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.

77 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 kaltkalt · · Score: 2, Informative

      yep, in fact it's actually happened several times before. One time names of undercover agents were revealed. Now we just need to get some improperly redacted FOIA responses about area51, roswell, and all the stuff out there that makes me wear this tinfoil hat all the time.

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    2. Re:This happened once before... by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 4, Informative
      This does seem to be a common goof. Bruce S. had some commentary in his newsletter a couple of months ago.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    3. Re:This happened once before... by epiphani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      .
    4. Re:This happened once before... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rub is that this document was supposed to be for public consumption to start with. It was prepared by an outside firm with no axe to grind, and the DOJ was skewered. The DOJ was so utterly embarrased they threw together this clip-art show.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:This happened once before... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You see, this document was supposed to be released to the public anyway. The redaction was dirty pool, and none of the information was a national secret. It was simply embarrasing to those in power.

      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
    6. Re:This happened once before... by bobbozzo · · Score: 3, Funny
      Obviously nobody in government learns from their mistakes.

      You know what they say: "Good enough for government work."

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    7. Re:This happened once before... by alangmead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a little bit different than the one than you seem to be thinking of. In 2000, The NY Times obtained classified documents about the 1953 coup that brought the Shah of Iran into power. They incorrectly redacted the document to preserve their sources and protect some government operatives before publishing it. (See Iranian Coup Plotters Exposed By PDF File)

      In this case, the government handed over the document with the naughty bits already blocked out, but didn't release that PDF is more like a collage than like graph paper.

    8. 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.

    9. Re:This happened once before... by mickwd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why, if only the US government could have someone come to the US and give a talk on the limitations of some of Adobe's security mechanisms.

      Surely if someone was to do something like that, they would welcome him with open arms, and thank him for his useful expose ? After all, he would be doing them a service, wouldn't he ?

    10. Re:This happened once before... by ezraekman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I kind of hope that an attempt to prosecute this fellow is made. Then perhaps it will become more clear to our legislators how foolish a law is that will allow someone to be cited merely for the electronic equivalent of removing white-out from a white paper.

    11. 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??
    12. Re:This happened once before... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 ;)
    13. Re:This happened once before... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then you wouldn't be able to do text searches..

    14. Re:This happened once before... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not if someday they put out a blacked-out PDF with war plans of some sort, and end up forewarning the recipients of said war plans and costing lives. Security is security, and if they screw this one up, they're very liable to screw up lots more. "He who is faithful in least is faithful in most."

    15. Re:This happened once before... by instarx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:This happened once before... by Handyman · · Score: 2, Informative

      People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens.

      Yes, they do. They have obtained the right to gun privacy. (My original source for this is the book by Michael Moore called "Dude, where's my country?", but the above link was the first I could find on google. :) )

    17. Re:This happened once before... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Not if someday they put out a blacked-out PDF
      > with war plans of some sort, and end up
      > forewarning the recipients of said war plans
      > and costing lives.

      Very good point and one that is irrefutable I might add. You have pointed out the danger but do they see it? You must remember that these are much the same folks that are using Windows for Warships.

      Irregardless, I like your thinking.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  2. Time to bet by FrankoBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    How much time before the DOJ shuts them down ? 5$ on next week.

    1. Re:Time to bet by Catskul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too late, slashdot already shut them down

      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
  3. Huh.... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    1 entry found for Redacted.
    redact
    To draw up or frame (a proclamation, for example).
    To make ready for publication; edit or revise.
    So I guess this could be taken to mean "un-edited", but it still seems like pretty poor word choice to me. Although "Un-redacted" might be a good word to describe slashdot in general.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Huh.... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes, the definition in proper English is merely to edit, but in the jargon of the "Intelligence Community" redaction is the process of editing out anything you don't want the world to see.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
  4. Sneakiness by cperciva · · Score: 5, Funny

    Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.

    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.

    Or maybe that's just what he wants us to think...

    1. 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.
  5. your tax dollars at work by dauvis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:your tax dollars at work by Politburo · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      Yes I have yet to meet a person on the street who doesn't agree 100% with this statement.

    2. Re:your tax dollars at work by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Informative
      If I had information that I didn't want the public to see...

      The people who are replying to this story are some of the most immature idiots with zero knowledge of government. Has NOBODY worked for our legal or justice system? Anybody ever graduate high school civics?

      Information is blacked out and the black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it. They don't. They *want* you to know that something was taken out.

      The reason information is blacked out is because it was found to be factually incorrect or otherwise not reliable to be placed into public record and used as a cite for future legal uses. If I was a clerk and started filing things that said "Senator Smith is a satan worshiper who kills cats" and it turns out that I just have an axe to grind and am making up bullshit, then everywhere I filed that information is blacked out. If a witness on a stand says "Oh, and he rapes puppies too", and it turns out that the witness was lying, the information is "stricken from the record", but a *note* is make that it was strinken, and how much was stricken.

      It's not to hide anything - if you want the original report, subpoena, etc., the easiest thing to do is go back to the original author and ask for the original filing. Reporters and historians do it all the time (since the press does not have to have the same standards that the legal and legislative system does).

      Jebus - has nobody reading this entire site ever read a subpoena?

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    3. Re:your tax dollars at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Information is blacked out and the black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it. They don't. They *want* you to know that something was taken out.

      The reason information is blacked out is because it was found to be factually incorrect or otherwise not reliable to be placed into public record and used as a cite for future legal uses.

      Interesting theory. It sounds as if you have some legal experience. Have you never read through any FOIA cases? The USG "redacts" anything that the current administration or current set of bureaucrats finds in any way embarrassing or uncomfortable. Then they scratch, claw, and kick that said "redaction" is due to issues of "national security", "personal privacy", "confidential personnel records", or whatever. Sooner or later someone gets the real document, and the "redacted" material turns out to be Joe Asst Secretary directly ordering the actions he later denied. "National security" my ass.

      Personally, I don't see the concepts of "redaction" or "under seal" (not to mention "FISA courts") appearing anywhere in the Constitution and I think they should be eliminated from our legal system.

    4. Re:your tax dollars at work by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sorry, but you're just wrong. You describe one reason that documents may be redacted in legal circles. However, that is not by far the reason that documents are usually redacted in government as a whole. Documents are often released to comply with FOIA requests that are redacted to the point of saying nothing other than "something happened to somebody on this date, and somebody else said something to somebody", but you can't figure out what they said or who it was too - this isn't generally done to protect the government from libel charges, it's done to avoid releasing embarrassing information.


      Your analogy of a redacted court document to a redacted internal government report doesn't seem to hold up. The judicial system doesn't have any vested interest in preventing embarrasment of parties to law suits beyond the requirements of the law, and the protection of their legally guaranteed privacy, but government _bureaucrats_ have every interest in protecting their superiors, their superiors' superiors, and the elected officials who appointed them.

    5. Re:your tax dollars at work by charleschuck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it.
      If that were the point, why wouldn't they just strike through the text with a simple line (e.g. the <strike> tag in html) instead of blacking it out entirely?
  6. Still waiting... but... by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Still waiting... but... by TheMidget · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      Actually, according to the memo, the issue here was not just about diversity, but active discrimation. They were not hiring whoever was better for the job, they were giving better chances to caucasians: certain career opportunities were only offered to caucasians, critical information was withheld from minorities. The playing field was severly skewed against minorities. Yes, in this memo lack of diversity is just a polically correct euphemism for outright racism!

      Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).

      It was not about aiming at exactly 50%, but rather about aiming at anything above 0% for the minority employees!

    2. Re:Still waiting... but... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For reference, I'm a 27 year old male from Toronto, Canada (important for the discussion below).

      What you are saying doesn't apply to this case, since this is a consulting report which is the opposite of what you are saying (i.e. people within the system are being discriminated against).

      In any case, what you are saying is valid for the general situation. The problem is that the world isn't perfect. A sizeable amount of the population are racists, sexists, etc. For example, people I have encountered in my life (people my age, who you would think aren't sexist) were very sexist. I have seen many men (20 to 30 year olds, meaning more liberal than old men) who actually say stuff like "women can't do that job", "women aren't good at xyz", etc. What do you think these guys are doing when they hire people? Do you really think they are hiring women? I highly doubt it. The same thing with ethnicity, language, etc.

      The problem is as follows. You pre-suppose the following: "you just hire whoever is better for the job." Can you guarantee that? The answer is no, given what I said above with people being racist, sexist, and so forth.

      Look at, say, blacks in USA. Blacks were considered as equals for a long time. Yet, many people did not hire them. They weren't even hired for the worst jobs. Why? The reason is discrmination. As long as the people who discriminate is sizeable, the best person will not be hired for the job. Trust me, if hte best person for a job was hired, things would be a lot simpler and you wouldn't have some of these problems.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  7. Please ignore... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Funny
    That text behind the curtain!

    (Spins handle to fan up flames)

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  8. What they remove by big_debacle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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
    3. Re:What they remove by defaultXIX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah because the government never did anything bad or stupid BEFORE bush was president.

    4. Re: What they remove by Cyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because there are no WMD.

      Buts its nice how we keep giving them millions to continue their search. Its so blissful living in such a faith based country that we'll pay to make any reality the truth, even if it takes covering up all those annoying little facts and painting over them with distraction after horribly fearsome distraction.

      Its a good thing God exists. If he doesn't there are a lot of delusional people in this country who are prime targets for intesive psychotherapy.

    5. Re:What they remove by heli0 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration."

      The NYT article stated that these documents were edited before release by career lawyers at the DOJ and that Bush-appointed employees of DOJ made no changes at all.

      Mr. Corallo said career lawyers who routinely decide how to censor material before public release made the recommendations about what to delete from the diversity report. He said their recommendations were sent to the office of the deputy attorney general, where it was reviewed by political appointees who made no further changes.
      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    6. Re: What they remove by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > > That's because there are no WMD.

      > Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?

      Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re: What they remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, they just diappeared?

      They were destroyed between 1991 and 2003, as required by the UN resolutions after the end of the Kuwait war. Amazingly, biological and chemical weapons do not last forever, and many agents simply decompose after only three or four years. So in effect yes, they did actually simply cease to be.

    8. Re: What they remove by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      such as Sudan offering bin Laden on a plate

      This is a tired old canard. Sudan was not offering bin Laden. Some joker who claimed to have authority that he didn't have claimed that he could get the Sudanese government to offer bin Laden. There was no reason to believe that he was trustworthy. Conservatives make this an issue now even though there is no doubt that a conservative administration would have given this guy just as much attention as did the Clinton administration.

    9. Re: What they remove by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny
      recompile with -funroll-loops -i586mmx

      That -i586mmx is incorrect. -squirrelGoFaster.wheel is the proper modifier.

    10. Re: What they remove by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where is the program? The factories? the trucks used to transport them? The storage facilities? The scientists? The laborers and the janitors? The guards and soldiers? Where is the paperwork that must have existed to produce WMDs in sufficient quantity to ender the lives of all Americans.

      Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships? I don't think they were planning to attack the US with a bucket full of mustard gas were they? Where are the atomizers? the catalysts? Where are the other chemicals to stabilize and refine biological agents? Where are the growing tanks for all the biological agents? Were they being incubated in a thermos or a yogurt maker?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    11. Re: What they remove by penguin7of9 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The US accusing some other country of having WMD is really quite absurd.


      No it's not. Other countries do have WMD. So it's not absurd to accuse them of it.

      Sure it is. The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.

      It is not absurd to state that other countries have WMDs, it is not even absurd for the US to consider that state of affairs undesirable. However, it is absurd for the US to imply that everybody should agree that there is something ethically or legally wrong with that.

      For example, I may "accuse" you of driving a car and thereby destroying the environment, but chances are that you and the majority of other Americans would consider my "accusation" absurd because I drive a car, too, and because you don't see anything wrong with driving a car in the first place.

      Well, it's an uncertain world, and India, Pakistan, and China have as much interest in defending themselves as the US. And the US has done nothing to reduce the need for WMDs in this world--quite to the contrary. That's makes it truly absurd for the US to "accuse" other nations for having WMDs.

      A nation like the Vatican, however, does have the moral authority to accuse other nations of having WMDs because they don't. And such nations generally accuse the US as much as they accuse other nations.
  9. FIA is a sham by CausticWindow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  10. Accountability for such actions? by ftobin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Good by scrotch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes the DOJ will serve Justice better by not being capable of doing what they want to do.

  12. $2M I'll write a page :D by llZENll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok $2M for 186 pages of survery results, I'll gladly write a couple pages for $10,753 per page. So about a week of work and I won't have to work for 2 years, or according to the graphs in the pdf, 1.75 years if I were a woman, or only 1.5 years if I were black, homey don't play that!

  13. Memory Hole Goes To Jail by thelizman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Memory Hole to be Charged With DMCA Violation

    Reuters 11-01-03

    Just one day after releasing an uncensored version of a Department of Justice report on racial diversity in the work place, operators of the web site "Memory Hole" have been charged with violating terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice in the 6th Federal Circuit Court, Memory Hole illegally circumvented electronic controls used to protect confidential material.

    On October 31st, the Department of Justice responded to a request under the Freedom of Information Act and released the report. However, several sections of the report were blacked out. Memory Hole discovered that the file format (PDF) used an image laid over the censored text, and simply removed the images and published the memo.

    On Saturday morning, Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the FBI raided the offices of Memory Hole, the home of the publisher, and their ISP and confiscated several computers. The web site has not yet been ordered to be taken down, but a request is pending with Judge Y. H. Barrett Thompson to have the site terminated monday morning.

    Last Updated: Saturday Nov 1 2003 @ 2:50:34 PM

    1. Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail by Soko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  14. Re:This happened thrice before... by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, it happened a few times...

    ...with a Carnivore review team...

    ...with a justice department document...

    ...and a CIA document containing agent's names


    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  15. Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? by ftobin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am distraught that the editors and many posters find it simply amusing that the DOJ was technologically incompetent in this situation, and that that is all there is too it. What frightens me is when they do become competent, and these breakdowns cannot or do not happen, whether it be via more 'perfect' DRM systems, or simply more competent DOJ employees/contractors.

    It is in our interest to have the government flawed when it comes to secrecy.

  16. encryption techniques by giblfiz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suppose this is better than just changing the font to wingdings, but then SCO probably has a patent on that

  17. 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.

  18. Old computers reveal hidden info. by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.

    1. Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 ;)
    2. Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by willtsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I believe that the US Attorney general should be elected, not appointed. He shouldn't work for the president and be subordinate to the will of the president.

      The president would have law enforment capabilites as well. In this way they could investigate each other and we would have little need for special prosecutors.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  21. DOJ Memo - encrypted by SCO and SunnComm by HighOrbit · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, in additon to hiring the same lawyer (Boise), I see the DOJ has hired SCO's encryption team of MIT mathmaticians to handle its super-secret documents. Next they will hire SunnComm to write a document locking program that uses the windows auto-play feature, change their font to Chinese script, and make it black on black background. Shhhh.. don't tell the Russians to hold down the shift-key.

    No wonder they can't catch Bin Laden.

  22. absolutely appalling by treat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:absolutely appalling by benja · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I agree this is "absolutely appaling," re "Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in:"

      Even complimentary conclusions were deleted, like one that said "attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work" and another that said "private industry cites DOJ as a trend-setter for diversity." Beyond that, a recommendation that the department should "increase public visibility of diversity issues," was kept out of the public report.

      (from the article)

  23. DOJ Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2002 by skywire · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did DOJ follow its own published guide to Exemption 5? Slog through DOJ Guide to FOIA Exemption 5 and decide for yourself.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  24. This is a system design issue by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  25. The 9 exemptions to FOIA by DrDNA · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the ACLU Freedom Network. The following are exempt from FOIA requests.

    1. National Security
    2. Internal Agency Rules
    3. Governed By Other Statutes
    4. Business Information
    5. Internal Government Memos
    6. Private Matters
    7. Law Enforcement Investigations
    8. Regulation Of Financial Institutions
    9. Oil Wells

    Nowhere does it state 'items embarrassing to the government.' This is a federal violation on the part of the DOJ. Maybe we can get Ashcroft to investigate himself.

    1. Re:The 9 exemptions to FOIA by jpetts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
  26. Re:Blacking out non-security issues... by TheRealStyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    --
  27. 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.

  28. to fully understand the situation... by joebeone · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think the slashdot poster was fully able to highlight the gravity of this:

    http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-O ct ober/000143.html

    Subject: DoJ uses Word's "Highlight" tool to redact, doesn't work

    Hi Declan, Dave:

    A HARD LESSON TO LEARN: don't use Microsoft Word's "Highlight tool"
    with the color set to black to redact documents--one can still copy
    and paste "highlighted" text!

    The really interesting part about this DoJ case is reading the
    un-redacted document and seeing what was "blacked out" under FOIA
    exemptions (un-redacted document is here:
    http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/doj-attor ney-div ersity-unredacted.pdf
    ).

    I wonder how many other electronic FOIA-released documents are out
    there where a simple copy and paste will reveal redactions?

    Pertinent paragraph:

    "It turns out the [DoJ's] report began its life as a Microsoft Word
    document, and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public
    release did so by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight
    color set to black, according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of
    activePDF, a maker of server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient
    technique would have been perfectly effective had the end product been
    a printed document, but it was all but useless for an electronic one."

    Joe

    ---
    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7272

    Justice e-censorship gaffe sparks controversy

    By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Oct 22 2003 3:46PM

    A government watchdog group Wednesday accused the Justice Department
    of improperly censoring portions of a key report on internal workplace
    diversity, after online activists successfully unmasked the
    blacked-out portions of an electronic copy of the document.

    The 186-page report was released to the public under the Freedom of
    Information Act last week and posted to Justice Department's website
    in Adobe's "Portable Document File" (PDF) format. But the department
    blacked out vast portions of the document's text, citing an exemption
    to FOIA that permits agencies to keep internal policy deliberations
    private.

    The text didn't stay concealed for long. On Tuesday a website called
    the Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving endangered documents,
    published a complete version of the report, with the opaque black
    rectangles that once covered half of it completely removed. Memory
    Hole publisher Russ Kick won't say how he unmasked it, but
    experimentation shows that the concealed text could be selected and
    copied using nothing more than Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Once
    copied, the text is easily pasted into another document and read.

    It turns out the report began its life as a Microsoft Word document,
    and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public release did so
    by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight color set to black,
    according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of activePDF, a maker of
    server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient technique would have
    been perfectly effective had the end product been a printed document,
    but it was all but useless for an electronic one. "Using Acrobat, I'm
    actually able to move the black boxes around," says Sullivan. "The
    text is still there." ...

  29. I hope it happens... by thelizman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...not for Memory Hole's sake, but if the DoJ does do it, I would have an affirmative piece of evidence to motive the sheeple I know to fight the DMCA. Till now, the DMCA actions brought are either too complex, or not a clear enough violation of fair use standards to be palatable to the general public.

  30. Apple re-redacts the un-redacted document. by rworne · · Score: 3, Informative

    When viewing the report supplied by Memory Hole under Adobe Reader 6.0 the redacted parts in yellow show up and all is fine.

    Under Preview.app (OS X's PDF viewer, Panther's in my case), all the yellow sections are removed.

    It's a conspiracy I tell you!

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  31. Re:The Republicans didn't care about the sex by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Informative
    There was a report I read a couple of days ago, that there was a group in the Pentagon (but under the VP) whose job was to push the President into war against Iraq, telling whatever lies were needed to push him into action.

    The Bush administration is controlled by neoconservatives (aka neocons). They are mostly superhawks and hence see everything in terms of power. They are the ones that pushed Bush for the war. I don't think they lied but they manipulated the information (although one may say that lying and manipualating information is the same). Recently the US government has been involved in disinformation over Syria (eg. Syria has WMDs, Syrian fighters streaming across the border to Iraq, etc). Syria is the next target on the neocon agenda. Bush is too dumb to figure out what is going on. Bush is a very simplistic person who seems everything as a religious person (eg. good vs bad; either with us or against us; etc).

    But due to the mess in Iraq, the neocons are losing power. Bush recently shifted power from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleeza Rice. Another neocon, a senior advisor to Cheney, was also let go recently. There may be a few more "changes." I still don't think Bush knows what's going on but the Republican Party knows it. Karl Rove is basically trying to clean house.

    Having said all this, I think Bush will be re-elected again! The problem with American politics is:
    1. Executive branch (i.e. white house/president) is too strong. Unlike British systems (eg. Canada), US Presidents are worshipped like Gods by their citizens, opponents, etc.
    2. Two party system: This basically means that there really isn't much dissent. You either go with one guy or another. To make matters worse, both the Republicans and Democrats are very similar.
    3. Too much control by capitalists. The capitalists, such as corporations, control US politics. This happens everywhere but it is worse in USA. I think it is like that because USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism, and hence the most powerful corporations, wealthy, etc reside there. This essentially means that they will be more powerful than anywhere else. This isn't just the Republicans either; the Democrats are controlled by corporations too.
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  32. Can we give the parent comment a score of 6? by bigpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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...

  33. Um? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Does anyone think that FOIA documents didn't get the same treatment under Clinton or any other administration subject to it? I think it's time to check more docs and see what Reno's Justice may have decided to "redact" seems to me. The same clowns were may have doing the radaction via the same method as it's not the kind of job an "appointment" would do. This is grunt stuff.

    The big problem with most people is they tend to think you can give government a break. You can't it's out after yuo libertiy and freedom so it's job is more convient. It can't ever be trusted.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  34. So what's the long and the short of it? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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