Memory Hole Un-Redacts Redacted DOJ Memo 453
DrDNA writes "After a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Justice Department released a study on workplace diversity. However, nearly half of the memo was blacked-out. In what was apparently an incredible goof, it was posted in a PDF format called Image+Text. The folks at The Memory Hole simply removed the image, revealing the redacted text. The redacted text was highly critical of the DOJ's diversity efforts, as the New York Times reports." Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.
This happened once before... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a little bit different than the one than you seem to be thinking of. In 2000, The NY Times obtained classified documents about the 1953 coup that brought the Shah of Iran into power. They incorrectly redacted the document to preserve their sources and protect some government operatives before publishing it. (See Iranian Coup Plotters Exposed By PDF File [slashdot.org])
In this case, the government handed over the document with the naughty bits already blocked out, but didn't release that PDF is more like a collage
Re:This happened once before... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I believe it was the participants in the plot to overthrow Premier Mossadeq of Iran that were exposed. The shah was already in power at the time, and was essentially a puppet of the U.S. and Great Britain. Mossadeq was a very popularly elected official who was attempting to regain some control of Iran's destiny- mostly by removing the oil reserves that Britian had bought for a song (actually, they bribed the Shah with a variety of shiny things) from foreign control.
The U.S., of course, labeled this as 'communism' and began agitating to get Mossadeq dissmissed by the Shah. This included such charming acts of democracy as sending F.D.R's grandson (a CIA operative) out onto the streets of Tehran to hand out $50 bills to get Iranians to gather in front of the Shah's palace and demand Mossadeq's ouster. The Shah capitulated to the West and the "popular" demand, and Mossaeq was driven from office.
If you're ever curious why a bunch of extremist nuts that not even the Iranians like are running Iran, little anecdotes like this are a good start.
While Mossadeq is long gone, the PDF screw up may have exposed the families of the Iranian participants in the coup to a great deal of scrutiny if they were still living in Iran. It isn't healthy anywhere to be associated with someone who betrayed their country to a foreign interest, and moreso if you're living in Iran and the foreign government in question was the U.S.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:5, Funny)
Surely if someone was to do something like that, they would welcome him with open arms, and thank him for his useful expose ? After all, he would be doing them a service, wouldn't he ?
Re:This happened once before... (Score:2)
> Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at
> least do enough research to make sure
> you're really being sneaky.
Quote 2 from BJZQ8 reply:
> Obviously nobody in government learns
> from their mistakes.
I wonder... would it be advisable if they remained unwise?
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Funny)
> with war plans of some sort, and end up
> forewarning the recipients of said war plans
> and costing lives.
Very good point and one that is irrefutable I might add. You have pointed out the danger but do they see it? You must remember that these are much the same folks that are using Windows for Warships.
Irregardless, I like your thinking.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the country has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed. Especially since its release was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act case.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:4, Interesting)
(/conspiracy-theory)
Can we give the parent comment a score of 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government representatives are only supposed to keep stuff secret that would give a potential enemy vital information... blacking out anything that doesn't meet this criteria should be a hanging offense. If this report is true, then this is obviously corruption in its most base and basic form.
Next thing you know we will be trillions of dollars in debt spending half our income on taxes with social security about to collapse and being told that everything will be okay. Oh wait a sec...
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful what you ask for... until you put yourself in the line of fire, it's kind of dangerous to ask others to do so.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about torture of human beings? Treatment of some "suspects" in Afghanastan an
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This happened thrice before... (Score:5, Informative)
W
Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:3, Interesting)
The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away
Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one of the ways the government gains power. Selecing when and how to apply a law is a powerful tool. If the government enforced something all the time, or never enforced it, it wouldn't have any power, would it? It would simply be a "robotic" institution.
You gain power by applying it selectively. Just observe totalitarian systems and governm
Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:3, Interesting)
The president would have law enforment capabilites as well. In this way they could investigate each other and we would have little need for special prosecutors.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:2)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:4, Funny)
You know what they say: "Good enough for government work."
Time to bet (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Time to bet (Score:3, Funny)
Huh.... (Score:3, Funny)
redact
To draw up or frame (a proclamation, for example).
To make ready for publication; edit or revise.
So I guess this could be taken to mean "un-edited", but it still seems like pretty poor word choice to me. Although "Un-redacted" might be a good word to describe slashdot in general.
Re:Huh.... (Score:3, Informative)
Sneakiness (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but how do we know this wasn't intentional? Maybe the employee in charge of the redacting wanted that part of the memo to get out, so he deliberately redacted improperly.
Or maybe that's just what he wants us to think...
Re:Sneakiness (Score:5, Interesting)
This would be a brilliant idea to spread false information. Instead of just publishing false information, write false information into a PDF and cover it with black rectangles. Not only do you have all the conspiracy theorists believiing whatever BS you wrote, you also have have a defense should anyone find out: it was blacked out, you weren't supposed to read it.
your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the people/person at The Memory Hole will be labeled as a hacker/pirate/terrorist by the justice department.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:3, Funny)
Yes I have yet to meet a person on the street who doesn't agree 100% with this statement.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:3, Informative)
The people who are replying to this story are some of the most immature idiots with zero knowledge of government. Has NOBODY worked for our legal or justice system? Anybody ever graduate high school civics?
Information is blacked out and the black marks are LEFT there intentionally to SHOW that something was blacked out. If they wanted to "hide" the information, they would excise it. They don't. They *want* you to know that something was tak
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analogy of a redacted court document to a redacted internal government report doesn't seem to hold up. The judicial system doesn't have any vested interest in preventing embarrasment of parties to law suits beyond the requirements of the law, and the protection of their legally guaranteed privacy, but government _bureaucrats_ have every interest in protecting their superiors, their superiors' superiors, and the elected officials who appointed them.
Still waiting... but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it. Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:2)
If the population of whites and blacks were about equal, there wouldn't be a problem. If we all lived in the same part of town, it wouldn't be a problem. But this is not a perfect world, and those that have take more from those that have not.
We need
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it.
Actually, according to the memo, the issue here was not just about diversity, but active discrimation. They were not hiring whoever was better for the job, they were giving better chances to caucasians: certain career opportunities were only offered to caucasians, critical information was withheld from minorities. The playing field was severly skewed against minorities. Yes, in this memo lack of diversity is just a polically correct euphemism for outright racism!
Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).
It was not about aiming at exactly 50%, but rather about aiming at anything above 0% for the minority employees!
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:2)
Please ignore... (Score:4, Funny)
(Spins handle to fan up flames)
What they remove (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration.
Re:What they remove (Score:2)
And don't think congress isn't looking. Have you been paying attention to the brouhaha between the Senate, the State Department and the CIA over the pre-war intelligence. You have members of the President's own party calling him to the carpet.
That's beyond power-mongering. Dubya has crossed over to so corrupt he's stupid.
Re:What they remove (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not. I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.
Re: What they remove (Score:4, Interesting)
> However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. The current Administration is secretive as a knee-jerk reaction to anything, to the point of looking like a petty third world dictatorship. But were other recent Administrations any different, or just less amateurish about it?
> I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.
Actually, they were obsessed with getting anything they could find on him. It just so happens that after 7 years and $40,000,000 all they could find was dick, so that's what they had to settle for.
You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.
Re: What they remove (Score:2)
The sad thing is, they will probably find something.
This is why we need a strong third party in this country. Mudslinging between three candidiates just wouldn't work as well. Plus debates would be a lot more interesting.
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Funny)
That -i586mmx is incorrect. -squirrelGoFaster.wheel is the proper modifier.
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
Buts its nice how we keep giving them millions to continue their search. Its so blissful living in such a faith based country that we'll pay to make any reality the truth, even if it takes covering up all those annoying little facts and painting over them with distraction after horribly fearsome distraction.
Its a good thing God exists. If he doesn't there are a lot of delusional people in this country who are prime targets for intesive psychotherapy.
Re: What they remove (Score:4, Insightful)
> > That's because there are no WMD.
> Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?
Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a tired old canard. Sudan was not offering bin Laden. Some joker who claimed to have authority that he didn't have claimed that he could get the Sudanese government to offer bin Laden. There was no reason to believe that he was trustworthy. Conservatives make this an issue now even though there is no doubt that a conservative administration would have given this guy just as much attention as did the Clinton administration.
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships? I don't think they were planning to attack the US w
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. Other countries do have WMD. So it's not absurd to accuse them of it.
Sure it is. The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.
It is not absurd to state that other countries have WMDs, it is not even absurd for the US to consider that state of affairs undesirable. However, it is absurd for the US to imply that
Re:What they remove (Score:2)
Re:What they remove (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What they remove (Score:3, Informative)
The NYT article stated that these documents were edited before release by career lawyers at the DOJ and that Bush-appointed employees of DOJ made no changes at all.
Re:What they remove (Score:2)
I worked for the government during Clinton's administration and we didn't hire two individuals, that I know of, for reasons of race. The comments were "he's bright enough, but he's black", and "we don't need any Italians or Catholics working here".
In another department, located across the street, that I worked with, the administrator was a woman and amazingly enough, most of the management positions
Re:What makes you so certain... (Score:2)
Not unless you do what liberals do and stretch the definition of "terrorism" so much that painting the United States as being as bad as Al Quaeda is a matter of fancy footwork.
Honestly, I want to see Bush out of office as much as the next guy, but please. If Bush is harboring terrorists, then the Democrats are too (otherwise they would speak up about it).
FIA is a sham (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The act is supposed to protect us against abuse from the government, yet it gives the government full power to remove whatever parts they see fit. Who does the editing? A neutral party? I don't think so.
Re:FIA is a sham (Score:2)
Well, this one, for starters. Although the substance was their unintentionnally...
Re:FIA is a sham (Score:2)
> Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The recent trend under my state's FOIA is to tie the release up in court long enough for the state legislature to pass yet another special exemption saying that the material does not have to be released.
It has become a complete sham, just like almost everything else the previous generation did to try to enforce open, honest government.
Re:The 9 exemptions to FOIA (Score:3, Interesting)
Good luck: in this report [alternet.org] you can see how John Ashcroft has been trying to undermine the FOIA. Choice quotes, one from the reporter:
" In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens."
and a quote from Ashcroft's memo, which memo is the subject of the article:
"When you carefully consider FOIA requests and de
Accountability for such actions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Accountability for such actions? (Score:2)
I can understand classified documents being edited, and sources being protected, but a review of a government agency that is edited for apparently no reason other than that it was critical of the agency? Hell no that's not ok! The idea in this country is that they (the DOJ) work for *US*, and they are accountable to us. Reviews of public agencies should be public, with the only reaso
xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! (Score:2)
Re:xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! (Score:2)
Now I Feel Safe (Score:2)
No, that was unfair. They're only mostly incompetent.
Re:Now I Feel Safe (Score:2)
Just a thought but... (Score:2)
So, uh, (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems like someone inside the DOJ or possibly someone at KPMG wanted the information to get out, and decided that this was a surefire way of getting to a large audience.
Re:So, uh, (Score:2)
-B
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Good (Score:2)
> Sometimes the DOJ will serve Justice better by not being capable of doing what they want to do.
The DOJ should be renamed to Department of Enforcement, since even casual observation of which cases they support and which they oppose will reveal that they aren't interested in what we ordinarily think of as Justice.
$2M I'll write a page :D (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$2M I'll write a page :D (Score:2)
Memory Hole Goes To Jail (Score:4, Funny)
Reuters 11-01-03
Just one day after releasing an uncensored version of a Department of Justice report on racial diversity in the work place, operators of the web site "Memory Hole" have been charged with violating terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice in the 6th Federal Circuit Court, Memory Hole illegally circumvented electronic controls used to protect confidential material.
On October 31st, the Department of Justice responded to a request under the Freedom of Information Act and released the report. However, several sections of the report were blacked out. Memory Hole discovered that the file format (PDF) used an image laid over the censored text, and simply removed the images and published the memo.
On Saturday morning, Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the FBI raided the offices of Memory Hole, the home of the publisher, and their ISP and confiscated several computers. The web site has not yet been ordered to be taken down, but a request is pending with Judge Y. H. Barrett Thompson to have the site terminated monday morning.
Last Updated: Saturday Nov 1 2003 @ 2:50:34 PM
Fake. Mod down (Score:2)
Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail (Score:2)
His monogram: YHBT.
Nice one. Keep up the good work.
All you young trollsters out there, take note: this is how it's done.
Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, though, I'd rather give it "+1 Scary".
Soko
I hope it happens... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am distraught that the editors and many posters find it simply amusing that the DOJ was technologically incompetent in this situation, and that that is all there is too it. What frightens me is when they do become competent, and these breakdowns cannot or do not happen, whether it be via more 'perfect' DRM systems, or simply more competent DOJ employees/contractors.
It is in our interest to have the government flawed when it comes to secrecy.
encryption techniques (Score:5, Funny)
Do It Right (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're going to redact something, do it right.
Here's how it's done:
Take document and with an X-Acto knife, cut out words you wish to redact.
Take resulting full-of-holes document and scan with scanner.
It's foolproof.
IF THE WORDS PHYSICALLY ARE NOT THERE, THEY CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED!
Using a marker might not be foolproof if you miss a spot, or funky reflections, or whatever may result in some parts of the document becoming visible. Give it a try, you'll see what I mean.
Old computers reveal hidden info. (Score:3, Interesting)
But on an older computer there was a delay between rendering the sensitive info and rendering the overlaid "X"s. The "hidden" data was in plain sight for a readable fraction of a second. A quick screen-grab at the right time could easily capture a static image of the employee data on the CEO and other employees listed in the figure.
Sometimes older computer can be more fun.
What really worries me... (Score:3, Interesting)
...about this is the level of technical competency implied in the organization that is responsible for "justice" in cases involving things like MS, DMCA, DRM and so on. The "holing up in a cabin in Montana" thing is looking more and more appealing...
Re:What really worries me... (Score:2)
Read the manual (Score:2)
Or maybe it's best that Governments actually *don't* read the manual!!
Great get out clause for whiste-blowers!
PDF mirror (Score:2)
IPv4:
diversityanalysis.pdf [artoo.net]
doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.pdf [artoo.net]
IPv6:
diversityanalysis.pdf [artoo.net]
doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.pdf [artoo.net]
ZIP'd PDF mirror (Score:2)
IPv4:
diversityanalysis.zip [artoo.net]
doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.zip [artoo.net]
IPv6:
diversityanalysis.zip [artoo.net]
doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.zip [artoo.net]
Question.... (Score:2)
After glancing through the unedited PDF... (Score:2)
Other places are more logical coverings, though.
DOJ Memo - encrypted by SCO and SunnComm (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder they can't catch Bin Laden.
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
wysiwyg (Score:2)
absolutely appalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:absolutely appalling (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree this is "absolutely appaling," re "Notice that the blacked out text is always negative, where positive text is left in:"
Oops (Score:2)
Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.
Reminds me of my first and only attempt at forgery. Got a detention in 4th grade, notice of which had to be signed by my parents. I made a copy of the detention notice, pasted my dad's signature on the bottom, and made a copy of that. All went well and the teacher bought it, but I left the original in the copying machine which my parents naturally found later that day.
This is a system design issue (Score:3, Interesting)
It is far better to have a hard to use tool (e.g. commandline, although many people find that actually easier to use) that does not surprise you than a seemingly easy to use tool that does (sometimes massively) surprise you. This is no new wisdom. It applies everywhere in engineering. Some parts of the software industry are still not aware of this sound engineering principle.
Of course there is a second issue here: the users that are by now so uneducated about the nature of the tools they use that severe mistakes become likely. It is not that the users are less sophisticated than in the past (at least I hope so), but the tools they work with have become massicely more complex and many people have not realy noticed and therefore are not able to anticipate any pitfalls.
To put ist short, if they wanted to keep the redacted stuff confidential they should at least have used a tool they understand, like printed paper, or they should have consulted an expert first. This was a highly unprofessional mistake.
the "J" stands for Justice, Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now remember, all of these guys are just looking out for the best interests of the "American People." after all they don't want to upset an already BAD situation by adding fuel to the fire, right? That is why it is in the interest of national security.(tell me it aint so)
at risk of being moded redundant I will repeat in my own words what I heard earlier on this subject..."Next time I see a document with black magic marker allover it,go ahead, TRY and convince me it is in the "interest of national security"
Maybe they are right, in thinking if the "American People" knew about HALF of the things that probably go on daily, they would probably revolt, which does, sadly give weight to their arguement.
"In the interest of national security we cannot tell you how corupt the system is because it would be disruptive TO that system (and your security)."
"Totam Spem Relinquite Hunc Locum Adeuntes"
indeed.
to fully understand the situation... (Score:4, Informative)
http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-
Subject: DoJ uses Word's "Highlight" tool to redact, doesn't work
Hi Declan, Dave:
A HARD LESSON TO LEARN: don't use Microsoft Word's "Highlight tool"
with the color set to black to redact documents--one can still copy
and paste "highlighted" text!
The really interesting part about this DoJ case is reading the
un-redacted document and seeing what was "blacked out" under FOIA
exemptions (un-redacted document is here:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/doj-atto
).
I wonder how many other electronic FOIA-released documents are out
there where a simple copy and paste will reveal redactions?
Pertinent paragraph:
"It turns out the [DoJ's] report began its life as a Microsoft Word
document, and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public
release did so by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight
color set to black, according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of
activePDF, a maker of server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient
technique would have been perfectly effective had the end product been
a printed document, but it was all but useless for an electronic one."
Joe
---
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7272
Justice e-censorship gaffe sparks controversy
By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Oct 22 2003 3:46PM
A government watchdog group Wednesday accused the Justice Department
of improperly censoring portions of a key report on internal workplace
diversity, after online activists successfully unmasked the
blacked-out portions of an electronic copy of the document.
The 186-page report was released to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act last week and posted to Justice Department's website
in Adobe's "Portable Document File" (PDF) format. But the department
blacked out vast portions of the document's text, citing an exemption
to FOIA that permits agencies to keep internal policy deliberations
private.
The text didn't stay concealed for long. On Tuesday a website called
the Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving endangered documents,
published a complete version of the report, with the opaque black
rectangles that once covered half of it completely removed. Memory
Hole publisher Russ Kick won't say how he unmasked it, but
experimentation shows that the concealed text could be selected and
copied using nothing more than Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Once
copied, the text is easily pasted into another document and read.
It turns out the report began its life as a Microsoft Word document,
and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public release did so
by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight color set to black,
according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of activePDF, a maker of
server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient technique would have
been perfectly effective had the end product been a printed document,
but it was all but useless for an electronic one. "Using Acrobat, I'm
actually able to move the black boxes around," says Sullivan. "The
text is still there."
Apple re-redacts the un-redacted document. (Score:4, Informative)
Under Preview.app (OS X's PDF viewer, Panther's in my case), all the yellow sections are removed.
It's a conspiracy I tell you!
Re:Beware of Photoshop, too! (Score:2)
If you highlight the DoJ "Spirit of Justice" statue in a redacted PDF, and do a copy and paste into Photoshop, you get the entire statue, breasts and all. They haven't been removed- they've still been in the file all along.
Nasty evil boobies! Now we'll never get into heaven!
Re:Nice to see the Slashdot editors . . . (Score:2)
Re:Blacking out non-security issues... (Score:4, Insightful)
The citizenry are quickly losing all control of the government, and the government is actively hiding information from the citizens. We need to regain control of the government, media, and military before the USA starts looking more like the USSR...