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.
There was an occasion where this happened before...I believe it was in blacking out some sources on a PDF document...so some enterprising chap removed the blackouts...and voila, there were the "classified" sources. Obviously nobody in government learns from their mistakes.
If you wanted lots of people to read something, what would you do? Release a gov't document that is easily accessible, or release one that is actually easily accessible but appears to be a massive cover up?
Seems like someone inside the DOJ or possibly someone at KPMG wanted the information to get out, and decided that this was a surefire way of getting to a large audience.
Beep beep.
Yes, but how do we know this wasn't intentional? Maybe the employee in charge of the redacting wanted that part of the memo to get out, so he deliberately redacted improperly.
This would be a brilliant idea to spread false information. Instead of just publishing false information, write false information into a PDF and cover it with black rectangles. Not only do you have all the conspiracy theorists believiing whatever BS you wrote, you also have have a defense should anyone find out: it was blacked out, you weren't supposed to read it.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I agree, and have said such many times.
However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not. I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.
If you're going to redact something, do it right.
Here's how it's done:
Take document and with an X-Acto knife, cut out words you wish to redact.
Take resulting full-of-holes document and scan with scanner.
It's foolproof.
IF THE WORDS PHYSICALLY ARE NOT THERE, THEY CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED!
Using a marker might not be foolproof if you miss a spot, or funky reflections, or whatever may result in some parts of the document becoming visible. Give it a try, you'll see what I mean.
I saw a similar botched attempt to hide info in a document from a networking company. It was intended to illustrate some web-based employee-finding application. Various sensitive information was "X"-ed out.
But on an older computer there was a delay between rendering the sensitive info and rendering the overlaid "X"s. The "hidden" data was in plain sight for a readable fraction of a second. A quick screen-grab at the right time could easily capture a static image of the employee data on the CEO and other employees listed in the figure.
Sometimes older computer can be more fun.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
...about this is the level of technical competency implied in the organization that is responsible for "justice" in cases involving things like MS, DMCA, DRM and so on. The "holing up in a cabin in Montana" thing is looking more and more appealing...
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
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? There are a truly ridiculous number of laws on the books that are rarely enforced, until the prosecutors feel they have a "good" case to drop the hammer on some poor schmuck.
The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away with, instead of criminalizing large portions of the population.
I just hope the feds never try to housebreak my cat.
> However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. The current Administration is secretive as a knee-jerk reaction to anything, to the point of looking like a petty third world dictatorship. But were other recent Administrations any different, or just less amateurish about it?
> I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.
Actually, they were obsessed with getting anything they could find on him. It just so happens that after 7 years and $40,000,000 all they could find was dick, so that's what they had to settle for.
You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm not a FOIA lawyer, but I browsed the FOIA exemptions and exclusions and I see no reason whatsoever that this information that was naively blacked out was excluded.
Think about what ELSE they aren't telling us... And, they probably don't usually don't make such stupid mistakes.
Affirmative Action = Racism. It discriminates against middle and lower income Euro-Americans.
"Sorry Jimmy, you worked your ass off but Raynisha gets the free University ride because she is black and your grandparents might have done something to her ancestors even though none of your family was here until 1920. Nevermind her GPA is nearly a whole point below yours and she never took part in any extra-curricular activities. Oh yeah, we are also have less money than her but you're white so you're fscked. Nevermind that her parents are neuro-surgeons." Great policy.
As in any other cases simplicity and the appearance of simplicity are two entierly different things. The seeming simplicity many tools in the Windows-world offer is fake. As soon as you leave the narrow focus of what the designers expected the tool to be used for, many things break, including in many cases security.
It is far better to have a hard to use tool (e.g. commandline, although many people find that actually easier to use) that does not surprise you than a seemingly easy to use tool that does (sometimes massively) surprise you. This is no new wisdom. It applies everywhere in engineering. Some parts of the software industry are still not aware of this sound engineering principle.
Of course there is a second issue here: the users that are by now so uneducated about the nature of the tools they use that severe mistakes become likely. It is not that the users are less sophisticated than in the past (at least I hope so), but the tools they work with have become massicely more complex and many people have not realy noticed and therefore are not able to anticipate any pitfalls.
To put ist short, if they wanted to keep the redacted stuff confidential they should at least have used a tool they understand, like printed paper, or they should have consulted an expert first. This was a highly unprofessional mistake.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Considering the situation with the DMCA, Diebold, Patriot Act, Victory Act, Enron, SCO, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, Ashcroft and Generals on a Crusade isn't bad enough? now the Department of Justice gets caught trying to cover some back side.
Now remember, all of these guys are just looking out for the best interests of the "American People." after all they don't want to upset an already BAD situation by adding fuel to the fire, right? That is why it is in the interest of national security.(tell me it aint so)
at risk of being moded redundant I will repeat in my own words what I heard earlier on this subject..."Next time I see a document with black magic marker allover it,go ahead, TRY and convince me it is in the "interest of national security"
Maybe they are right, in thinking if the "American People" knew about HALF of the things that probably go on daily, they would probably revolt, which does, sadly give weight to their arguement.
"In the interest of national security we cannot tell you how corupt the system is because it would be disruptive TO that system (and your security)."
"Totam Spem Relinquite Hunc Locum Adeuntes"
indeed.
Maybe we can get Ashcroft to investigate himself.
Good luck: in this report you can see how John Ashcroft has been trying to undermine the FOIA. Choice quotes, one from the reporter:
" In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens."
and a quote from Ashcroft's memo, which memo is the subject of the article:
"When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records."
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
The 6 meg .pdf ain't gonna happen on my dialup.
Is the blackened out part a legitimate national security issue, or is it just the government covering up its embarassment?
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart