Slashdot Mirror
Memory Hole Un-Redacts Redacted DOJ Memo
DrDNA writes "After a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Justice Department released a study on workplace diversity. However, nearly half of the memo was blacked-out. In what was apparently an incredible goof, it was posted in a PDF format called Image+Text. The folks at The Memory Hole simply removed the image, revealing the redacted text. The redacted text was highly critical of the DOJ's diversity efforts, as the New York Times reports." Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.
If I had information that I didn't want the public to see I would have at least made sure that the information was not accessible by someone who is using a hex editor. I made a PDA program for myself that stored passwords I had for various websites (when you have a different one for each site, it sometimes gets a little hard to keep track of them in your head). However, before I actually started using it, I looked at the binary image of the record or the PDA that was being created. Well, it turned out that the mechanism for "securely" storing the information was just making it inaccessible through the API. In the end, I had to write my own storage mechanism using a standard encryption technique. The moral of this story is, just because you can't get to it doesn't mean it's not there for someone to find.
Of course the people/person at The Memory Hole will be labeled as a hacker/pirate/terrorist by the justice department.
On the whole measuring diversity is pointless.
The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it. Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).
Beep beep.
I think it is most interesting to see what the government has decided shouldn't be revealed to the public. Classified sources? Nope. National Security threat? Nope. Poor HR? Yes. Discrimination within the government? Yes.
Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration.
Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The act is supposed to protect us against abuse from the government, yet it gives the government full power to remove whatever parts they see fit. Who does the editing? A neutral party? I don't think so.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Am I the only person who feels such actions are an atrocity, as they are willful censorships of documents critial of the department? Unless the department can be held accountable for such deeds, these scenarios are going to play out repeatedly.
Arent the people who do this pretty much putting a big white and red target on themselves? I was under the impression, with things like the PATRIOT act, as well as the DMCA, that this type of thing would get you detained without a lawyer.
Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the country has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.
.
Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed. Especially since its release was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act case.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in. This makes the redacted official version a deliberate deception. The people responsible should be held accountable.
The parent post is neither troll nor funny. If I had mod points at present, it would get "+1 Insightful".
In reality, though, I'd rather give it "+1 Scary".
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
I know what you are getting at... but I hope that you fund that guy's legal defense. Calling for people to be charged just to show the mockery is dangerous to the charged individual. It wouldn't even surprise me if the government succeeds in locking up the "culprit".
Be careful what you ask for... until you put yourself in the line of fire, it's kind of dangerous to ask others to do so.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
The ACLU should start a class-action suit against the federal government of the USA. The current administration is redacting far too much information under the excuse of "national security". NS used to be used only when necessary, and only very selectively (for example to redact field agents identities). Now DOJ documents showing lack of workplace diversity are being redacted - a subject not related to NS in the very least.
The citizenry are quickly losing all control of the government, and the government is actively hiding information from the citizens. We need to regain control of the government, media, and military before the USA starts looking more like the USSR...
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so?
That's one of the ways the government gains power. Selecing when and how to apply a law is a powerful tool. If the government enforced something all the time, or never enforced it, it wouldn't have any power, would it? It would simply be a "robotic" institution.
You gain power by applying it selectively. Just observe totalitarian systems and governments and you'll see what I mean. For example, China does not prosecute everyone that speaks against the government. In fact, people in shops and restaurants regularly criticize the government. The government doesn't arrest any of those. However, if the person that is critizing was a "true enemy" (i.e. powerful opponent, and not some guy off hte streeth), then the government would send the guy to jail. The government selectively applies the law. All of a sudden, the law that everyone breaks is used to punish those that are dangerous to the government.
If something was enforced all the time, no one would do it and the power wouldn't even exist. However, if you let everyone "break the law" but then prosecute a few of your enemies, that's power!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
"Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed."
Government representatives are only supposed to keep stuff secret that would give a potential enemy vital information... blacking out anything that doesn't meet this criteria should be a hanging offense. If this report is true, then this is obviously corruption in its most base and basic form.
Next thing you know we will be trillions of dollars in debt spending half our income on taxes with social security about to collapse and being told that everything will be okay. Oh wait a sec...
Think so? How about people simply disappearing into the 'justice" system, picked up in the dead of night by government agents, not allowed visitors, not allowed to see an attorney, held without trial and without charge? Earlier this year I saw pictures of mothers holding signs outside a federal prison in Washington State with pictures of thier sons, trying to find out if they were being held there! AND THIS WAS IN AMERICA!
What about torture of human beings? Treatment of some "suspects" in Afghanastan and Iraq as well as detainees in Guantonimo falls well within the definition of torture of these organizations even if it isn't electric shock to the genitals. And those a AMERICANS doing the torturing.
What about the new policy of political assasination? Officially prohibited to US agencies for decades it is now acceptable. So far its only foreigners that can be assasinated, but its not that big a jump to internal politcal opponents is it? That used to be one of the things that we could point at that made the US better than dictatorships, but no more.
What about the government playing the legal system to get what they want no matter the courts? For example declaring a defendant an enemy combatant so they could imprison him when the trial wasn't going the government's way? What about holding hundreds of people indefinately without charge and without trial by mis-using the Material Witness laws?
People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens. The administration justifies this by claiming that they are not on US soil and therefore aren't entitled to the protection of any US laws, including the rights given to them by the constitution. In the past US bases, embassies, and ships have always been considered US soil. Face it - we have an admnistration that thinks it is justified in cancelling the Constitution whenever it gets in their way.
The people in this country who think that we haven't digressed from a country where citizens are protected from government by the Constitution really need to look hard at the reality of the situation rather than exercise their wishful-thinking genes and claim we're fine.