No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: undefined
#2HN submission title doesn't match the linked article, which... is just a dump of PDF metadata and doesn't make any interesting claims or conclusions.
Re: undefined
#3HN submission title doesn't match the linked article, which... is just a dump of PDF metadata and doesn't make any interesting claims or conclusions.
> We stand by our analysis; DoJ has correctly redacted the EFTA PDFs in Datasets 01-07, and they do not contain recoverable text as alleged.
> In the few reports we investigated, these stories misrepresent other DoJ files that were not part of the major DataSets 01-07 release on December 19 under the EFTA.
> These PDFs, previously released by the DoJ, do contain incorrect and ineffective redactions, with black boxes that simply obscure text, making “copy & paste” easy to recover the text that's otherwise hidden.
To me that’s interesting
Re: undefined
#4HN submission title doesn't match the linked article, which... is just a dump of PDF metadata and doesn't make any interesting claims or conclusions.
> We stand by our analysis; DoJ has correctly redacted the EFTA PDFs in Datasets 01-07, and they do not contain recoverable text as alleged. > In the few reports we investigated, these stories misrepresent other DoJ files that were not part of the major DataSets 01-07 release on December 19 under the EFTA. > These PDFs, previously released by the DoJ, do contain incorrect and ineffective redactions, with black boxes…
Most articles related to the recoverable test made it clear that it only applied to a subset of files. This isn’t new or interesting information.
Re: undefined
#5[deleted]