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

751–760 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#751

Post by wisty »

alimw wrote: post #749
wisty wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't group NATO and the US separately. You thought I did, but I didn't and you just hadn't read properly. I waffled a bit in my reply to not rub it in too hard. And do you want to contribute with something other than nitpick or insult? Do YOU think that an informed and intelligent person can conclude that Trump is secretly a Russian agent, given he was the driving force behind a massive hike in NATO spending (whi…

This is what I read in your comment: that Trump "forced NATO to increase military spending to 5% of GDP". Are you talking about the US there? No, tautologically, you are talking about those parts of NATO that Trump forced to increase military spending to 5% of GDP. So what is controversial about my observation that you used the term NATO to stand for a NATO without the US? My point was that by doing so you yourself a…

Yes the US is forced to meet the 5% target, as it is a part of NATO. What is your point?

Trump is the person who demanded the 5% target; Trump forced NATO to adopt a 5% target.

Trump also ordered ICE to deport more illegal / undocumented migrants, does this suggest that ICE is not a part of the US?

Trump forced the US to impose sanctions, does this suggest the US is not a part of the US?

How else would you phrase "Trump forced organisation x to do y"?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#752

Post by Thorrez »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #626
crazygringo wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Yeah, the idea that proves it's fraudulent has been debunked, but the alternative hasn't been proven, either. Nobody has named the specific OCR software that does this destructive replacement. It's a case of "well, there's an alterastive theory, and that's good enough" debunking.

I just took a look at the layers. In some cases, e.g. the 2nd letter in the Local Registrar's signature, a single letter is partially in the background layer, and partially in the upper layer.

This is easily explained by the character separation software being not 100% accurate.

It's not at all explained if someone is fraudulently adding text. Why would someone put half of the character in 1 layer and half of the character in a different layer?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#753

Post by tsunamifury »

quesera wrote: post #748
tsunamifury wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dumb trying to call others dumb. This argument is not just inhumane it’s also wrong. The average of something assumed does not negate a real data point. If you did even bit of data science you’d know that. But just another HNer calling someone dumb while confidently wrong. And ironic calling others dumb because of it. So think on that. Maybe Christmas just leaves the worst on HN … statistically.

A failure of reading comprehension, or a visceral reaction to a generalized statement that pertains to you personally, does not make one dumb. Defending your mistakes doesn't either, but I can understand the confusion. Happy holidays.

Again me thinks the fool speaks of himself.

(You can’t engagement logically technically or even correctly here and keep Spouting others are wrong. Think hard on how poorly you comprehension here is even when explained why you are Wrong.)

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#754

Post by quesera »

tsunamifury wrote: post #753
quesera wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A failure of reading comprehension, or a visceral reaction to a generalized statement that pertains to you personally, does not make one dumb. Defending your mistakes doesn't either, but I can understand the confusion. Happy holidays.

Again me thinks the fool speaks of himself. (You can’t engagement logically technically or even correctly here and keep Spouting others are wrong. Think hard on how poorly you comprehension here is even when explained why you are Wrong.)

I'm struggling to find my error in this thread. Please quote my statement and your points of disagreement.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#755

Post by Arch-TK »

figassis wrote: post #586
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…

I agree, but this would mean that almost anything can’t be called hacking, bc it usually relies on vulnerabilities and implementation defects. If something is poorly encrypted and you retrieve data, you didn’t hack because it wasn’t encrypted to begin with. That can’t be the standard.

There is a line, it is fuzzy, but if all you did was find something which was there for anyone to find, I would place that firmly on the not hacking side. If it was rot 13 I would put that marginally closer to hacking than this.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#756

Post by tsunamifury »

quesera wrote: post #754
tsunamifury wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again me thinks the fool speaks of himself. (You can’t engagement logically technically or even correctly here and keep Spouting others are wrong. Think hard on how poorly you comprehension here is even when explained why you are Wrong.)

I'm struggling to find my error in this thread. Please quote my statement and your points of disagreement.

Continuous circling is tiresome troll. Just stop.

Points have been illustrated contradicting the statement. No points have been made supporting it.

Your argument boils down to “all x is bad is valid by default and all Ys that contradict are inherently ‘statistically invalid’”. Do you not get how horribly dumb your logic is?

By this logic I could state all HNErs posting on Christmas are idiots and wrong by default. This of course can’t by contradicted by any statement you make because you are just a data point of one and therefore invalid. Also the original point is supported with exactly 0 data points so in actuality data point of 1 > 0. So my guy. Jesus. Learn stats. Or anything.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#757

Post by quesera »

tsunamifury wrote: post #756
quesera wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm struggling to find my error in this thread. Please quote my statement and your points of disagreement.

Continuous circling is tiresome troll. Just stop. Points have been illustrated contradicting the statement. No points have been made supporting it. Your argument boils down to “all x is bad is valid by default and all Ys that contradict are inherently ‘statistically invalid’”. Do you not get how horribly dumb your logic is? By this logic I could state all HNErs posting on Christmas are idiots and wrong by default. Th…

Are we agreeing that neither of us can find my error in this thread?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#758

Post by jm4 »

wildzzz wrote: post #744
jm4 wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It often comes down to not using the right software and training issues. They have to use Acrobat, which has a redaction tool. This is expensive so some places cheap out on other tools that don’t have a real redaction feature. They highlight with black and think it does the same thing whereas the redaction tool completely removes the content and any associated metadata from the document. This was basically the only r…

If my law firm can't afford the $20/month for a copy of Acrobat Pro, I'd be very concerned what else they are cutting corners on.

Law firms are notoriously behind in tech. I’ve seen some shit. A small firm running on the owner’s personal Dropbox account with client matter files stored alongside his porn collection, ancient, unsupported software, unpatched systems, basically zero information security, servers in a bathroom and network switches in a shower, a literal hoarder with garbage and shit in the office, etc. The Dropbox guy was basically a giant in his practice area. Very successful. You have no idea how bad things are behind the scenes.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#759

Post by exasperaited »

rayiner wrote: post #750
exasperaited wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Iran-Contra is a perfect example. How did that advance conservative principles? Whether Nicaragua is communist doesn’t affect anyone in America. Precisely because it has no consequences domestically, you won’t get disinvited from Georgetown parties for trying to overthrow Latin American governments. In fact, there’s an upside for liberals in such policies. The resulting chaos facilitated mass migration and cultural t…

This is… an insane argument. But just the idea that Bill Barr gives a shit what liberals think makes me laugh.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#760

Post by WackyFighter »

bena wrote: post #597
rkagerer wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never trust a lawyer with a redact tool any more complicated than a marker. I've seen lawyers at major, high-priced law firms make this same mistake. Once it was a huge list of individuals names and bank account balances. Fortunately I was able to intervene just before the uploaded documents were made public. Folks around here blame incompetence, but I say the frequency of this kind of cock-up is crystal clear teleme…

I think it's part laziness here. Placing a black rectangle on a PDF is easier than modifying an image or removing text from that same PDF.

It is more likely they have no conceptual understanding that the PDF is a file format. They likely assume that whatever is shown in the interface is what is exported.
Post reply on HN