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

651–660 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#651

Post by dspillett »

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…

> It sets a bad precedent to call things like this hacks.

That ship sailed a long time ago. The “phone hacking scandal” in ~2010¹ was mostly calling answering services that didn't have pins or other authorisation checks set.

These days any old trick gets called a hack, heck tying your shoelaces might get called a miraculous footwear securing hack.

--------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#652

Post by exasperaited »

rayiner wrote: post #578
exasperaited wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Had exactly did Barr and Co. accomplish in terms of moving forward the agenda people voted for? These guys were so eager to win accolades from liberals they couldn’t even pick the lowest hanging fruit. Are you talking about the same Bill Barr? "Eager to win accolades from liberals" is a hilariously Trump-after-he-fired-someone thing to say. Have you read his Wikipedia page? Do you know who he actually is?

I'm not talking about paper credentials, I'm talking about accomplishments. 90% of lawyers in DC are liberals. Conservative lawyers can get credit for being "one of the good ones" so long as they don't attack the core tenants of liberal universalism or advance conservative social change in any meaningful way.[1] Obama's DOJ did stuff like go after Catholic nuns to make them offer birth control, to vindicate liberal p…

So you haven't read his Wikipedia page then, and you are too young, I guess, to remember Iran-Contra. You apparently don't even remember how Barr got the job from Trump.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#653

Post by njharman »

sallveburrpi wrote: post #493
pwg wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the…

I would consider it gross negligence on the journalists part to not know the technical details here. It’s really not that hard; as someone else on this thread pointed out even my grandma knows this… You can find out the technical details in one quick search. How someone like this gets a paying job as a journalist is beyond me.

Journalists report, they don't analyze.

The error is consumers believing journalist news is anything but uninformed, hot take heresy; spun in the most sensationalistic way.

They are hired to get eyeballs for advertisers. Not to be accurate, thorough truthful, or unbiased.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#654

Post by [deleted] »

GistNoesis wrote: post #278
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…

If it's not done properly, and you happen at any point in the chain to put black blocks on a compressed image (and PDF do compress internal images), you are leaking some bits of information in the shadow casted by the compression algorithm : (Self-plug : https://github.com/unrealwill/jpguncrop )

[deleted]

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#655

Post by dspillett »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #570
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…

It does seem to raise the risk that someone would be prosecuted for DMCA violation if we refer to it that way.

That is a very low bar. If methane's chemical representation was present in a DVD key, you could be done for DMCA violation every time you fart.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#656

Post by FeteCommuniste »

GuB-42 wrote: post #510
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…

The funny part is that people with screen readers may have gone through the redaction without realizing it.

That is pretty funny. All it takes to be a hacker is to use assistive software.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#657

Post by badgersnake »

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…

Talk about missing the point. It’s almost like you’re trying to deflect the audience.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#658

Post by fallingfrog »

My favorite excerpt so far:

Case ID #: 50D-NY-302757

Witness Information

First Name: Donald

Middle Name:

Last Name: Trump

Age: 70

DOB:

Additional Info: Again, just trying to find out the NYPD detective on the FBI sex trafficking task force that called me a couple of weeks ago and spoke to me about some of these issues.

How is Contact Known: He participated regularly in paying money to force me to ‐----- with him and he was present when my uncle murdered my newborn child and disposed of the body in Lake Michigan.

Type: Business

Address:

City: Washington DC

State: District of Columbia

Zip: 20500

Country: United States

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#659

Post by OneMorePerson »

GistNoesis wrote: post #278
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…

If it's not done properly, and you happen at any point in the chain to put black blocks on a compressed image (and PDF do compress internal images), you are leaking some bits of information in the shadow casted by the compression algorithm : (Self-plug : https://github.com/unrealwill/jpguncrop )

I'm trying to understand this cause it sounds fascinating but I don't get it. I don't have an advanced understanding of compression so that might be part of why.

If you compare an image to another image, you could guess by compression what is under the blocked part, that makes some sense to me conceptually, what I don't get is for the PDF specifically why does it compressing the black boxes I put have any risk? It's compressing the internal image which is just the black box part? Or are you saying the whole screenshot is an internal image?

Post reply on HN