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

611–620 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#611

Post by relic »

blitzar wrote: post #484
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…

Furthermore, this happens so often, so frequently, in so many high profile cases that even my 80 year old mother knows this "secret hack to unredact a pdf". If you are CIA / FBI / Court / Lawyer or professional full time redactor of documents you should know that the highlighter doesn't delete the text underneath it.

I think the more likely cause was precisely that it wasn't a technical professional/lawyer/writer doing the redacting, but someone in the administration or close to it that has no idea how to redact information correctly.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#612

Post by Melatonic »

streetnoodles wrote: post #576
skeltoac wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalist is not necessarily responsible for the title. Editors often change those and they don’t need to get the approval of the journalist. The editor knows what they are doing and that it will irk some tech folks.

I seriously doubt the journalist doesn’t understand exactly how this “hack” worked too. Right in the first paragraph, “simply highlighting text to paste into a word processing file.” A lot of people in the thread here are calling them a non-technical English major who doesn’t understand the technology. Word processors also happen to be the tools of their trade, I am sure they understand features of Word better than m…

Agreed - not sure why so many are being so critical here. They probably didn't write the title and for better or worse "hack" has now become a common word casually used by many to mean "workflow trick" or similar.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#613

Post by pstuart »

kristofferR wrote: post #315
culi wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my initial reaction to this news. I mean think about it The Trump team knows that nobody is gonna buy whatever they put out as being the full story. Isn't this just the perfect way to make people feel like they got something they weren't supposed to see? They can increase trust in the output without having to increase trust in the source of it And as far as I've heard there hasn't been anything "unredacted"…

No, it's the opposite, it's fairly damaging. Previously they could claim, dubiously but plausible, that all redactions were about protecting victims (the only redactions allowed under the act). A lot of the "undone redactions" are solely about protecting the abusers, illegal under the law. Whether breaking a law actually matters anymore is another question though, as crime is legal now.

> as crime is legal now

If they do it, it's not a crime.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#614

Post by tsunamifury »

quesera wrote: post #608
tsunamifury wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. I was a journalist for many years. I went to UC Berkeley. I likely currently have a far better paying job than you and have invented technical concepts that founded the LLM. Me thinks the fool speaks of himself.

If you had a better understanding of math and science, you'd know the difference between the concepts of "one" and "statistically meaningful".

It’s worth pointing out one contradiction to someone who passes such vast and foolish judgement.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#615

Post by flufluflufluffy »

silveira wrote: post #526
kungito wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They failed to redact data. That's it. People just read the files afterwards, only formatting was wierd.

If you unlock a lock, that's still a lock. Also, in light of everything that is happening, is incredible that the top comment on this thread is about some minor semantic definitions.

Yeah but there was no lock; somebody put a box around the doorknob without anything holding it there, and somebody removed the box and opened the door.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#616

Post by sallveburrpi »

EGreg wrote: post #607
sallveburrpi wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could easily replace them with an LLM if that were the case. Although I don’t completely disagree with your cynical take I don’t think that’s actually the case for most of the Guardians journalists, they do a lot of quality reporting too

Um - and not just journalists. Most “bullshit jobs” are already being replaced. The era of bullshit jobs is coming to an end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

I wish it was true. From the bullshit jobs in the book, I can only see the box tickers being replaced. The flunkies, goons, task masters, and duct tapers will probably continue to exist.

Als unless we come up with something like UBI or a dramatic rethinking of how capitalism works in our society there will probably be __more__ bullshit jobs.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#617

Post by creata »

metabagel wrote: post #603
maxerickson wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tool in Acrobat is exactly placing black rectangles on stuff. There's a second step you are supposed to do when you are finishing marking the redactions that edits out the content underneath them, and offers to sanitize other hidden data: https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/resources/how-to-redact-a-pdf.... That failed redactions happen over and over and over is kind of amazing.

I hope you're not blaming the users. It's understandable they would be confused. The software needs to clarify it for the user. Perhaps, when you try to save it, it should warn you that it looks like you tried to redact text, and that text is still embedded in the document and could be extracted. And then direct you to more information on how to complete the redaction.

The software could do better, sure, but in this case the accountability clearly falls on the lawyers. It's their job - and it's a job that can profoundly impact people's lives, so they need to take it seriously - to redact information properly.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#618

Post by ErroneousBosh »

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

Out of a thousand people? Where they probably have an email from a PHB that says something like "put a black box over all references to <this list of things?"?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#619

Post by oblio »

tsunamifury wrote: post #592
pwg wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most journalists are ex. English majors (or some other non-technical degree). I would not expect any (even the supposed tech. journalists) to understand the technology they report upon to the level that us here on HN understand that same technology. Their job is to write coherent articles that gather views, not truly understand what it is they are writing about. That's why the Gell-Mann Amnesia [1] aspect so often cr…

I’m my experience most posters on HN are don’t under technology either. So they both don’t understand people or technology putting them two steps behind a journalist.

You don't need to defend your entire field.

Journalists are people, like everyone else, and most people are bad at their jobs.

Plus, what even is the job? For most journalists out there, it's just writing something that draws ad impressions and clicks.

The percentage of journalists that work for outlets where the content itself is the cash source is very small (NYTimes, probably a bunch of other paid subscriptions). And even the NYTimes isn't above clickbait.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#620

Post by flufluflufluffy »

left-struck wrote: post #356
TOMDM wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you telling me when I stick my pen up my nose I’m hacking it?
Post reply on HN