353

Post by RamRodification »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #322
RamRodification wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking I understand what's going on but then I came to the image showing the diff and I don't understand at all how that diff can unredact anything.

It's not that you can unredact them from scratch (you could never get the blue circle back from this software). It's that you can tell which of the redacted images is which of the origin images. Investigative teams often find themselves in a situation where they have all four images, but need to work out which redacted files are which of the origins. Take for example, where headed paper is otherwise entirely redacted…

Ok thanks. That sounds reasonable.

>... and therefore you can unredact them

from that readme is just not true then I guess?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#355

Post by TacticalCoder »

OneMorePerson wrote: post #231

It's funny seeing this play out because in my personal life anytime I'm sharing a sensitive document where someone needs to see part of it but I don't want them to see the rest that's not relevant, I'll first block out/redact the text I don't want them to see (covering it, using a redacting highlighter thing, etc.), and then I'll screenshot the page and make that image a PDF. I always felt paranoid (without any real…

I then convert the image to grayscale only. Then I apply a filter so that only 16 colors are used. And I then adjust brightness/contrast so that "white is really white". It's all scripted: "screenshot to PDF". One of my oldest shell script.

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.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#356

Post by left-struck »

TOMDM wrote: post #116
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If someone sends me a document with text in it that they meant to remove but didn't and then I read that text, I haven't hacked anything they're just incompetent. Hacking is unauthorised use of a system. Reading a document that was not adequately redacted can hardly be considered hacking.

Hacking is not just authorised use of a system. Hacking and hacking techniques can apply to systems you fully own or systems which you are authorised to hack. Hacking is using something in a way that the designer didn’t anticipate or intend on.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#358

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #296
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #289

"hacks" lol. Next, ctl+alt+del and it's equivalents are gonna be called arcane theurgy

Hacks don’t have to be pretty — if it works it works. Here’s my “hack” to get into many school computer systems: Username: admin Password: password

it's even less impressive; somebody left the credentials typed into the text boxes and went to get a slimfast out of the staff breakroom and you walked into the computer lab and hit enter.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#360

Post by watwut »

ourmandave wrote: post #95
andsoitis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you truly believe the US is currently a dictatorship?

The pendulum swings. It always does. And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition. 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.

> And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition.

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.

Post reply on HN