Some of DOJ's Careful Redactions Can Be Defeated With Copy-Paste (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0180451371
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/24/1710233/some-of-dojs-careful-redactions-can-be-defeated-with-copy-paste
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/news/849639/epstein-files-doj-redactions-links
A 2022 complaint filed by the US Virgin Islands seeking damages from Jeffrey Epstein's estate appeared on the DOJ's "Epstein Library" website with black boxes throughout. Techdirt founder Mike Masnick and others shared on Bluesky that the redactions could be trivially circumvented. The exposed text includes allegations that a co-executor signed over $400,000 in foundation checks "payable to young female models and actresses, including a former Russian model," and details about an immigration lawyer allegedly "involved in one or more forced marriages arranged among Epstein's victims."
Separately, Drop Site News was also apparently able to guess URLs of files not yet published by extrapolating the format.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/news/849639/epstein-files-doj-redactions-links
Cost (Score:2)
The correct way to redact - use the Acrobat Pro "Redaction" feature which removes the text from the PDF.
The cheap crappy way of redacting - draw black boxes over text in word and "Save as PDF" which does almost nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Something something DEI
Re:Cost (Score:5, Funny)
It's high time we got away from this racialized concept of "blacking out" a document. Only whiteout is suitable for those white lies .
Re: (Score:1)
Something something whistleblower.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny.
But your sig makes me wonder what you think of the robotic arm theory? It's a humor-filled Occam's razor for the hand bruising.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it's worth I have seen numerous postings from people who have worked in government who have said that those tools are readily available and using them is standard procedure along with some even proprietary tools. So once again we get to play the game of "malice or incompetence?"
Re:Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
> So once again we get to play the game of "malice or incompetence?"
I'm going with "malicious compliance" -- when you task 1000+ FBI agents to grovel over a mountain of data with the express instruction to cover up anything that makes the boss look like the pedophile he is, at least a few of them are going to take exception to that and "forget" how to properly redact things.
Re: (Score:3)
When those agents can slip this right past the admin that's just incompetence. Either keep it tightly controlled or you gotta check everything.
In the end they don't really care though, they are banking on the conservative media machine pulling them through yet another crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's disciples won't care how many underage girls he's boned. Boys will be boys, God's messengers are always imperfect, etc.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
>> So once again we get to play the game of "malice or incompetence?"
> I'm going with "malicious compliance" -- when you task 1000+ FBI agents to grovel over a mountain of data with the express instruction to cover up anything that makes the boss look like the pedophile he is, at least a few of them are going to take exception to that and "forget" how to properly redact things.
This. You said it better than I was going to, and with a plausible rational. I'll add that most of these redactions probably violate the Epstein Transparency Act, which [1]states [congress.gov]:
> SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
> (b) Prohibited Grounds for Withholding.—
> (1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.
So, perhaps, the people behind these fake redactions are trying to comply with their bosses (Ka$h Patel, Pam Bondi, Trump) while technically covering their asses legally as they aren't immune (like Trump) and probably won't get any pardons (like Patel, Bondi probably will) for any illegal activities related to this release/cover-up.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text
Re: (Score:2)
"So, perhaps, the people behind these fake redactions are trying to comply with their bosses (Ka$h Patel, Pam Bondi, Trump) while technically covering their asses legally as they aren't immune (like Trump) and probably won't get any pardons (like Patel, Bondi probably will) for any illegal activities related to this release/cover-up."
The only answer to this is resign, committing crimes is not an answer, and poorly committing crimes is still crime.
Re: (Score:3)
> The only answer to this is resign, committing crimes is not an answer, and poorly committing crimes is still crime.
WRONG. The proper answer to being ordered to commit an illegal act is to refuse.
If they want to fire you for it, make them fire you -do not resign. Then publicly fight the wrongful termination.
Do not support corruption. Do not assist in covering up corruption by remaining silent.
Re: (Score:2)
Or be a whistleblower and turn information over directly to Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. This is intentional. And the people that are doing it have good reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
> have worked
Didn't DOGE cancel a bunch of Acrobat licenses?
Re: (Score:1)
It's malicious to obey the law and release some of the data that should have all been released long ago? I say not.
Re: (Score:2)
They did some of the former and some of the latter. In some files the redacted words are missing from the text. In some files, some of them are missing. In others they're all gone. Different teams? Were some of them previous redactions? I haven't even tried to find out, but I've only downloaded a few of the PDFs so far and had mixed results even so.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have heard about their recent staffing problems. Competent people working toward any kind of law-enforcement goal are no longer valued in the organization. Patel probably recruited some whiz kids off Xitter/4chan to do it on their iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
the correct way to redact is to print the page, then use black paper or thick tape and re-scan.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny. Nothing about shredding the printouts. Even better if the printers have been hacked? In that case we'll be getting the full versions after detours through North Korea or Russia...
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahaha, FAIL! With current scanning tech, that may well NOT be enough. If you print, have the minimal competence to a) cut things out and b) never leave the pages lying on top of each other before that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn' the "draw a black box" method demonstrated to be ineffective over a decade ago? IIRC, something about an FOIA release by the Pentagon just unmarked and leaked in its entirety.
DOJ (Score:2)
LOL, I think the DOJ itself has been caught fake-redacting legal documents before. There was a mini-scandal a few years ago IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Time and again. First case is probably a lot older, but there have been enough public ones that anybody competent knows.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, this is the problem. DEI hires (be they conservative or liberal DEI, doesn't matter, when you are selecting people based on appearances instead of skills is my definition) won't know how to do this properly.
Re: (Score:2)
I would speculate that the redacting may have been done by recent hires, because (a) presumably the incumbent workers at the DOJ already knew how to do this properly, and (b) the DOJ was suddenly tasked with redacting millions of documents in a month, and needed manpower for the job. When it comes to recent hires, I seriously doubt the current administration has DEI as a priority -- quite the opposite in fact.
Re: or a free alternative ... (Score:1)
I've found that Microsoft Window's print-to-pdf also does the trick
(e.g. make the redactions, then use print-to-pdf on the redacted pdf)
Re: (Score:2)
And the second way has now failed publicly several times.
On the other hand, this may well be malicious compliance, i.e. the ones tasked with redacting screwing it up intentionally. When no set procedures and tools to be used are in place (which is a leadership failure), that becomes an option. Even more so when the "leaders" are complete jokes and disrespect everybody else in the organization. As is the case currently in basically the whole Trump administration.
How to get fired in one easy step. (Score:2)
Don't know what redaction actually means. Sure I'll just add a black box to a digital document...
Actually interesting, unfortunately not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I've seen with this report and with others... the redactions seem to be less about protecting victims (which has been the claim from this administration) and more about protecting the names of the guys who were doing these despicable things .
Re: (Score:3)
Does that surprise you in any way, shape, or form? I personally almost died of shock at that realization.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no.
Re: (Score:3)
> From what I've seen with this report and with others... the redactions seem to be less about protecting victims (which has been the claim from this administration) and more about protecting the names of the guys who were doing these despicable things .
He's already said/alluded to this. [1]Trump bemoans destroyed reputations from Epstein files in first public comments since DOJ release [cnn.com]
> President Donald Trump bemoaned Monday the potential reputational damage inflicted on people who appear in photos released as part of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which he insisted were only made public because of an effort to distract from his accomplishments.
> “A lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein. But they’re in a picture with him because he was at a party, and you ruined a reputation of somebody,” Trump said ...
Yes, it would a shame for people to actually have to explain themselves. /s
Also, judging from the pardons he's doling out, Trump doesn't consider this kind of thing, or any white-collar crime really, crime - and also not anything performed to his benefit, like all those insurrectionists on Jan 6th. It's hard to interpret his actions any other way...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/22/politics/trump-epstein-doj-release-comments
Re: (Score:2)
What? You mean they didn't fully and completely investigate all these vile monsters years ago?
"I'm shocked! Shocked to find that..."
Obligatory "Casablanca" reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. They do not care about the victims. If they could, they would probably resolve the problem via assassination of the victims that are not silent. But that may be a bit too obvious now.
Re: Some of DOJ's Careful Redactions Can Be Def... (Score:2)
fake news, democrat hoax, tds, deep state, affordability, groceries, something, something
Trumpstitutional incompetence (Score:2)
The amount of incompetence this administration consistently displays continues to amaze me.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the one thing saving us from fascist control. They're good at talking a big game to their constituents, but ultimately can't deliver on anything.
So one of the leaks (Score:2, Funny)
Describes Trump impregnating a 13-year-old girl and the baby being killed. Not aborted early in the pregnancy but killed after birth...
Now Trump supporters will say they don't believe it of course.
But here's the thing the fact that it's even a possibility should mean that to any sane person Trump shouldn't be president because we can't take the risk.
There are 340 million other people who can be president besides a potential rapist with a long history of failed businesses.
I really do think th
Re: (Score:3)
> Describes Trump impregnating a 13-year-old girl and the baby being killed. Not aborted early in the pregnancy but killed after birth...
[citation needed]
No snark here. Citation really, really needed. Please provide and thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[1]https://www.justice.gov/epstei... [justice.gov]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00025010.pdf
Search Google (Score:1)
For the phrase "Trump Leak drowned baby" and you will find it. You are almost certainly need to click on a link to a foreign news source because American News is owned by billionaires and of course they're not going to cover it.
You might also find the documents on Blue sky. You will not find the document in the released files because as soon as Trump realized it was there it was removed.
Re:So one of the leaks (Score:4, Informative)
> [citation needed]
> No snark here. Citation really, really needed. Please provide and thank you very much.
[1]https://www.justice.gov/epstei... [justice.gov]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet+8/EFTA00025010.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
????
Didn't see Trump's name in there.
Re: (Score:2)
oh i see it there down at the bottom; sorry missed it.
To bad this will make no difference at all.
Trumps supports will deny and ignore. And the rest of will gripe amongst ourselves and then do nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is your citation:
[1]https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/st... [x.com]
Epstein record EFTA00025010 is an FBI intake report dated 08/03/2020, an unidentified woman / victim reports Epstein trafficked her at age 13 and that she was raped by Trump, who later witnessed her newborn daughter be murdered and be disposed of from a yacht.
[1] https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/status/2003571842473476448
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Be Donald Trump [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
Re: (Score:1)
> But here's the thing the fact that it's even a possibility should mean that to any sane person Trump shouldn't be president because we can't take the risk.
It's only a possibility in the minds of people who already think he's super omega hitler satan. If I submit a tip to the FBI that (random politician) eats babies instead of turkey for thanksgiving can I get them booted from office?
Re: (Score:2)
> There are 340 million other people who can be president besides a potential rapist with a long history of failed businesses.
And someone actually convicted, by a jury, of sexual abuse.
Rape (Score:1)
You have to ask yourself, read what Trump did to that woman and ask yourself would you call that adjudicated sexual battery or would you call it rape?
I don't care what New York law calls it. I would call it rape and it's a failure of the New York legal system that it wasn't classified as such.
Re: (Score:2)
> You have to ask yourself, read what Trump did to that woman and ask yourself would you call that adjudicated sexual battery or would you call it rape? I don't care what New York law calls it. I would call it rape and it's a failure of the New York legal system that it wasn't classified as such.
I don't disagree, but that wasn't the legal finding. George Stephanopoulos used the word "rape" rather than "sexual abuse" and Trump [1]sued [latimes.com] him over that technical difference - and George/ABC caved even though they might have prevailed, relying on the following commentary, but they might have lost as Stephanopoulos' comment was public and factually incorrect...
> The judge in the [E. Jean Carroll] case said that “the finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ ”
[1] https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-12-18/george-stephanopoulos-signs-new-deal-with-abc-news-amid-trump-controversy
Re: (Score:2)
ABC caved because Disney's under fire at the moment, and it was a cheap way to gain Trump's favor. Nobody in their right mind thinks they'd have lost the libel case, given the original libel case also included the word "rape" and the judge was very clear that the technicalities of NY law do not change that, for libel purposes, the issue is meaning, not legal technicalities.
ABC also caved when the FCC commissioner accused Kimmel of making all kinds of comments about Charlie Kirk that he never made or implied
Re: (Score:3)
Not a Trump supporter, but bear in mind there was a flood of accusations when Trump got into office the first time, and there's at least some reason to believe they weren't always in good faith. A major thing reason the media isn't headlining many of these, despite there still being one or two news outlets in the country not owned by a Trump sycophant, is that simply because something was reported to the DoJ/FBI isn't enough - you have to follow the investigation trail. Did they find witnesses? What was in
Re: (Score:2)
> Not a Trump supporter, but bear in mind there was a flood of accusations when Trump got into office the first time, and there's at least some reason to believe they weren't always in good faith.
Yes. So? Even 5% true should have landed him in prison for a long time. Obviously, a lot more were true.
Re: (Score:2)
> Describes Trump impregnating a 13-year-old girl and the baby being killed. Not aborted early in the pregnancy but killed after birth...
> Now Trump supporters will say they don't believe it of course.
> But here's the thing the fact that it's even a possibility should mean that to any sane person Trump shouldn't be president because we can't take the risk.
> There are 340 million other people who can be president besides a potential rapist with a long history of failed businesses.
> I really do think that people picked Trump because it upsets other people to do so. Stigginit.
> Consider me and my TDS completely stigginit'd. Now go have the day you voted for.
I really can't fell whether or not you were going for Funny. Or should I quote it against the censor trolls?
But I sometimes do wonder why there aren't any YOB bastards running around. Given his escapades over the decades, it seems like it must have happened and these days all it takes is two DNA tests to know with more certainty than the hairdresser.
A big nothing burger! (Score:4, Insightful)
This information has been in the hands of operatives of both parties. If there had been anything here remotely damaging it would have already been leaked to attack political opponents.
Re: (Score:3)
There's plenty of stuff in there that is used to attack politicians on a continual basis. Although I guess it isn't "damaging" if voters and other supporters don't care enough to stop supporting the pedo.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was damaging to democrats then republicans would have released it long ago. Thanks for confirming.
Re: (Score:2)
> If there had been anything here remotely damaging it would have already been leaked to attack political opponents.
Trump only agreed to release the files after it was revealed that Bill Clinton and Obama were mentioned in the files. He's having Pam Bondi look into that to see if there's anything he can pull from the files to use at attack them (Bill Clinton less and more about Hillary who ran against him in 2016), and Obama because well, he still believes he was an illegitimate president not born in Hawaii.
T
Re: (Score:2)
> If there had been anything here remotely damaging it would have already been leaked to attack political opponents.
Err shit has been being leaked literally constantly by both parties since this started. WTF are you talking about.
Some of DOJ's Careful Redactions (Score:2)
You're using the "careful" ironically - right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, depict a toddler carefully handling a pencil. That level of "careful" is probably what they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, depict a toddler carefully handling a pencil. That level of "careful" is probably what they mean.
Sure, but there may be other things to think about here with this DOJ - both the leadership and rank-and-file. Clearly, or at least arguably, Trump, Bondi and Patel are trying to protect Trump and whoever Trump thinks shouldn't get their reputations tarnished (regardless of any possible guilt) and they don't really (seem to) care about the victims. This can be demonstrated by apparent redactions of the former and some lack of redactions of the latter - both in violation of the law passed, btw. It's poss
Common issue (Score:2)
The basic issue is that Word (and their competitors) want to keep the text so you can 'undo' a mistake.
The good Law firms and vendors they hire get special software to review documents and redact them properly. They do not send out the original word documents, but instead create new documents that entirely lack the text.
Usually they print to jpg with corresponding data files. If a pdf is required they assemble the pdf from the new jpgs and the data files.
This ensures that only the desired text makes it i
Wot? (Score:2)
The Trump Administration is incompetent?
Say it ain't so! :-)
i really (Score:1)
i really want to blame the admin for being the most retarded of retarded, but we are also talking about adobe software here, who, by right, has earned upon multiple levels, the biggest retard in and on earth award, for 43 years coming. pdf has never been, and will never be, actually good.
Trump fucks kids (Score:2, Insightful)
We all know it and everyone who voted for Trump knows they voted for a pedophile and did so willfully.
We aren't going to get Justice from the Epstein files what we're going to get is the opportunity to rub Trump voters noses in the dog shit they crapped out into our country. And we are going to keep doing it for the rest of their fucking lives.
Not a single day will go by without reminding every single Trump voter that you voted for a pedophile. You're going to take that shit to your grave. It's goin
Re:Trump fucks kids (Score:4, Interesting)
"We all know it and everyone who voted for Trump knows they voted for a pedophile and did so willfully."
And not just a pedophile, an adjudicated rapist, a tax cheat, a con man, an embezzler of charity funds, a 37 time convicted felon.
"Not a single day will go by without reminding every single Trump voter that you voted for a pedophile."
A KNOWN pedophile and adjudicated rapist.
We're talking to you, SuperKendall.
It's not the left or the right (Score:1)
The names being protected in these files, the ones in the many, many pages they decided to not include in this redacted release, are the names of the people who really own the world. If all the files are released exposing them who push whole national economies and manipulate hundreds of millions, who are de facto above the law, I will eat my shoe. American politicians (D and R) aren't the kingpins here, they're the puppets. Here are some real names: Saud. Charles III. Jinping. Rothschild. Rockefeller. The t
Also failing to pass the sniff test (Score:2)
And most of that information could have been left unredacted and you wouldn't have any names of victims in it. You know... like the law says.
Oddly one-sided here today (Score:2)
There are more than a few commenters here that are always willing to step up to defend, justify, and extol as righteous everything Trump does.
Is it just me or are they strangely underrepresented today? Why do you suppose that is?
Re: (Score:2)
> There are more than a few commenters here that are always willing to step up to defend, justify, and extol as righteous everything Trump does.
> Is it just me or are they strangely underrepresented today? Why do you suppose that is?
I don't think Trump knows how to use Adobe Acrobat.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are more than a few commenters here that are always willing to step up to defend, justify, and extol as righteous everything Trump does.
> Is it just me or are they strangely underrepresented today? Why do you suppose that is?
I get the impression of all things MAGA is still in a state of shocked disbelief over the pardon of Orlando Hernandez convicted of helping traffic 500 tons of cocaine into the US.
After several months of jerking off to boat murder videos their world came crashing down in spectacular fashion as Donald Trump made it clear to he would be siding with one of the biggest convicted drug traffickers of all time who merely wanted to "stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos".
Let's not forget where credit is due! (Score:2)
Jeffrey Epstein hasn't been mentioned more? We wouldn't have any Epstein files to laugh and cry at if he hadn't been such a busy and naughty boy. In particular, the convenience of his suicide in closing so many investigations...
Yes, I believe it was suicide. Induced suicide. Can't imagine the sticks versus death, but pretty easy to think of some carrots they could have used.
too soon. (Score:2)
Mike should have coordinated a waiting period until the had redacted and released all of the files. Then they could have unredacted everything.
Speaking of which, is Mike going to download every document from the DoJ and see if everything has been redacted with this same ROT13 style of redaction?
The gang that couldn't redact straight? (Score:2)
Does that include the empty sock puppets of YouTube and Slashdot?
Anyway, the story has much more potential for Funny that my poor Subject. Let's see what we shan't see?