621–630 of 810 posts
Doesn't sound like much interesting was found otherwise that'd be what's making all the headlines... Everything in that article is pretty much what I'd expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But copying and pasting text of publicly released documents is not illegal. Accessing someone’s computer is illegal. While maybe it could fall under the umbrella of hacking in some general way, articles, and especially titles, should be more precise.
That actually is illegal in some circumstances, for example if the document is protected by copyright.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Obviously, "who becomes a journalist in this age" does not translate to "every person who is alive now who has ever been a journalist".
I'm not sure if your error lies in parsing colloquial English, or in basic statistics. Either way, I think you have fully illustrated the commenter's point.
Journalists are not reliably selected for, or demonstrative of, comprehension or accuracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention when the White House published Obama's birth certificate as a PDF. I remember being able to open it and turn the different layers off and on.
Are you trying to suggest that indicated it was fraudulent? That has very much been debunked -- it's just an artifact of OCR and compression, something that many scanners do automatically [1]. You can still open it with Illustrator if you want to see: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss... [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/birth-certificate/
is there an overview page somewhere just about what was redacted?
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…