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

801–810 of 810 posts

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#801

Post by phendrenad2 »

crazygringo wrote: post #798
phendrenad2 wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that I'm saying that there are no pixels in the document? Like, do you think that I think that scanners have come to operate on pure platonic forms and no longer use the concept of pixels? That would be really cool, wouldn't it. But no, I don't believe that. Hm. Where did this conversation go wrong. I think I was unclear in my last statement. I have yet to see someone show the original scribbles or ink…

> Are you saying that I'm saying that there are no pixels in the document? I genuinely don't know what you're saying. > Like, do you think that I think that scanners have come to operate on pure platonic forms and no longer use the concept of pixels? That would be really cool, wouldn't it. Yes, because that is absolutely a thing. That's what Adobe ClearScan does, converting pixels to smooth vector outlines. Zoom in,…

I'm starting to understand where this conversation diverged. I'm coming from a place of having read the Snopes page and watched the videos linked there. I think understanding where I'm at, is a good place to start trying to explain it to me. To put it more clearly, at this point I've seen a video that seems to show that the PDF has a collection of layers, some contain text and one contains the page below. Now, it seems like you were saying that the text layers are just the pixels from the page moved up to a new layer. I said that I think that's surprising. Then we got caught up on the meaning of the words "original pixels". I probably should have said: a full buffer of pixels from the CCD sensor, perhaps with resolution reduction or compression, but nothing moved to new layers (whether that's normally considered "destructive" or not is another issue).

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#802

Post by rkagerer »

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.

I hope you're not blaming the users.

If software developers designed hammers, you'd have to twist the handle before each swing to switch from tack to nail mode. And the two heads would be indistinguishable from each other.

If business MBA's designed them, you'd wind up with the SaaSy Claw 9000, free for the first month then $9.95 in recurring subscription fees, and compatible only with on-brand nails that each have a different little ad imprinted on the head.

But it doesn't matter, because by the end of the year all construction will be vibe-built from a single prompt to Clawde.ai, which will pound non-stop, burning through $1T of investor funds, and confidently hallucinate 70% of the nails until the roof collapses on the datacenter destroying the machine and civilization along with it, and a post-singularity survivor picks up a rock and looks calculatingly at a pointy shard of metal...

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#803

Post by tsunamifury »

oblio wrote: post #619
tsunamifury wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

This is the must up your own ass HN comment I’ve ever seen.

“People are People and therefore dumber than HN tech master race”

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#804

Post by m463 »

rkagerer wrote: post #537
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…

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…

> Never trust a lawyer with a redact tool any more complicated than a marker.

there's white-out on my monitor.

> ...frequency of this kind of ...

sometimes I wonder if it is plausible deniability. Like people don't WANT to cover this up and do it in a certain way.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#805

Post by tremon »

zrobotics wrote: post #732
tremon wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the user generally doesn't have a functioning mental model of what's actually going on Sorry, but a professional user not having an operational understanding of the tools they're working with is called culpable negligence in any other profession. A home user not knowing how MS Word works is fine, but we're talking desk clerks whose primary task is document management, and lawyers who were explicit…

I don't expect radiologists to have a good understanding of the software involved in the control loops for the equipment they operate. Why should a lawyer have to have a mental model or even understand how the pdf rendering engine works? Have you ever had to actually react a document in acrobat pro? It's way more fiddly and easy to screw up than one would expect. Im not saying professionals shouldn't learn how to use…

if a plane keeps crashing due to the same failure we don't blame the pilot

That's true, we blame the manufacturer and demand that they fix their product under threat of withdrawing the airworthiness certification. So where's the demand for Adobe to fix its software, under pain of losing their cash cow?

Yet, people here are arguing that it is perfectly OK that professionals keep working with tools that are apparently widely known to be inappropriate for their task. Why should we not blame the lawyers that authorized the use of inappropriate tooling for such a sensitive task as legal redaction of documents?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#806

Post by left-struck »

flufluflufluffy wrote: post #620
left-struck wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would call that a hack, not a good one though.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#807

Post by crazygringo »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #801
crazygringo wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that I'm saying that there are no pixels in the document? I genuinely don't know what you're saying. > Like, do you think that I think that scanners have come to operate on pure platonic forms and no longer use the concept of pixels? That would be really cool, wouldn't it. Yes, because that is absolutely a thing. That's what Adobe ClearScan does, converting pixels to smooth vector outlines. Zoom in,…

I'm starting to understand where this conversation diverged. I'm coming from a place of having read the Snopes page and watched the videos linked there. I think understanding where I'm at, is a good place to start trying to explain it to me. To put it more clearly, at this point I've seen a video that seems to show that the PDF has a collection of layers, some contain text and one contains the page below. Now, it see…

OK, well hopefully you understand now! This part is key:

> Now, it seems like you were saying that the text layers are just the pixels from the page moved up to a new layer. I said that I think that's surprising.

That's indeed all it is. It may be surprising, but that's how it works. Absolutely nothing about the pixels are changed as part of the process of that text layer separation. Later when saving the final PDF there's normal lossy compression, same as any JPEG, but the layer process actually preserves the text edges better than JPEG.

So I do hope you're satisfied now that everything about this is just normal image processing, and that nothing has been destroyed, there's no "missing evidence" or anything. And that the whole idea that the layers imply some kind of manipulation or forgery is false. What you're seeing is just the scan itself, saved (presumably) at a lower resolution and with the normal image compression scanners produce. The layer separation process is completely non-destructive and doesn't manipulate pixels at all.

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#808

Post by chiefalchemist »

yfw wrote: post #783
chiefalchemist wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is to be expected from an effort like DOGE simply because the E is for Efficiency. That is, how well a system is performing. The ratio of energy input to output. Unfortunately the E in DOGE should have been for Effectiveness. That is, is the system shooting at the right target, and how close is it to hitting that target. You can be very efficient but if you’re doing the wrong thing(s) you’re ultimately wasting r…

Or it a scam run by someone who wants to get access the social security info on americans. We are in trouble if you think the acronym is the biggest issue

I was speaking to the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. DOGE is simply the current best example.

Putting the obvious aside, sure, it’s Trump’s fault the system was so mismanaged that he’s been able to get elected. Twice. You’d think that after the first term the system would have gotten the message. It did not.

My recommendation to you is ask: How did we get here? And who is accountable for this?

There’s a very good chance those giving you your current narrative marching orders are on that list. Funny, right? Why own their failure when they can convince fools to blame a symptom?

Re: Some Epstein file redactions are being undone

#810

Post by darepublic »

rkagerer wrote: post #802
metabagel wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope you're not blaming the users. If software developers designed hammers, you'd have to twist the handle before each swing to switch from tack to nail mode. And the two heads would be indistinguishable from each other. If business MBA's designed them, you'd wind up with the SaaSy Claw 9000, free for the first month then $9.95 in recurring subscription fees, and compatible only with on-brand nails that each have a…

JIT dual hardware and software design and manifestation
Post reply on HN