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

441–450 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#441

Post by lazyasciiart »

throw101010 wrote: post #408
throwup238 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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…

> strict ethical standards to not use the information (for what little that may be worth) If it's worth so little to your eyes/comprehension you will have no problem citing a huge count of cases where lawyers do not respect their obligations towards the courts and their clients... That snide remark is used to discredit a profession in passing, but the reason you won't find a lot of examples of this happening is becau…

Well, also the lawyer would have to really badly fuck up for it to become public news that they had actually used the information.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#442

Post by exceptione »

jonnybgood wrote: post #403
vanviegen wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO works by projecting a united force. Nations unconditionally backing each other up. The USA is now clearly no longer a part of that. That's not to say that the USA will do nothing if a NATO member is attacked. It might. Or not.

For much of NATO history, the US is NATO. The US doesn’t want it to be like that anymore because it needs to strategically shift to the other side of the world. So, the US says “What if Europe can be NATO? If we can force them to meet the GDP commitment then maybe we don’t need to worry about them too much and commit less of our own resources to this theater.” But of course people interpret this as if the US is aband…

That is the rationalization, but don't be surprised if the US would not confront China at all.

The main flow of capital in the US had been going to the mil.industry, but that is not the case anymore. It is mainly surveillance tech that is receiving capital. In a very unhealthy economy, this all looks eerily pre-'30s.

The US, right now, is only threatening weak countries, they don't have the industrial power to confront China, nor do they want it. This shouldn't be a surprise, some ideologues behind this maga-project belief in an America from one pole to the other. They believe in "spheres of influence", and as such China has their own sphere of influence. A sphere of influence means a kind of colony, where natural resources, people and industry are all resources to be extracted by them. It is the Russian model, it is the model of criminal mobs, it is might makes right, it is a multi-polar world.

Meanwhile, re-industrialization projects have been scrapped, partners have been scared of, and tariffs have hit the industry that was still left in America.

Monopolists are parasites on the economy, and the US is already very weakened from that. As the Japanese said, the US is still a great power, but the throne is empty. I suspect there will be skirmishes with other "great powers" over exploitable resources like Africa, Middle East, Europe, but I don't expect the current crop to go all-in on China.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#443

Post by potato3732842 »

zerocrates wrote: post #248
brunoqc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because facism favor loyalty over competence.

Arendt: Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.

>Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.

Same reason unions always work hardest when fighting on behalf of the worst workers. If you go to bat for a man who can't do better elsewhere he'll go to bat for you in return.

But wait, the situation is more complicated than that you say? Why yes, that's exactly the point. Two of us can play at the stupid smug oversimplification game.

While the effect being described is real to an extent, distilling it to the point you did is useless because there is so much more nuance. Why assume the place was staffed with first rate talent to begin with? And even if there is a lot of first rate talent many will stick around because they don't care who they serve (people not like this don't tend to make careers in government TBH).

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#444

Post by vanviegen »

jonnybgood wrote: post #403
vanviegen wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO works by projecting a united force. Nations unconditionally backing each other up. The USA is now clearly no longer a part of that. That's not to say that the USA will do nothing if a NATO member is attacked. It might. Or not.

For much of NATO history, the US is NATO. The US doesn’t want it to be like that anymore because it needs to strategically shift to the other side of the world. So, the US says “What if Europe can be NATO? If we can force them to meet the GDP commitment then maybe we don’t need to worry about them too much and commit less of our own resources to this theater.” But of course people interpret this as if the US is aband…

Yes, the US has always been the driving force behind NATO. It provides close to 40% of the combined military personnel, and an even higher portion of military spending.

No longer committing to defend other NATO countries, even if their military spending exceeds the target, is abandoning the alliance though. NATO is little else than that commitment.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#445

Post by ourmandave »

DANmode wrote: post #114
ourmandave wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I could cut-n-paste a bunch of them and you could copy back all the arguments against them, if you want to do that.

Or post a link to a tiresome comment sections where it's been done countless times.

But until 2A is amended there's nothing we can do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#446

Post by jimbo808 »

baby wrote: post #438
heavyset_go wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to believe this is malicious compliance.

Lots of loyalists have replaced people there. It's for sure incompetence.

There are hundreds of thousands of documents being reviewed by probably a thousand or more FBI agents. There is zero chance they are all loyalists.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#447

Post by g947o »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98
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…

"There are major differences between the Trump 1.0 and 2.0 administrations. In the Trump 1.0 administration, many of the most important officials were very competent men. One example would be then-Attorney General William Barr. Barr is contemptible, yes, 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-sca…

It's not fool proof:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/28/23777298/sony-ftc-microso...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#448

Post by g947o »

groestl wrote: post #279
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are major differences between the Trump 1.0 and 2.0 administrations. In the Trump 1.0 administration, many of the most important officials were very competent men. One example would be then-Attorney General William Barr. Barr is contemptible, yes, 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-sca…

> made their redactions with actual ink, and then re-scanned every page That's not very competent. > going analog is foolproof Absolutely not. There are many way's to f this up. Just the smallest variation in places that have been inked twice will reveal the clear text.

Case study: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/28/23777298/sony-ftc-microso...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#449

Post by g947o »

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…

FTC vs Microsoft: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/28/23777298/sony-ftc-microso...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#450

Post by legulere »

heavyset_go wrote: post #215
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…

I want to believe this is malicious compliance.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Post reply on HN