Slashdot Mirror


FBI Wiretapping Audit Secrets Uncovered Via Ctrl+C

mytrip notes a story in Wired's Threat Level blog on the latest boneheaded government moves with redaction. (We've been discussing redaction follies here for years.) This time it's an FBI report (PDF) on implementing CALEA — you can select text from redacted areas, copy it, and paste into a text editor, as University of Pennsylvania professor Matt Blaze discovered. From Wired: "Once again, supposedly sensitive information blacked out from a government report turns out to be visible by computer experts armed with the Ctrl+C keys — and that information turns out to be not very sensitive after all... [Among] the tidbits considered too sensitive to be aired publicly: The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches. Oddly the report didn't redact the total amount paid to the telecom — slightly more than $2.9 million dollars — but somehow the bad guys will win if they knew the number of switches and the cost paid."

231 comments

  1. Let me guess... by Phyrexicaid · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they were running a website, they would use:
    <FONT
    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: black">Top Secret!</FONT>

    --
    The meme is dead, long live the meme!
    1. Re:Let me guess... by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, at least make your top secret docs standards compliant. :(

    2. Re:Let me guess... by Phyrexicaid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on, at least make your top secret docs standards compliant. :(</quote>
      I wanted it to be realistic :P

      --
      The meme is dead, long live the meme!
    3. Re:Let me guess... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's what we all use on vbulletin forums! (well, not black then, but anyway.)

    4. Re:Let me guess... by KutuluWare · · Score: 1

      The FBI is way more intelligent than you give them credit for. Clearly:

      <span style="display:none;">Top Secret</span ><span style="display:inline;">REDACTED</span >

    5. Re:Let me guess... by TravisO · · Score: 1

      This is the US government, WE set the standards, not you.

    6. Re:Let me guess... by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Gleaned from the PDF

      CreationDate(D:20080325134949-04'00')/Author(OIG)/Creator(Acrobat PDFMaker 7.0 for Word)/Producer(Acrobat Distiller 7.0 \(Windows\))/ModDate(D:20080325135032-04'00')/Company(OIG)/SourceModified(D:20080325174908)/Title(Implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act by the Federal Bureau of Investigation)

      A lot of PDFs contain raw text inside them. If they really wanted to make this secure, they should have printed it and then scanned it.

    7. Re:Let me guess... by Asuranceturix · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, government standards set YOU!

    8. Re:Let me guess... by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      This is the US government, WE set the standards, not you. Is this the start of a new meme? In Democratic USA ...
    9. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FONT is a deprecated element

    10. Re:Let me guess... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      If they used , it'd be unbreakable, since it would never even appear on the page!

    11. Re:Let me guess... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      But then we would just have to use CTRL+U rather then CTRL+C

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares, and it was for the purposes of display in a web post.. Although maybe he should have used a paragraph or . It doesn't really affect anyone though.

  2. Sheesh by AltGrendel · · Score: 1
    You'd think that they would have learned by now.

    Your government dollars at work!

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Sheesh by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you geeks only complain? First you complain that we try to keep information secret, then, when we're too dumb to do it right and the info gets out, you complain again.

      Is there a way to satisfy you? Jeesh...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Too much UNIX for me by mikael_j · · Score: 5, Funny

    The headline and summary made took a minute for me to grasp, I just couldn't understand how you could get data out of something by halting execution.

    Then my brain woke up and I realized they were thinking of the Windows command Ctrl+C which copies the marked text..

    /Mikael

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    1. Re:Too much UNIX for me by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then my brain woke up and I realized they were thinking of the Windows command Ctrl+C which copies the marked text..

      Right. Me too. I don't use windows, so I think Ctrl+C == SIGINT.

      I saw a similar thing on another article here where they had Ctrl+Z in the article, and that took me a minute to figure out as well. I thought, WTF does suspending a task have to do with anything??? I then had to figure out that Ctrl+Z is the undo command in windows.

    2. Re:Too much UNIX for me by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Funny

      very simply...

      Welcome To FBI Info Booth.
      Please press:
      1 to open contact form
      2 to learn about the organization
      3 to get the latest news
      4 to access the current most wanted list
      5 to access other FBI resources
      Your choice: _ [ctrl+C]
      Terminated.
      root@booth975.fbi.gov# cat ./wiretaps.txt

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ctrl+C, Ctrl+X and Ctrl+V were increasingly common shortcuts in Linux apps the last time I used Linux on the desktop, which is going back a good few years now.

      Yes, they still do "different" things in a terminal, but they're by no means "Windows commands" any more.

    4. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Zarhan · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Ctrl+C" isn't just "Windows" standard, it's actually coming from much older days. You are looking for

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access

      and it's actually originating from IBM. Personally I'm *glad* that Linux desktop environments are also pretty much implementing the standard - I *like* being able to always hit F1 for help, Shift+F12 for save etc. I've even seen CUA bindings setup for Emacs but cannot find a link right now..

    5. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah, you're 100%.

      those guys were just involved in a dick-measuring "biggest nerd" contest.

    6. Re:Too much UNIX for me by lilomar · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've only been using Linux for about 3 years now, but this is the first I have heard of those commands referred to as "Windows commands".

      It's more like they are very common hot-keys for any GUI app. They don't work in windows apps about as often as they don't in linux.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    7. Re:Too much UNIX for me by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think my problem is that for regular *nix I don't use KDE or Gnome and thus I'm still using what I'm used to (mark + middle click to paste) from when I started using X11, and for macs I find myself either drag'n'dropping or using cmd+c which has become differentiated from ctrl+c in my mind (as I use ctrl+c to shut down processes, not copy data).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    8. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      "Ctrl+C" isn't just "Windows" standard, it's actually coming from much older days.


      Um, no it isn't. CUA was introduced in 1987. Windows was first released in 1985 and CUA mostly codified the Windows interface. CUA is a Windows-centric standard.
    9. Re:Too much UNIX for me by harry666t · · Score: 0

      No, you're not having too much Unix. It's the rest of the world that is having too much Windows. Ctrl-C & stuff really sucks.

    10. Re:Too much UNIX for me by dbitch · · Score: 5, Informative

      These are the IBM Common User Access commands. So, they were never "Windows commands" to begin with.

      Funny how history works, huh?

    11. Re:Too much UNIX for me by harry666t · · Score: 1

      > They don't work in windows apps about as often as they don't in linux.

      Right, Emacs runs on both Linux and Windows :P

    12. Re:Too much UNIX for me by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Not a flame, but why would you use Ctrl+C when just selecting the text puts it in the pasteboard?

      Anyway, they aren't "Windows" shortcuts, because the Mac uses them too (and first, I believe). They can probably be called MS shortcuts, though, because I think they first showed up in Word for Mac.

      (Yes, I know Macs use Command instead of Control - but that point is moot since in 1984 Macs had no "Control" key)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Too much UNIX for me by value_added · · Score: 1

      Yes, they still do "different" things in a terminal, but they're by no means "Windows commands" any more.

      I don't think the terminal vs. non-terminal distinction is necessarily valid.

      Text can copied from a Firefox window, for example, the same way in which text is copied from a terminal, that is by simply by selecting it. Pasting is similarly identical for both, using SHIFT+INSERT. No CTRL keys required.

    14. Re:Too much UNIX for me by sqldr · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's actually two pasteboards. Selecting it puts it into the X11 pasteboard, ctrl+c puts it into the gnome/kde pasteboard. There are differences, eg. the gnome/kde one has metadata and can contain images, links etc. It also seems to be more limitless - pasting 50000 lines from the X11 buffer rarely works.

      It's actually really useful to have two paste buffers in certain issues - ctrl-v to paste one, middle to paste the other.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    15. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      those guys were just involved in a dick-measuring "biggest nerd" contest.

      The above explains the run that Home Depot had on tweezers and magnifying glasses.

    16. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Curien · · Score: 1

      "Ctrl+C" isn't just "Windows" standard, it's actually coming from much older days. Um, no it isn't. CUA was introduced in 1987. Windows was first released in 1985 and CUA mostly codified the Windows interface. CUA is a Windows-centric standard. The CUA is not Windows-centric. It was designed during the heyday of DOS-based graphical programs, when Windows was hardly ever used. In fact, Windows mostly copied the Apple spellings: Cmd+ZXCV, which are from the Apple Lisa and original Mac (and thus predate Windows) became Ctrl+ZXCV. The IBM CUA uses Ctrl+Del, Ctrl+Ins, and Shift+Ins for cut, copy, and paste, respectively.
      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    17. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      they're by no means "Windows commands" any more.


      They never were; they were inherited from WordStar for CP/M; the original programmers of Windows included them for their own convenience, but they were initially undocumented.
    18. Re:Too much UNIX for me by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      They don't work in a Windows console/DOS box either...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    19. Re:Too much UNIX for me by x2A · · Score: 1

      Err... I can only assume 'cat' was compiled for a different processor, but there must be emulation or something... I dunno... it just said "illegal instruction", but carried on anyway???

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    20. Re:Too much UNIX for me by neural+cooker · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened to me. I was trying to imagine someone killing an audit process and was then able to debug it.

    21. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      Shift+Del is for cut. I don't think Ctrl+Del does anything.

    22. Re:Too much UNIX for me by SpinyManiac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Right, Emacs runs on both Linux and Windows
      In soviet Russia?
      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    23. Re:Too much UNIX for me by x2A · · Score: 1

      Or working in vi running in a remote screen session from putty... each one having their own clipboard... very rarely I get mixed up, and if I do it's usually an undo key back... unless some reason I have a load of text or something in one clipboard (like accidentally selected something at some point) and I click the mouse button and just see loads of lines about 'command not found' as it tries to run every line that was in the clipboard, no stopping it, until it stops and begins chunking away at the harddrive and I spot the text 'rm -rf *' as the last line on the screen... if the machine's local I can hit the reset switch hopefully before the write behind cache catches up, but if not, I just sit back, relax, and thank the god I don't believe in that this has never actually happened to me (why would I have rm -rf in a text document? Maybe explaining to someone... I'm never going to write that again without at least a # in front of it just in case it does happen tho!)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    24. Re:Too much UNIX for me by x2A · · Score: 1

      Just GUI, as Linux. Command line, ctrl+c is break and will also abort many running processes (like a file copy, an oh-my-god-I-didn't-realise-there-were-this-many-files-in-here directory listing etc etc) or if the running process is ignoring it, it'll often be picked up between commands in a running batch file, where you'll get a prompt asking if you wish to terminate the script or continue. If you set 'break on' however, then you get more luck with ctrl+break than ctrl+c, as attention is usually paid to that in more places. Ctrl+Z however is the end-of-file marker, and so will stop text copies coming in from console (eg, 'copy con output.txt' will start copying text from console to output.txt, until you send a line with ctrl+z in... believe me, it can have its uses!)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    25. Re:Too much UNIX for me by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Emacs has a cua-mode (Try `M-x cua-mode')

    26. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, it's just another thing that Microsoft stole from someone else?

    27. Re:Too much UNIX for me by rvw · · Score: 1

      That's not true. See this screenshot. CTRL-C made you scroll down. Arrow keys were not used back then, so E and X were up and down, S and D left and right, A and F word left and right, and R and C scroll up and down.

    28. Re:Too much UNIX for me by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      These are the IBM Common User Access commands. So, they were never "Windows commands" to begin with.

      And before that (since the Mac's introduction in 1984) they were Macintosh commands - Command-X, Command-C and Command-V. At the time, Macs didn't have a CTRL key, and PCs still don't have a Command key. This being the only reason for the difference in modifier key, it's obvious that the Mac originated this convention.

      (Now cue the replies saying Apple stole it from Xerox, never mind that Xerox's implementation did not include a clipboard, or many other Apple-pioneered features we now consider basic...)

    29. Re:Too much UNIX for me by morcego · · Score: 1

      I'm even dumber than you. I only "figured it out" after reading your post.

      Geez.

      --
      morcego
    30. Re:Too much UNIX for me by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      These are the IBM Common User Access commands. So, they were never "Windows commands" to begin with.

      No, they're not. The Wikipedia article even lists the correct keys that actually were in the CUA. They were the ever-so-intuitive:

      Copy: Ctrl-Ins
      Cut: Shift-Del
      Paste: Shift-Ins
      Undo: Alt-Backspace

      These were the CUA shortcuts. The new Ctrl-Z/X/C/V shortcut set was stolen off the Mac, because unlike the CUA set, it makes sense. Unlike the CUA, it's always Control-Something. X and C make perfect sense for Cut and Copy. Z and V make less sense unless you think of them as little icons, in which case the Z is a Zig-Zag backwards and the V is a down-arrow pasting into the document. Ultimately, though, they're used because they're next to each other on the keyboard. All your common edit actions in a nice little row.

      If you want a non-Wikipedia source, you can try this page. The CUA keys still work in most Windows applications, it's just that the Mac keys also work since they don't overlap. Alt-F4 remains as probably the most-used CUA shortcut.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    31. Re:Too much UNIX for me by game+kid · · Score: 1

      In many Windows apps (e.g. Notepad, Eclipse), both the CUA and Mac (my easy favorite of the two) sets work. The last version of Anvil Studio I tried (which was rather long ago) was more annoying in that regard though: it supported one (or both) of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+X for editing music, but Paste was solely Shift+Ins. Many awkward finger movements resulted.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    32. Re:Too much UNIX for me by boris111 · · Score: 1

      Never mind that Ctrl+C is used on the Windows command line for break.

    33. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest either piping it into a file or using less (or, if you have to, more). Else you'll not see much. Or, you would maybe see much but not be able to read a lot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Too much UNIX for me by JamesP · · Score: 1

      ZXCV (also) makes sense because they are all near the Ctrl key, hence, making it easy to type with one hand only.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    35. Re:Too much UNIX for me by anss123 · · Score: 1

      Hmm. It's the same in god ol' MessyDOS

    36. Re:Too much UNIX for me by SL+Baur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more like they are very common hot-keys for any GUI app. C-SPC, C-w/M-w, C-y work just fine for me and we were using those keys before there was a Microsoft Windows, Linux or even modern Unix.

      Now get off my lawn!
    37. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      You're right. I'm so ashamed. @'.'@

      Still predated Windows, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control-C

    38. Re:Too much UNIX for me by StikyPad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's funny, CTRL-C works fine on my "Linux". Maybe you (and the GP) meant "I never leave the CLI", in which case we're all duly impressed, and stand in awe that you finish your work in a fraction of the time of us mousers. Hail master of the *sh && [vi/emacs/other archaic text editor you fanatically support].

    39. Re:Too much UNIX for me by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yup, since as early as I remember (3.2 days) anyway. I use dos for my bootloaders, a small fat16 partition which can hold various kernels (for rolling back to if need be) initrd's etc. If installing a new kernel remotely, not being 100% sure something somewhere isn't gonna go wrong, and knowing the people with access to the machine are really not gonna be of any help, can set the bootloader script to rewrite itself before jumping into the kernel, and then assuming it boots okay, you can write it back to load the new kernel everytime. If it doesn't come back up, all I gotta do is ask someone to press reset, and it'll boot with the replaced script that's set to boot the previous kernel, and i get access back. (Sometimes reboots can be free, but if you want them to plug in a keyboard/monitor to navigate a boot menu, they wanna charge ya). Might be other ways of doing it (I wanna look into kexec crash kernels for instance, not had chance yet) but this way is easy, it works, and I know it already, even if it does make a lot of people go "eugh" :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    40. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eugh.

    41. Re:Too much UNIX for me by pur1ty · · Score: 1

      I thought Mac always have Command+C, Command+V etc. because Command+C is a much more easy to press with a single hand (left) than Control-C combination.

    42. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      Dupe. Old news. I remember un-redacting documents with CTRL+INS and SHIFT+INS.

      Big improvement over holding an empty disk platter over my opened hard disk and hoping the charges would transfer.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    43. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, on your linux highlighting the text is enough to copy it to the clipboard. Pressing CTRL+C just emphasizes to the machine that it is working with an idiot.

    44. Re:Too much UNIX for me by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      In some programs your right. However, I have seen others that required the I'm an idiot button to clear off the previously highlighted text.

      It's been a while since I have ran into the problem but I think it was when I had a terminal open with two separate text files in a GUI. I would copy selected output to a file and then from another file to compare the differences just before converting them to HTML and sending it to another program that made a graph. If I highlighted to copy from the terminal, I would have to use control+C or the right click equivalent to copy something from one of the text files. I think I was using Kwrite but it could just as easily been open office. Whether this is by design or a fluke that has been fixed, I don't know. We don't do the same process anymore.

    45. Re:Too much UNIX for me by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nice, a porn friendly UI.

    46. Re:Too much UNIX for me by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's why windows has had so many problems with crashes. After a bit of time, the control+C command would be relayed to whatever the current active process was and bam, your done with a BSOD.

      Nah,, really, I don't know it that was possible or not. I just thought it sounded funny.

    47. Re:Too much UNIX for me by rvw · · Score: 1

      Hey it was good to be reminded of those days! I still have an Intertec Superbrain Q64 here, although it doesn't work anymore, sadly....

    48. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually still use these keys mostly (Cut/Copy/Paste anyway), it's friendly to a left handed person who is using the mouse with the left hand. They do suck on laptop keyboards however.

      You can hit all of them one handed quite easily.

      To me they are easier than the Ctrl-CXV, but maybe it's just my age.

    49. Re:Too much UNIX for me by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

      Clearly they were considering what the icons would look like and didn't just choose contiguous keys.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
    50. Re:Too much UNIX for me by setagllib · · Score: 1

      I can think of a case where Ctrl+C could be a leak of information exploit... if you rely on your program to zero its memory before shutting down, Ctrl+C could kill it before it zeroes its memory and the sensitive information will be left over, subject to any of the usual memory exploits. If this is on a swap file you're even worse off.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    51. Re:Too much UNIX for me by ensignyu · · Score: 1

      Classic MacOS, possibly all the way back to the original Macintosh, had cmd-c (copy), cmd-v (paste), cmd-z (undo), and cmd-x (cut). Given that Windows 3.1 used nonsense like Shift-Ins, Windows 95 probably copied the keybindings from the Mac or somewhere else.

    52. Re:Too much UNIX for me by jrumney · · Score: 1

      There's actually two pasteboards. Selecting it puts it into the X11 pasteboard, ctrl+c puts it into the gnome/kde pasteboard.

      They are called the "PRIMARY" selection and "CLIPBOARD" respectively. CLIPBOARD is older than Gnome and KDE, though they promoted consistent use of it.

    53. Re:Too much UNIX for me by kmhdot · · Score: 1

      very simply...

      Welcome To FBI Info Booth.
      Please press:
      1 to open contact form
      2 to learn about the organization
      3 to get the latest news
      4 to access the current most wanted list
      5 to access other FBI resources
      Your choice: _
      Your Choice:_ [ [ctrl+X]
      switch to Micro$oft Outlook: New Email
      To: DDFBI John S. Pistole.
      Subject: THE LATEST REPORTS - CLASSIFIED - TIME SENSITIVE.
      Body: [ctrl+V] ]
      SEND
      Processing.... Success!.
      EXIT


      *repeat weekly.
    54. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      No, I thought the same thing. I thought it was something to do with halting execution, maybe from a programme that was sending something out through some pipe to something else for some reason (no, I didn't RTFA).

      Copy'n'paste never occured to me - I never thought a government agency could be so dumb as to hide text by setting the background colour the same as the text. I guess I give them too much credit :)

      --
      Nick
    55. Re:Too much UNIX for me by GCPSoft · · Score: 1

      If they were using X11, they wouldn't need to press any key combination... just mark the text with their mouse pointers. :-)

    56. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how people "pretend" to know absolutely nothing about Windows to make it sound like they use Linux/UNIX all the time...

    57. Re:Too much UNIX for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss the CUA technique; the Mac set is conveniently grouped (so your typos can be dangerous) but the IBM set makes logical sense if you already know where the 'special keys' (Ins, Del) are. Admittedly they could've dropped a few modifiers (Shift-BS, and Ctrl-Del) but... y'know, whatever's familiar.

    58. Re:Too much UNIX for me by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think there's more logic to the CUA commands.

      Ins => Insert

      Ctrl+Ins => Insert into clipboard

      Shft+Ins => Insert from clipboard

      Del => Delete into /dev/null

      Shft+Del => Delete into clipboard

      Alternate Backspace => backspace last change

      There's no rational association between Ctrl-V and Paste, Ctrl-Z and undo, Ctrl-X and Copy.

      The word 'copy' starts with C, so Ctrl-C makes sense. On the other hand, the word 'cut' also starts with C, so the same association exists between "Cut" and Ctrl-C.

      They may be convenient because they all use 'Ctrl' and all 4 keys are in the same corner of the kbd, but the choices are completely arbitrary, and they were not assigned that way based on any well-understood associations.

  4. It's easy... by johannesg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look, the point of blacking out is not just to remove critical information, it is also to get you used to large parts of documents being blacked out. It is a way of hiding a signal within a lot of noise.

    By randomly blacking out stuff, you will never know if there is vital information hiding underneath the black text. And you will become more and more accepting of documents that have barely any text at all.

    The purpose is, of course, to allow more and more freedom to the agencies doing the blacking out. And less and less to you.

    1. Re:It's easy... by PatboyX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Washington Irving at it again!

    2. Re:It's easy... by ThePilgrim · · Score: 1

      Except all it does is get me in the habit of copying and pasting the whole document to see if they have screwed up again.

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    3. Re:It's easy... by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Funny

      lol, they might as well publish everything with lorem ipsum on it...

      ---TOP SECRET--- "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:It's easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except all it does is get me in the habit of copying and pasting the whole document to see if they have screwed up again. But if you assume what the GP said is true then they would only "accidentally" reveal benign information. They would do this to reinforce the suspicion that there isn't always important information redacted and keep people from poking around for the important stuff.
    5. Re:It's easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it doesn't mean anything to you or me or anyone else on slashdot, doesn't mean the information is not sensitive. It could still cause harm to national security in the hands of someone else with more information than we have.

    6. Re:It's easy... by jmv · · Score: 1

      I would also suspect a lot of the badly redacted stuff is made on purpose to make people believe the "redacted" info. That or to distract people away from the non-redacted info.

    7. Re:It's easy... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Story time: During WWI in France, all publications were subject to censorship about war events and related things. Newspaper would reorganize their pages after the censor went through them, but one paper was notorious for leaving the blanks right where they were, so at least the readers would know how much was being censored (sometimes half the text was missing). It was, and still is, a political and satyrical newspaper: le Canard Enchainé which has a very interesting history.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:It's easy... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then how about passing a law that requires the censor to justify why it was censored? That way you could at the very least start challenging it instead of having to rely on your trusted (no snickering back there!) government to know what's good for you.

      Although, in the nannystate we're currently in... I wouldn't hold my breath.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:It's easy... by bartok · · Score: 1

      I think the point of hiding it is because it's a government subsidy hidden under the guise of a security policy.

    10. Re:It's easy... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I suspect that there was a little more to do with it in this case. Paying verizon to update it's equipment is nothing new. It is actually part of the laws that enabled echelon back in the 90's.

      But what you don't have it a known state of the equiptment or which pieces have been upgraded. If we end up seeing something like the FBI payed verizon to make all their old equipment compatible, then you can assume that anything said over an Verizon exchange can be compromised by the FBI. This is important because you could relatively easily guess which exchanges were the older ones not easily tapped into by the FBI byt looking at DSL service maps and so on. I could assume that if I couldn't get DSL because the exchange was too old to offer it, that the FBI or any other government organization couldn't easily listen in on my plans to rule the world unless I was talking to someone who was there. But If I was talking to someone outside the country, then it could be assumes by other forms of deduction that we both were safe unless we were specifically being targeted. Now that I know that the FBI paid Verizon to fix all their older equipment, I won't be talking about those plans anymore or at least in an uncoded form.

      So even if your right in that they do this as an exorcise in creating an awareness that they can manipulate to their advantage, This particular situation of upgrading older phone systems that were once resource intensive to monitor can have a lasting effect on who used them and why. Now with roving wiretaps, If you come to my house, they can tap my lines to see if you used them for whatever in fear of your own lines being tapped. Before it was quite a bit more complicated then an agent pressing a couple of commands on a keyboard and a person could feel a little more relaxed when making calls like that.

      It is still a big if when considering if someone would be more open if they didn't think it would be easy to tap their phones or friends phones when your at their house. But as long as the if was there, there would be no reason to tell the world that you can now listen easily to any conversation on any phone system held by verizon. Now that the information is out, I doubt any serious damage was done. But I can see the reasoning behind not wanting to immediately brag about their capabilities.

    11. Re:It's easy... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The justifications for the redactions can lead to releasing more information then what has been redacted.

      Imagine the phone upgrade stuff. The law that enabled that has been on the books since the 90's. So why would the FBI be wanting to cover the fact that they upgraded all the switched? Well, it could be because which switches and other equipment that is or isn't capable of allowing the access the law requires could be found by other means. Now suppose I know there is someone who knows which telcos can comply with the access and which ones can't. I know someone who lives in an area that they can't. Lets assume the FBI has a warrant to tap all of my calls because I'm some threat. I don't think they can tap my friends calls so I do everything from his phone.

      Now of course the FBI wouldn't want it known that they can listent to my calls at my friends house just as easily as at home. So they redact the facts that they paid to upgrade the exchange in order to have the required access. Now how would they justify that in a way that you could challenge it without giving away more information then paying to upgrade an exchange? I mean would the say a case depends on it? Your in no different of a situation then with them just blackening it out claiming state secrete. Would they have to say that "we are following someone and don't want them to know we have new capabilities in the area of taping people he visits"?

      It would be extremely difficult to justify something without releasing details and in some situations impossible. Even if a top secrete reviewer looks at the justification and makes a final decision on everything that is redacted, you are still in a position of not knowing anything other then it has been redacted for some reason and it was done by the government. You wouldn't know if he even looked at the information or took agent smith's word that it is too sensitive to be allowed in the hands of the public. Hell, for all we know is that it could be the brand of dog food the president's pooch eats and the reason or justification is to stop the poisoning of his dog by slipping something in at the dog food factory.

      It is one of those areas where we just have to trust the government for a while. All the stuff will eventually be declassified. It might take another administration, it might not.

    12. Re:It's easy... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, there has been a law since the 90's that allows the government to pay telcos to upgrade equipment in order to give them access. The law specifically allows for this to happen.

      I believe it was introduced in the the legislature in 1994 by a democrat Don Edwards. It had been amended a couple of times but it still much the same bill. They payouts where supposed to happen for something like 4 years after it became law. It is also pretty much on an as needed basis. Here is a reference to the two passages in law that authorize it And the fund that pays for it. It is basically an extention of FISA from 1978 but addresses domestic intercepts and domestic law enforcement access too.

  5. No suprises by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most of the time something deemed "secret" rarely is. Also when I was last in the public Sector, IT was woefully underfunded and overall employee training was even worse. Things like this will continue to be a major mess.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:No suprises by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there are step-by-step guides for "properly" redacting from PDFs so that this isn't possibel? Maybe a simple guide for Word users as well (please, yes I know, Word sux and Widows blows, but guess what? People use them).

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:No suprises by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why bother? They'll simply pass a law that makes it illegal to use the blunders of the governments to uncover government secrets. It's the miracle cure for everything today. And since spies and criminals everywhere really care about the law, it will work like a dream.

      Ok, I doubt even they are so dumb to think that, but if nobody can uncover governmental inaptitude without facing jail time, nobody will point out such stupidity and everyone will think they're doing just great at keeping our stuff secret.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:No suprises by 1729 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there are step-by-step guides for "properly" redacting from PDFs so that this isn't possibel? Maybe a simple guide for Word users as well (please, yes I know, Word sux and Widows blows, but guess what? People use them). Here are NSA's recommendations: http://www.nsa.gov/snac/vtechrep/I333-TR-015R-2005.PDF
  6. Secrets Kept to avoid Embarrassment by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a classic example of secrecy being used not for national security but to avoid embarrassment. There are likely thousands of these types of secrets that cost money to keep but that are for no reason at all. Ass clowns.

    1. Re:Secrets Kept to avoid Embarrassment by Iamthecheese · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I am an ass clown, you insensitive clod!

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:Secrets Kept to avoid Embarrassment by CogDissident · · Score: 0

      I thought you were cheese...

    3. Re:Secrets Kept to avoid Embarrassment by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised NRA members aren't all over this like a cheap suit. One of their primary arguments is that if possession of guns is criminalized, only criminals will have guns.

      The argument against this kind of secrecy is identical. When these agencies have the power to classify anything they want "Secret", the only people who know what they're up to are terrorists, spy organizations and other malefactors. They don't seem to have much trouble defeating the "security" protecting sensitive and embarrassing information.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    4. Re:Secrets Kept to avoid Embarrassment by pha7boy · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, the information was blacked out not under secrecy requirements but under business information exception to the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).. 5 U.S.C. 552(b): (b)(4) EXEMPTION 4 Trade Secrets, Commercial or Financial Information. This exemption protects "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential." This exemption is intended to protect the interest of both the government and submitter of information.

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
  7. Entertaining to whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we get a new category, like "Gallows Humor"?

    Besides, we shouldn't be reporting on this stuff-- our only defense against this government anymore is its own monumental stupidity.

    1. Re:Entertaining to whom? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      ...or dare I say, "gallulz"

  8. Implementation by Graywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Redacted" was apparently implemented by covering the area with a white rectangle. Since the PDF has real text/vector graphics (as opposed to a bitmap), the information is still present in the file and even the standard Acrobat viewer can access it. Someone "Failed at Behaving Intelligently"

    1. Re:Implementation by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Someone "Failed at Behaving Intelligently"

      Of course, why do you think they work for the government?

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Implementation by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      You know whats especially sad about this is - is Adobe actually implemented a redaction tool in Acrobat 8 that completely removes that data per word or over a larger area. However the metadata for this file looks like they are using 7 (still - 3rd party redaction tools exist for this product).

      Sounds like they need to upgrade - after all they definitely have the money to do so.

  9. Who's responsible..? by ricebowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Once again, supposedly sensitive information blacked out from a government report turns out to be visible by computer experts armed with the Ctrl+C keys

    What confuses me is that, and I might be too generous in my assumption, I assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release? I know that common sense is entirely too uncommon these days, but if I were to release a digital file (whether to an individual or the public) I'd make sure that someone from the IT department looked it over before release.

    Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist.

    Still, I'm sure that, sometime soon, MS will remove the Ctrl+C combination. For national security, of course.

    1. Re:Who's responsible..? by MrMr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release?

      Apparently you have never worked for a government department.

      Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist.

      or in the pharmaceutical industry.

    2. Re:Who's responsible..? by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      I assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release?

      Well, it was an IT guy, but no-one calls him a professional.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    3. Re:Who's responsible..? by Bushcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the "IT professional", if any, will have been excluded by the "incredibly thick underlings" thinking they actually have a clue. I've worked in such environments: the thicker the person, the more that person thinks s/he knows, and the more important that person believes s/he is.

    4. Re:Who's responsible..? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release?

      Apparently you have never worked for a government department.

      Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist.

      or in the pharmaceutical industry. It's not lack of knowledge, it's optimism. Don't pop the pink bubble.
    5. Re:Who's responsible..? by Tim+C · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know that common sense is entirely too uncommon these days, but if I were to release a digital file (whether to an individual or the public) I'd make sure that someone from the IT department looked it over before release.

      A month or so ago our HR director distributed professionally-printed copies of the new Employee Handbook to everyone in the company.

      It is full of typos, grammatical errors, strange changes of tense or person, weird extra line breaks, etc. You'd have thought that someone would have proof read it, or at the very least approved a sample print before the full run was produced.

      Point being that people take it upon themselves to do things all the time without seeking input from others.

    6. Re:Who's responsible..? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they will just remove the C key from all keyboards.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:Who's responsible..? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Aren't those the same thing?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Who's responsible..? by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      At least in the military, and government contracting, IT personnel are seen as the "obnoxious geeks" that just get in everyone's way and try to make work hard. They don't understand that MySpace and certain advertisers are blocked for a reason. They don't understand that you have to provide a justification for that firewall modification because IT is trying to protect the network, not because they hate you.

      Military officers ESPECIALLY despise IT. They were generally raised in a slightly more privileged environment, and therefore believe that their "education" makes them intellectually superior to others in every aspect.

      It becomes a game of cat and mouse. The IT personnel scramble to keep things running on a minimal budget, while the "management" does everything it can to stop IT from doing its job.

    9. Re:Who's responsible..? by Thrashing+Rage · · Score: 1

      Still, I'm sure that, sometime soon, MS will remove the Ctrl+C combination. For national security, of course.

      BUT you still will have CTRL-Insert

      HA!
    10. Re:Who's responsible..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At my place of employment, we have third party tools to handle that automatically. Any time a specific file type is attached to an email addressed to someone outside of the company, you will be prompted when hitting send to view a "risk assessment" of the information hidden in the document and a chance to strip the metadata or convert the document to a different format, like a PDF image for example. It is completely up to the user on the decision of what to do but the automation and seemless integration into Outlook makes it really easy for them. These same tools are avialable outside of mail of they choose to put files on CD, thumbdrive etc..

      Workshare Professional is one of the tools we use.

    11. Re:Who's responsible..? by nolife · · Score: 1

      Agree with your opinions but...
      IT departments working in a non IT business is to serve the users. IT does not run the business. If the users are not satisfied and can not do their work they want, you have failed. Your job is to point out the potential problems (in writing if possible) of doing things their way from an IT prospective and let someone else make the business decision if they want to do that or not. If you have a strong IT department manager, you will be able to achieve a balance of ease of use and security.

      Meaning:
      If someone wants to run no firewall and allow direct access to their PC from the internet so they can work from home bypassing your RSA frontend, you should point out the security problems with that setup in writing/email/group forum to your supervisor and/or to that person. If they choose to still do it, come up with a plan to minimize the risk as much as possible or present alternatives with what that user wants. At that point, you've done your job that you were hired to do and you should move on to the next issue.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    12. Re:Who's responsible..? by jcgf · · Score: 1

      What happens when they don't listen to your warnings and make you set up the network to be totally un-secure and then still blame you when they get hacked? Those meeting minutes with your warning will be gone if it prevents Colonel Pomp from looking bad. I think the gp poster is right to cover his ass first.

    13. Re:Who's responsible..? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Would anybody say the same about the department that handles purchases of office equipment. Some employee wants a $6000 chair, and even though they know if they gave that to everybody, the company would go bankrupt, they should still do it, because the employee requests it. Some things should be non-negotiable. Just because some employee thinks they need a $6000 chair, or because they think they need a PC without a firewall, does not mean that they should be allowed to have it. Maybe some employee feels like having to carry around an ID/door lock card is an inconvenience, they should just leave all the doors unlocked, and do away with the security guards too, because Joe in accounting doesn't like the felling he gets when they look at him.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    14. Re:Who's responsible..? by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      Except the federal government is not a business. The officers and managers that fight IT do not have the authority to make the decisions they are making. A Colonel does not override the authority of the Major General who signed the policies into effect.

      If that individual runs a computer which breaks security policy, then more than likely they are breaking a variety of laws. Not only that, IT personnel who allow that action are also breaking laws, laws which could land said IT personnel into federal prison for a LONG time.

    15. Re:Who's responsible..? by hob42 · · Score: 1

      Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist. Well, you'd never find an immunologist or virologist going over every single vial of vaccine that is sent out. They're involved in the production process, but the only people overseeing the mundane daily release of product are your average QA folks.

      Probably the only person who looked over this file before it was released was a lawyer and some manager somewhere.
    16. Re:Who's responsible..? by x2A · · Score: 1

      only to a pessimist ;-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    17. Re:Who's responsible..? by nolife · · Score: 1

      The person that made the decision to allow it will have to suffer the consequences, not the network guy person two or more levels below that implemented it because he/she was told to do it. That was my point and also why I stressed to try to get something in writing or producible form like an email. If you are the top IT guy making the decisions and others are coming to you with these request, get the approval of your authority. If he okays it, you are in the clear. If you get fired for implementing someone elses business decision, you probably would be better off working some where else anyway.

      As for the other persons chair comment. If your supervisor or his supervisor approves it, he should get the 60K chair, that is not your concern as the employee, same with the leaving the doors open. Joe Schmo tier2 tech is not going to get fired because the building manager or department manger in that area requested that the doors stay open.

      Many people like to feel they have more responsibility in the work place then they really do. If someone higher than you makes the decision, it is their ass. If you are not asking a higher authority when asked to do something you think is wrong, it is your ass. It really is that plain and simple.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    18. Re:Who's responsible..? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      As if "IT professionals" have a clue?

      Seriously, IT people spend all day programming or monkeywrenching Windows. They generally don't have any in-depth knowledge about application software (such as Acrobat) because they never use it.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    19. Re:Who's responsible..? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      My job as an IT professional is to keep the network running, which means, among other things, "make the network secure from internal *and* external threats." You can paraphrase that as "...secure from simple ignorance and malicious intent" if you prefer. Just because Joe-Bob in accounting wants to do something stupid doesn't mean I should let him. Assuming I have already done my best to explain to everyone involved why Joe-Bob's request is a bad idea, it is not until my manager tells me to do it anyway that I should implement the end-user's idiotic request.

      Having said that, I agree with your main point -- IT is there to make business process work better. A former boss explained it this way. In any business, there are two groups of people: those who make the money, and those who make it possible for the first group to make the money. In most businesses, IT is the *second* group of people. We should be as unobtrusive as possible, since our salaries are pure overhead for the company.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:Who's responsible..? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Quit and get a job somewhere else. It sucks, but if you're screwed if you do and screwed if you don't, then it's only a matter of time until you either get fired, go postal on your coworkers or die of hypertension.

      Get out before you burn out.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    21. Re:Who's responsible..? by Hyppy · · Score: 1
      In the government, strangely enough, there are very few instances where there is a clear chain of command. Situational authority, positional authority, and rank all combine to create a very confusing mix.

      If someone higher than you makes the decision, it is their ass. If you are not asking a higher authority when asked to do something you think is wrong, it is your ass. It really is that plain and simple. I have personally witnessed many events that contradict that statement. I have heard of many more. "He told me to" is not a valid excuse when something is wrong. In the current economy, however, most people can't afford to be cavalier with their jobs, especially with silly things like "right" and "wrong".
    22. Re:Who's responsible..? by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      I assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release?

      I can't speak for everyone, but we just train our staff properly.

      I work in a (non-US) government department where we often release information under New Zealand's Official Information Act, which basically says that anyone can request any information and the government's required to provide it as long as the request meets certain specifications. (ie. The request was specific enough, someone's privacy won't be unreasonably compromised, etc.) There's an independent office to resolve any disputes between government organisations and requesters (mostly journalists), but we actually go to efforts to avoid with-holding information unless there's a really good reason, because it just makes it easier. The fact that the law's the way it is in the first place means that people are fully aware that information about decisions they're making might one day be made public.

      Occasionally we need to keep something back, though. In those cases I don't think IT people get involved unless they're specifically requested to. We do have specialist librarian staff though, whose primary work is to keep track of all the Official Information Act requests and make sure they're assigned to appropriate people and being answered properly. They're definitely not computer geeks, but they know all about the issues with releasing digital information and how things that look deleted aren't always gone, and they have procedures to cover that kind of thing.

    23. Re:Who's responsible..? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I don't find the software like Acrobat all that hard to grasp. I never use it unless I have to but I can figure it out pretty easily. Actually, all the applications I support are pretty much a hands on when it breaks fix which isn't too hard to accomplish. 90% of user complaints can be boiled down to them doing something wrong or changing a setting somewhere when they forgot and can't explain the off behavior.

      I have one user who crashed Acrobate at least one a month is not a week. She start importing a document from the web without downloading it first and then gets impatient and attempts to cancel the operation. If it doesn't quite soon enough, she kills it from the task manager. Then something is left over and adobe won't work right until you simply clear the TMP files out. OF course she knows how to do that but feels the need to call me to do it for here.

      So yea, I suppose the GP is right. She might do that whenever she feels the need to order someone around of something in an attempt to feel better about herself. I don't care, I'm getting paid so I will gladly do something that she can do or could avoid all together. I would say there is only a small handful of programs in use that I and my fellow IT staffers couldn't figure out after a few minutes of playing with them. Of course being proficient is another story, I don't do your job and don't expect to.

    24. Re:Who's responsible..? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Well, that's true, IT can do general troubleshooting.

      But, having worked for a company that did a lot of document processing, the PDF (and TIFF) formats are very complex and the subtleties wouldn't be necessarily be obvious to someone with a general "IT" skill set.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    25. Re:Who's responsible..? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think IT is a generalization of sorts. It would be someone clueless of the managment to hire an IT staff that couldn't pay enough attention to the detail as you suggest. I admit that I have to have the user demonstrate what they are doing when the problem comes about sometimes.

      With me, the more detail that you are concerned with would mean the more I needed to find out about the workings of the programs. I usually call them vacations but I have went to 2 and 5 day seminars just to support more complexed programs before. AccPac is one piece of software that I hate but have done that with. There are others too. Of course I'm contracted to several different companies so I have to be more diverse then other IT staff but I agree that they should be able to address the level of details you mention.

    26. Re:Who's responsible..? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Sure, you'd grok the training just fine.

      I'm just saying you couldn't hand a PDF to a IT techie and expect them to "intuitively" redact something completely without some really specific domain knowledge. (PDFs have multiple layers, and those layers have layers.)

      And in most organizations, that domain knowledge doesn't necessarily rest in IT. (Your accountants probably know as much about "AccPac" as anyone, for example.) In my case, I was working directly with the guys writing the imaging/PDF software. But it's not like even the company's own sysadmins understood this stuff.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    27. Re:Who's responsible..? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      Although I think we might be going to the same end from different directions. I was trying to say that whoever is in charge of doing the redactions and such should be trained on it in order to be competent enough to at least follow something that should be a company policy by now. I don't think there is anything inherent about the process that an IT person couldn't be trained to do it. Your saying that the person who works with it every day is more generally more familiar with it and could do the job better then a standard IT person.

      In the end, I think we are both on the same side, whoever is doing it should be competent enough to do it. I see what your saying about the complex layers and stuff. However, there shouldn't be any reason why a standard policy couldn't be made and actually followed. This is especially true if some department could be created specifically for the task. I would think the lack of one would be a sign of incompetence on the managment levels. This isn't the first time for this stuff. I would also have reservations from allowing just any IT guy do it, they would need a security classification along the same lines of what they are dealing with. Any newspaper or "insert bad name here" organization could otherwise get someone hired on as IT and report on what they removed from a document then make specific FOI requests.

  10. You think thats bad... by hyperz69 · · Score: 1

    They have done real boneheaded stuff like xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxx xxxxxx xxx. Wonder why no one has ever talked about it before.

    Note: This post had been edited by the FBI for your protection. Thank you for your continued co-operation.

    1. Re:You think thats bad... by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      Haha - took me a little longer to realize why that was boneheaded then I would've liked. I wonder why they don't just encrypt text they feel is sensitive and turn it into garbage and then black out the garbage. Apparently from TFA it seems, most of the governments secrets are already garbage anyway.

    2. Re:You think thats bad... by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it was edited by the FBI? I tried to copy the redacted parts and paste into my editor but nothing shows up. Are you using the same algorithm?

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  11. Not everything is censorship. by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sometimes items are redacted because of contractual commitments or confidentiality agreements. Take the example in the story; now, all Verizon's competition needs to do is bid $2,499 per switch and they get the job. So what if they could have supplied the switches at $2,200 and still made a healthy profit - they just need to be low. So that's $299 extra per switch that the government (aka, taxpayers) will have to pay because the competitive bid environment has been contaminated.

    But hey, they made their point about evil government masterminds being wholly incompetent, so what does logic matter?

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Not everything is censorship. by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      If I'm not permitted to have secrets, why should they?

    2. Re:Not everything is censorship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Once bids are awarded they are in the public domain.

    3. Re:Not everything is censorship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)m not saying this is the case here, but it might be that this bit of information in the right context is sensitive. Having worked with secrets you would find that most are seemingly benign, but when taken with a handful of other seemingly benign bits, they make a secret. This is the difficulty of working with sensitive information. For example, itâ(TM)s possible to get into a reply chain of emails and unknowingly construct a secret document. Again, Iâ(TM)m not saying that is the case here, but just because one bit looks trivial doesnâ(TM)t mean that it is taken in the entirety of the redacted document.

    4. Re:Not everything is censorship. by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      In a democracy government contracts are supposed to be transparent. Given that it's your tax dollar, you are entitled to see how it is being spent. I agree with an earlier poster that this is a way of gradually leading people to expect less transparency from government. It's purely anti-democratic. Truly dark forces have taken over the government these days.

    5. Re:Not everything is censorship. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct. All non-classified government contracts can be had through FOIA request. Some agencies even post information about some of their contracts online on their website -- no FOIA required.

    6. Re:Not everything is censorship. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      So that's $299 extra per switch that the government (aka, taxpayers) will have to pay because the competitive bid environment has been contaminated. We're talking about the same environment where bids aren't needed for the vice president's former (and future?) employer here. You're paying extra no matter what.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Not everything is censorship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are right, it's clear this was redacted to protect Verizon and the FBI by keeping the details of their secret deal hidden from the American public, this is not a legal reason to redact any information under the Freedom of Information Act. The whole point of the act is to get these secret deals out in the public eye where they belong.

    8. Re:Not everything is censorship. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Of course they're increasingly moving away from a strict lowest-bidder philosophy, so that won't necessarily help. www.gsa.gov/performancebasedsolution

    9. Re:Not everything is censorship. by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      I suspect it had less to do with the amount of money spent - because they didn't redact the total spent - and more to do with exact numbers of equipment running some of the country's infrastructure being disclosed.

      p.s. I can't fathom why this story is in the "entertainment" category. Seems like a bug since everything else at entertainment./. are in other categories like games. Ah, yeah, and "entertainment" is not even an option in preferences for sections.

    10. Re:Not everything is censorship. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your talking about an environment where Halibuton had a no bid contract before the vice president became the vice president.

      A little fact that so many people attempt to gloss over in order to reinforce their contempt and bashing. The government has what they call emergency contracts where existing contractors are able to bid on a job that doesn't exist unless some emergency requires it. It ends up open ended with a flat rate of costs plus at the government's direction.

      After going into Iraq or Afghanistan, we couldn't leave our soldiers without services neccesary to their survival while waiting 6 months for a bidding process and another 3-6 months for them to get situated and working. It is impossible and stupid to think it could have been any other way or that this is in any way related to Cheney's employment there outside what he done before running for vice president. This was a matter of public record and came out at the time some people where attempting to use the connection for political gain.

    11. Re:Not everything is censorship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the example in the story; now, all Verizon's competition needs to do is bid $2,499 per switch and they get the job. Or, someone else could bid $2,399 per switch and undercut the competition, since the information is available to everyone. This is long after the original bid was completed, so there's not really a compelling reason to keep the information secret.
  12. LOL! by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    visible by computer experts armed with the Ctrl+C keys

    The FBI is trying to trick me into thinking they're all stupid so they can find out where I've got the 500 acre marijuana farm with its fiftten thousand tons of marijuana in the barn, 500 beautiful hookers and the casino downstairs, where you can buy white lightning and moonshine.

    Meanwhile, Osama's still loose.

    Attention FBI: Look, dumbasses, print the damned thing out, black out the parts that embarrass the President and your Director with a magic marker and scan it to a TIF file (that's a graphics format, guys. Pay attention!) and "print" THAT to PDF.

    But you already know that, you're trying to find my pot gambling hooker farm!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:LOL! by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      print the damned thing out, black out the parts that embarrass the President and your Director with a magic marker and scan it to a TIF file (that's a graphics format, guys. Pay attention!) and "print" THAT to PDF. WRONG!

      The official method is:

      1 - Print the document.
      2 - Cut the private parts away with a cutter.
      3 - If you've not castrated yourself, you should have a paper with holes. Put it in a wooden table.
      4 - Make a photo of said table.
      5 - Load the photo in a power point.
      6 - publish the ppt file.
    2. Re:LOL! by Inda · · Score: 1, Troll

      The magic marker ink will not hide the printer ink. It will show up on the scan.

      Better luck next time. Thanks for playing.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:LOL! by genderbunny · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm also inept. Now where might this farm be located?

    4. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also wrong!

      The approved method by the current administration is:

      1 - Print the document
      2 - Painstakingly cut sensitive info out with an X-Acto knife
      3 - Destroy redacted bits of paper in burn bag
      4 - Store the person who saw the sensitive information in one of Cheney's man-sized safes
      5 - Order another man-sized safe
      6 - Deny existence any document

    5. Re:LOL! by stimuli_ii · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      7 - Profit!

    6. Re:LOL! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Crawford, Texas.

    7. Re:LOL! by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      But you already know that, you're trying to find my pot gambling hooker farm! Because it is really important to prevent you from having a good time while Osama's still on the loose. We have to keep our priorities straight after all...
    8. Re:LOL! by khb · · Score: 1

      Acrobat 8 has redaction tools built in.

    9. Re:LOL! by TummyX · · Score: 2


      Meanwhile, Osama's still loose.


      I don't mean to be nitpicky but isn't Osama most likely outside of the US? Somewhere outside the jurisdiction of the FBI?

    10. Re:LOL! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      SSH! It's supposed to be a secret!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    11. Re:LOL! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Shows what you know.

      This is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. You see, Osama has been hiding on your casino all along and under your nose. When they find you, they find him on your mary jane pharm.

    12. Re:LOL! by Oloryn · · Score: 1

      When did we start using Daily WTF in-jokes on /.?

  13. Well, actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the sort of thing that seems innoculous, but, in theory, could be used to compromise an investigation.

    For example, if I was a bad guy and I suspected the FBI might be on to me, and I could have my buddy who works for verizon watch for $1,500 payments from the FBI. And then see where techs are dispatched. If one is dispatched to my area, even if it was unrelated, I'd move my safe house, or the very least cease talking about bad guy things on the phone. Goodbye weeks of work getting wiretap warrant (well, now that the lids been blown off, its back to weeks).

    This is also the sort of information that could be used in a social engineering attack. (This is verizon, we haven't yet recieved our payment for the upgrade to switch XXX-XXXX)

  14. The New Math by nqz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe the FBI should stick to something, like wiretapping for example, rather than performing simple math for a report ... 1140 x $2,500 $2.9 million (see the reverse pacman sign)

  15. Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit Sec by FlameWise · · Score: 5, Informative

    Honestly, same here. Some of those headlines are becoming really hard to read.

    "Wiretapping": verb. The FBI is wiretapping something. "is" omitted as in many headlines.

    "Audit": verb. The FBI's act of wiretapping is auditing something (Huh?)

    "Secrets": verb. The Audit of the FBI's wiretapping is leaking something. Wait isn't "secrete" writting with an extra "e"?

    "Uncovered": verb, passive. By now I'm sort doubtful I got it right in the fourth attempt.

    "Via Ctrl+C": By what?

    It took me reading the link in the original post to figure they meant a key press and not a screen name or a publication I wasn't familiar with, also helped me sort the four verbs into some semblance of legal grammar.

    How about: "Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit Secrets"?

    Remember school: Passive is bad for you.

  16. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by FlameWise · · Score: 4, Funny

    Right, I had one moment where I thought that hitting Ctrl+C would somehow reveal that the FBI is auditing you, too.

  17. The mosaic effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now, I'm all up for good gov't conspiracy, and working for the gov't, I know how they spend inappropriately.

    But there is something called the mosaic effect. The short of it is that you have two (or more) documents. None of them by themselves are sensitive, but as a group, they become sensitive because they give you a complete picture. It's quite possible that this redacted info gives that picture.

    In addition, gov't entities regularly leave out the specifics like the number of switches because they do not want to demonstrate the scope of their operations. Not for any malicious reasons, but for what they perceive as a security risk. It might be a false risk, but it's not malicious.

  18. Follow the evil overlord tips by vecctor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When I read this, the first thing I thought of were the evil overlord rules - specifically this one:

    One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation. They just need to have some intern to sit around and spot obvious flaws in document security. Any idiot giving this doc a cursory examination would have found this.

    --
    Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
  19. It looks like you're trying to redact a document! by Halo- · · Score: 5, Informative

    For me, the best part of the article was the link to the NSA redaction guidelines. Interesting reading I suppose, but the fact that throughout the entire paper the screencaps of MS Word had that damn Clippy-substitute cat sitting in the corner was classic. I'm not sure I'd trust someone (even at the NSA) to give me advice on MS Word options and settings when they can't even turn of the animated assistant.

  20. How much!!! by JaJ_D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches. Oddly the report didn't redact the total amount paid to the telecom â" slightly more than $2.9 million dollars â" but somehow the bad guys will win if they knew the number of switches and the cost paid.

    It's more likely that the total number is large and people go "ok must be a lot" but at 2.5k usd per switch people would go "how fucking much!!!" - that's what they may want to avoid

    Jaj

    1. Re:How much!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the big question is why did our tax money pay for Verizon's Equipment!

      I need a new computer. Will the FBI chip in? Not like I have any privacy anyways.

    2. Re:How much!!! by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      The switches are the big old network voice switches like Nortel DMS 100s, 250s and 500s.Before CALEA the IP network did not touch the old voice switches. It cost a HELL of a lot more than $2500 to upgrade those switches, try $350K each. It is just a fee. CALEA was mandated buy congress. AT&T, Sprint, Quest, Level 3, XO, and so on. Also did the same equipment mods. The only thing CALEA equipment does is give the cops the ability to tap POTS and VoIP calls. That is it. CALEA was only implemented because of the use of VoIP. That is it.

  21. Use by common (small town even) police departments by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 1

    Figure B: "SCREENSHOT OF ASKCALEA HELP DESK DATABASE"

    It shows requests from:
    Montogmery County, MD
    Baltimore County (state not listed)
    Omaha branch of the FBI
    Kenner, Louisiana
    US Secret Service
    Racine (Wisconsin?)
    Taylorsville, Utah

    Look at all of those small towns. Given that even the very small towns are using CALEA, it looks like the use of wiretaps is very widespread.

  22. this just goes to show by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how abused and misapplied all those "in the interest of national security" procedures are when there is no oversight in place. When will the legislators ever learn, anything that can be abused or misused, will be abused and misused in the absence of oversight? It's not even "might" or "is very likely". It always happens. It's human nature to take advantage for personal gain without risk. They censor anything that they want to, for any agenda, because they can. And this just exposes that truth.

    Now watch how they react to it. Do they straighten up their censorship policies? of course not. They'll simply make the abuse harder to discover.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:this just goes to show by strider200142 · · Score: 1

      Gotta say, really tired of people throwing around the idea that its "human nature" to be screwed up. We are living beings with free will. Just because the majority of people are screwed up does not make it inevitable! I will concede that in government you are dealing with such large numbers of people that DOES make it inevitable someone will abuse the power (at least in our current society). I just don't want people saying "its human nature!" Sounds reminiscent of "original sin" and all that crap.

    2. Re:this just goes to show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will the legislators ever learn, anything that can be abused or misused, will be abused and misused in the absence of oversight?

      The legislators have always known this; it's why they got into politics in the first place.

      I think you're more interested in when the voters will ever learn.

  23. Be happy its still number of switches by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the USA you still only have to do the math on the 'number' and 'quality' of roving witetaps.
    The use of public or released data to see what police forces are doing is interesting.
    In India you have to count the number of dead.
    "The records show that Durgiyana Mandir ground was one of three cremation sites in Amritsar
    illegally used by the police.
    It takes about 300kg of wood to burn a single body and each wood purchase is written in a register.
    The police subverted the system, by burning more than one body on each pyre.

    http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052 [sbs.com.au]

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. If you have Adobe Acrobat Try This by ronbo142 · · Score: 1

    If you are running MS-Office and Adobe Acrobat..... 1. Select the text that has been "REDACTED" 2. Right Click 3. Select Open Table in Spreadsheet Opps.... Look what I found!

    --
    Semper Fi Ronald Ausman USMC Ret
  25. Protecting Verizon's competitive secrets... by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    ...must be high on the FBI's list of priorities.

    Verizon: We'd love to help you, but, you know, if we do this for you, we'd have to do it for everyone.

    FBI: Don't worry, we'll never tell.

  26. apiece??? by dwater · · Score: 1

    IINM, normal usage of the word "apiece" implies multiple recipients - eg "My children received pocket money of $10 apiece." which means I was out $20.

    Think there was a previous deletion that was successfully hidden and there's actually another recipient involved?

    --
    Max.
    1. Re:apiece??? by iNaya · · Score: 1

      WRONG!!

      'Apiece' denotes multiple objects and means pretty much the same as 'each'. Whether they are recipients or not doesn't matter.

      E.g. My children received $10 apiece.
      Works fine, so does
      I bought 5 pencils at $4 apiece.

      If you're gonna be a grammer Nazi, at least be correct!!

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    2. Re:apiece??? by dwater · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I didn't explain myself, but what you said is agreeing with what I said.

      In the examples you gave, there are multiple recipients - ie more than one child and more than one pencil.

      In the article, there was only one - Verizon - so no need for the word 'apiece', unless they deleted another recipient.

      Perhaps I misunderstood *your* point too?

      --
      Max.
    3. Re:apiece??? by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      "The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches"

      You're right. It does look like FBI paid several different Verizons each to upgrade 1,140 switches. It should have been written "The FBI paid Verizon to upgrade 1,140 ...switches at $2,500 apiece".

      Sorry.

      Although in this case Verizon is still the recipient.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    4. Re:apiece??? by dwater · · Score: 1

      Hmm.


      "The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches"


      You're right. It does look like FBI paid several different Verizons each to upgrade 1,140 switches. It should have been written "The FBI paid Verizon to upgrade 1,140 ...switches at $2,500 apiece".


      Sorry.



      Although in this case Verizon is still the recipient.

      Ah, I see what you're getting at. I hadn't considered that they'd gotten their grammar wrong - I just assumed they'd deleted another recipient, which is still possible, I suppose, though the *low* number of $ does sort of imply that it isn't a single payment. I think I actually misread that and inserted a virtual 'million' somewhere where there wasn't any.

      Yeah, nothing to see here :)
      --
      Max.
  27. All Your Base by longacre · · Score: 1

    The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches. Oddly the report didn't redact the total amount paid to the telecom â" slightly more than $2.9 million dollars â" but somehow the bad guys will win if they knew the number of switches and the cost paid."
    The day the evildoers learn to use the * key for multiplication is the day of the apocalypse.
  28. Why would the FBI pay $2.9m to Verizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've not seen anyone ask -- but why would the FBI pay Verizon $2.9m to upgrade it's network switches?

  29. Intentional leak by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

    This strikes me as an intentional leak perpetrated by an employee who thought it was dumb to retract all of that. Just a gut feeling. I have no way to back that up.

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  30. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by digitig · · Score: 1

    Headlines usually make extensive use of noun phrases to premodify nouns. In the case of that headline, the only verb is "uncovered".

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  31. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

    Remember school: Passive is bad for you.
    I can't find the story but I remember hearing that passive is actually good for naming stories on the internet. People tend to search with passive words so your stuff is more likely to come up.
  32. You idiots... by rpp3po · · Score: 2, Funny

    this is reverse psychology! Hide some nonsense behind CRTL+C and the people point at you laughing about hiding such nonsense. Give 'em nothing but black bars and they will be afraid what terrible things are behind them and shout for more transparency.

  33. this isn't about national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The FBI paid Verizon $2,500 apiece to upgrade 1,140 old telephone switches. Oddly the report didn't redact the total amount paid to the telecom â" slightly more than $2.9 million dollars â" but somehow the bad guys will win if they knew the number of switches and the cost paid.

    This is not about giving too much information to the enemy (whatever the current boogie man is). This is about PR and keeping the public misinformed, while pandering to their national security concerns.

    "We spent 2.9 million US$ on improving our communication system" will trigger a "Great! That's tax dollars well spent!" while on the other hand a "We paid 2500 US$ for each of the 1140 telephones we recently purchased" will earn you a "WTF? Is that what our tax money is wasted for??"
  34. according to TFA... by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the FBI had spent $500 Million for these sort of upgrades. If verizon only cost them $2.9 million, and the other carriers cost only slightly more, where's the other $475 million dollars?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:according to TFA... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      where's the other $475 million dollars
      Heidi Fleiss.
    2. Re:according to TFA... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Narus STA 6400 units for all?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:according to TFA... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Uh, that was the NSA, not the FBI. (although, I'm sure you're probably trying to be funny)

    4. Re:according to TFA... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Whats funny about Narus?
      US $475 million dollars would still buy a few units.
      But keep watching that M3 data (The Federal Reserve ceased publishing M3 statistics in March 2006).
      http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:according to TFA... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1
      Hmmmmm...now this I find interesting.

      But keep watching that M3 data (The Federal Reserve ceased publishing M3 statistics in March 2006


      Why? And why is the government publishing economic statistics that are, apparently, pure fiction?

      I've suspected that this was going on for a while, but I've never been able to prove it until I saw that site you linked to.

  35. no ctrl+c needed by skorf · · Score: 1

    using doc viewer all you have to do is select the "hidden" boxes and you can read the text. I guess you need ctrl+c ctrl+v if you would like to print the hidden message, but otherwise a simple select all will do it!

  36. Linux makes things even easier! by 1336 · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Ubuntu if you use the default PDF viewer (Evince), you can see the "sensitive information" in the tables by simply HIGHLIGHTING the text.

    No need to even use the keyboard to copy/paste the data! ;)

    1. Re:Linux makes things even easier! by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Probably depends how the boxes were made. They might have done something more complicated than just draw rectangles over the text.

      PDFs have an "OCR" text layer that has no formatting information except position, but can be copied.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  37. Wow by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    I just have to say... wow.. i'm amazed... wait, no, I'm not. I've worked for a government organization and this doesn't surprise me. But I was thinking a simple solution is to encrypt sensitive text, turn it into garbage, and then black out the garbage.

  38. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The calia network as outlined originally, would have used a fraction of the switches. That number of switches indicates that they were monitoring a LOT more. IOW, this was not about wireless but about the entire world wide network. FBI is tapping all of Verizon.

    The one big embarrassment out of that, is that it shows that they had total access to the network, and yet 9/11 occurred. So, does that mean that this was not being used for terrorism, or does this indicate that we did know and ignored what was to happen.

    1. Re:Not really by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, and I would tend to agree with it.

      But there is a more obvious reason for the redaction than even that: Do the math.

      1140 switches * $2500 each = $2,850,000

      Slightly over $2.9 million is slightly more than $50K over the price of the replacement of these switches. The only conclusions that can be gathered are that someone higher up (with the ability to classify documents) has been skimming off the top or they are not reporting where all the money went.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    2. Re:Not really by mpe · · Score: 1

      The one big embarrassment out of that, is that it shows that they had total access to the network, and yet 9/11 occurred. So, does that mean that this was not being used for terrorism, or does this indicate that we did know and ignored what was to happen.

      The other possibilities are that such monitoring isn't much use for discovering terrorists, terrorists don't discuss their plans over the phone or that the monitoring system has been infiltrated by terrorists.

  39. We monitor on behalf of small town companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot reveal who I am or where I work, but we became CALEA-compliant in 2006. We receive several requests every few months to 'monitor' someone's telephone connection. Being that I have access to the account database that shows this sort of thing, the reasons behind the wiretaps are usually suspect. If you think that your phone connection is safe, you are wrong.

    Feel free to respond and ask questions.

  40. The naivete! by wfolta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It hurts my brain. The person who (incompetently) redacted the document was probably just following guidelines. My guess is that there's a guideline that says that specific numbers and costs cannot be published in reference to secure systems used by an intelligence or law enforcement agency. Only aggregate costs, as necessary to inform the public and lawmakers.

    No conspiracy. No corruption. No deeper meaning than a guideline that requires sticking your neck out and making a case if you want to violate it.

    Makes sense, actually, as most intelligence gathering is probably not about sentences like, "John Doe is our super-secret mole in the office of the director", but rather "the phone system has 1100 switches for all of North America, and is taken down every 2 weeks at 1 am for maintenance."

    And this leaves me wondering if those who are laughing or outraged at the attempted redaction (as opposed to the incompetence in implementing it) are also the same people who insist that they must have military-grade encryption and anonymous re-routing, using spread-spectrum wireless transmissions to public access facilities, in order to protect their private emails to grandmother. Sigh.

  41. Racine is in the middle of 2 big citys and there i by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Racine is in the middle of 2 big city's and there is a lot people in that area.

  42. here's how it happened. by greywire · · Score: 1

    Go through these documents and redact anything sensitive.
    What does redact mean?
    Just black things out.
    What things?
    Just make it look good. Anything that seems important
    OK sir!

      was a 6 months earlier, and got promoted. His name is Peter. He reports to another manager with whom he had mostly the same conversation with an hour earlier with the places reversed...

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    1. Re:here's how it happened. by greywire · · Score: 1

      Thats what I get for not looking at the preview..

      Manager: Go through these documents and redact anything sensitive.
      Peon: What does redact mean?
      Manager: Just black things out.
      Peon: What things?
      Manager: Just make it look good. Anything that seems important
      Peon: OK sir!

      Manager was a Peon 6 months earlier, and got promoted. His name is Peter. He reports to another manager with whom he had mostly the same conversation with an hour earlier with the places reversed..

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
  43. Not surprised, really by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    One federal job I'd applied for had a form that could only be done electronically.

    Ok, great...less paper.

    Form did not work with acrobat4.
    Upgraded to 7 and found it was locked and p/w protected. (view only..d'oh)
    No mention of p/w or email address/support if problems with the form.
    Found app that strips the protection/pw.

    Fitting I watched Apollo13 a few days ago and thought "Tell me this isn't a government operation".

    Heck, can't get info you're supposed to have/need, what makes one think they can hide stuff you're not supposed to see?

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  44. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by x2A · · Score: 1

    Yes the wording is pretty bad, but... you are joking right? "The FBI's act of wiretapping is auditing something" would be "Wiretapping audits [thing]"... "wiretapping audit" is clearly an audit of the wiretapping, as a "security audit" would be an audit of the security of something (which these guys didn't do!)... so that's a noun... it's a thing. It might be something that happens, like an eclipse, but it's not a verb, unless it's eclipsing, eclipsed. And secrets... I can't even think off the top of my head how that could be used in verb form. A secret is a thing that you know... or, more likely, don't know... or was that a joke via the 'secretes'? Hard to tell, not much of this is making sense at all :-/

    Bout time you's lot should write proper!

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  45. Bad Guys or Auditors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but somehow the bad guys will win if they knew the number of switches and the cost paid"

    I would imagine the real concern is by outside parties using this and other financial info to calculate the real operating budget of the FBI.

  46. this actually makes some sense... by virmaior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from an information security standpoint, this actually makes some sense. Allow me to explain. First, the high value number is going to show up in budgets anyway, so anyone who wants that number could already find it. It's hard to not have a few million dollars show up in the accounting somehow. Second, the reason the exact dollar value per part is usually redacted is that this is a giant clue as to the identity of the part used in the infrastructure. E.g. if I tell you I have a $300 mp3 player, then you know that I have an IPOD. But if I tell you that I bought a bunch of mp3 players and spent $100,000 then you don't know whether I've bought Zens, Zunes, ipods, sansas, or something else. And the problem with telling people what your infrastructure is made of who shouldn't know is that it enables them to focus on vulnerabilities for just that one device. caveat: I actually have a $10 mp3 player.

  47. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, same here. Some of those headlines are becoming really hard to read.

    "Wiretapping": verb. Noun (gerund).

    "Audit": verb. Noun or verb.

    "Secrets": verb. Noun (plural).

    Remember school: Passive is bad for you. Yes, please remember school....

    GN
  48. Re:It looks like you're trying to redact a documen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, at least they knew how to change the animation. Perhaps it was meant to be Catbert?

    Alternatively they should have changed it to one of the Spy versus Spy characters.

  49. "Sorry to bust your bubble"or"The Mundane Answer" by Specter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The actual cost of performing the service was likely redacted, not as a matter of national security, but because the pricing is contractually considered proprietary information .

    Most companies include this as a standard clause in their master service agreements so that Joe's Barber shop isn't upset that Big Government Office is getting a different (presumably better) price for exactly the same service.

  50. Wrong Switch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those were not Ethernet switches. They were the big Old network voice switches like Nortel DMS 100, 250 and 500s. CALEA gives the FBI the ability to tap VoIP calls. Before the IP network did not touch the old voice switches. It cost a HELL of a lot more than $2500 to upgrade those switches. It is just a fee.

  51. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Headlines everywhere are suffering from "headlinese".

    And it's become so "normal" that people use it even when there's no room constraints, the original reason to use such terminology. We kinda expect headlines to be a bit "blurry", or maybe they are to be interesting. After all, if you don't really get it immediately but it sounds interesting, you read on instead of flipping to the funnies.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  52. Get'em while we can! by DeIslandMon · · Score: 1

    why are we sitting around posting on slashdot? we should be trying to download all the "redacted" PDFs we can before they "upgrade" them!

  53. They want you to think they're incompent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they occasionally leak these documents as 'mistakes', so that people see what's being redacted and go, "Well, duh, that's pretty boring!" And then they won't care about stuff that is REALLY redacted for good reason. Like the truth about the 9/11 conspiracy, the JFK assassination, or the alleged moon landings.

    Okay. I'm going to go check on my supply of tinfoil hats, to make sure They haven't stolen them again. Keep safe.

    (Posted as Anonymous Coward for obvious reasons...)

  54. How the fuck (you mods are morons) by hassanchop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did that raging paranoia get modded to anything but "+5 take your fucking meds so you'll stop bothering us with tin foil hat bullshit"?

    I don't know what's scarier, that OP actually believes that crap or that 5 other people agree with him.

    1. Re:How the fuck (you mods are morons) by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Because it seems to be something that we could reasonably expect that they really are doing?

  55. Re:"Sorry to bust your bubble"or"The Mundane Answe by virmaior · · Score: 1

    re: the price: not just presumably. if it's a GSA contract, the government is guaranteed to get the lowest price you charge for it. If you try to screw them on this, then they can fine you or put you in prison

    (I have written a GSA contract before).

  56. Re:It looks like you're trying to redact a documen by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    They probably have a special configuration on their own machine which they didn't want to reveal, and simply used a fresh install of MS Word to do the screenshots for the instructions.

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  57. Irony, anyone? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Sometimes items are redacted because of contractual commitments or confidentiality agreements. [...] But hey, they made their point about evil government masterminds being wholly incompetent, so what does logic matter?

    Please explain the logic behind the government agreeing to confidentiality in a business transaction where taxpayer money is involved?

  58. Why the cost per switch would be redacted by gizmonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason to hide the cost per switch is to keep the negotiations invisible from other providers. Sure, you can report $2.9 million to Verizon, but AT&T doesn't know how many switches that was or the cost per switch. Maybe they worked out a cheaper deal with AT&T for, say, $2,000 per switch instead of $2,500. If AT&T knew what Verizon was getting paid, they'd hold out for more themselves. While it may seem silly to hide the details, doing so probably saves a little cash in the long run.

    Of course, now, if they ever need to do more switches, I am betting every vendor will be holding out for the highest publicized price (or their own private price, if it's higher still). So, yeah, sometimes disseminating what you think is non-critical information will in fact cost us more in the long run. Revealing it may not make "the bad guys win" but it can definitely make the taxpayer lose.

    Just my unredacted $0.02.

    --
    WWJD?
    JWRTFM!
  59. PDF editor works too by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Since these geniuses simply drew opaque boxes on top of the "sensitive" data, any PDF editing tool can delete the box and restore the document to its pre-redacted state.

    If these are the people protecting your country from "cyber terrorists", well, god can't even help you!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  60. Nobody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until they figure out Ctrl-Print Screen.

    Oh shi...

  61. They're safe... by SeaCrazy · · Score: 1

    Obviously copying & pasting the redacted text is a DMCA violation!

    --
    .sig? Get your own damn .sig!
  62. The author misses the point by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    If the blacked-out content is not important, then the criticism of the FBI may be unfounded.

    1. Re:The author misses the point by base3 · · Score: 1

      If they redacted because the amount they paid was embarrassing, rather than legitimately suppressed for national security, that's an abuse of the redaction process and just as bad as if it were legitimate sensitive information they were trying to hide.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  63. Re:It looks like you're trying to redact a documen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not an "animated assistant," it's a National Security Consultant!

  64. Re:Copy & Paste Reveals FBI Wiretapping Audit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This anti-passive bullshit is completely incomprehensible. Why is passive bad for you?

    Other than it's unfortunate name of passive.

  65. Maybe they didn't care by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

    Has it occurred to anyone that they didn't care that much if someone found this info?

    In Soviet Russia, Ctrl + C hits you.

  66. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion