Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Memory Hole Un-Redacts Redacted DOJ Memo

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the poorly-hidden-secrets dept.

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.

10 of 453 comments (clear)

  1. This happened once before... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This happened once before... by Spasemunki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I believe it was the participants in the plot to overthrow Premier Mossadeq of Iran that were exposed. The shah was already in power at the time, and was essentially a puppet of the U.S. and Great Britain. Mossadeq was a very popularly elected official who was attempting to regain some control of Iran's destiny- mostly by removing the oil reserves that Britian had bought for a song (actually, they bribed the Shah with a variety of shiny things) from foreign control.

      The U.S., of course, labeled this as 'communism' and began agitating to get Mossadeq dissmissed by the Shah. This included such charming acts of democracy as sending F.D.R's grandson (a CIA operative) out onto the streets of Tehran to hand out $50 bills to get Iranians to gather in front of the Shah's palace and demand Mossadeq's ouster. The Shah capitulated to the West and the "popular" demand, and Mossaeq was driven from office.

      If you're ever curious why a bunch of extremist nuts that not even the Iranians like are running Iran, little anecdotes like this are a good start.

      While Mossadeq is long gone, the PDF screw up may have exposed the families of the Iranian participants in the coup to a great deal of scrutiny if they were still living in Iran. It isn't healthy anywhere to be associated with someone who betrayed their country to a foreign interest, and moreso if you're living in Iran and the foreign government in question was the U.S.

    2. Re:This happened once before... by Wolfrider · · Score: 3, Interesting

      --I wonder if the guy who had to do the blacking-out was Clueful and didn't like/agree with his orders... Maybe he did this intentionally, so it would appear like he was doing his job (CYA) but secretly wanted a way for other people to reconstruct the original document, so he could protect himself.

      (/conspiracy-theory)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  2. Re:Sneakiness by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:What they remove by Jameth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Do It Right by spoonist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. What really worries me... by Dinosaur+Neil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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
  6. Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by cft · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re: What they remove by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting


    > 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
  8. the "J" stands for Justice, Right? by t4b00 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.