Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Memory Hole Un-Redacts Redacted DOJ Memo

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the poorly-hidden-secrets dept.

Censorship 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.

cancel ×

453 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't forget... (-1, Troll)

SCO$1499FeeTroll (720726) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367424)

...to pay your $1499 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

news for nerds, stuff that matters. (0, Troll)

dokebi (624663) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367430)

How is this news? It was all over yahoo YESTERDAY.

Re:news for nerds, stuff that matters. (-1, Troll)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367438)

... and it was all over the timely media a week ago.

well... (-1, Troll)

after (669640) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367662)

Happy Haloween

2nd? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367431)

Yeah, take that /. fags!

Torrent + Memory Hole = Better. (0, Offtopic)

Dr. Smeegee (41653) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367433)

Yipes. Someone should introduce the fine folks at Memory Hole to bittorent.

Nice to see the Slashdot editors . . . (-1, Flamebait)

Idou (572394) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367434)

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

actually comment on something they are experts on.

NO ONE GIVES A SHIT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367437)

Important Stuff:
* Please try to keep posts on topic.
* Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
* Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
* Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
* Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
* If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

This happened once before... (4, Interesting)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367442)

There was an occasion where this happened before...I believe it was in blacking out some sources on a PDF document...so some enterprising chap removed the blackouts...and voila, there were the "classified" sources. Obviously nobody in government learns from their mistakes.

Re:This happened once before... (2, Informative)

kaltkalt (620110) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367458)

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

Re:This happened once before... (1)

Codifex Maximus (639) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367472)

Quote 1 from original story:
> 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... (4, Informative)

airConditionedGypsy (703864) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367490)

This does seem to be a common goof. Bruce S. had some commentary in his newsletter a couple of months ago [schneier.com] .

Re:This happened once before... (4, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367492)

Arent the people who do this pretty much putting a big white and red target on themselves? I was under the impression, with things like the PATRIOT act, as well as the DMCA, that this type of thing would get you detained without a lawyer.

Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the country has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.

Re:This happened once before... (5, Insightful)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367511)

You see, this document was supposed to be released to the public anyway. The redaction was dirty pool, and none of the information was a national secret. It was simply embarrasing to those in power.

Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed. Especially since its release was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act case.

Re:This happened once before... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367523)

With all sincerity: thanks very much for reinforcing the widely held opinion among Americans that the rest of the world is composed entirely of idiots.

Shit.

Re:This happened once before... (2, Insightful)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367493)

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

Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (3, Interesting)

cft (715198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367574)

Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so? There are a truly ridiculous number of laws on the books that are rarely enforced, until the prosecutors feel they have a "good" case to drop the hammer on some poor schmuck.

The public doesn't care about laws that aren't enforced, so most people break the law every day blissfully unaware. It would seem that laws that nobody cares about need to be done away with, instead of criminalizing large portions of the population.

I just hope the feds never try to housebreak my cat.

Welcome to GNU GVideo GProfessor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367579)


"Don't fumble through boring man pages. Try my product!" - Richard M. Stallman, GNU Founder and CEO

GNU GVideo GProfessor is the leader in computer learning. We have taught over 5 million people, and we can teach you GNU/Linux, GNU/Emacs, GNU/gcc, and more! GNU GVideo GProfessor was founded in 1983 to provide consumers with training on software for their personal computers. Since that time, millions have successfully used and learned from GNU GVideo GProfessor's fool-proof "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" teaching method. The first lesson, GNU /Emacs 1.0, was available only on video tape. Over the years, GNU GVideo GProfessor has produced hundreds of titles on video, CD-ROM, and online. GNU GVideo GProfessor is the fastest, easiest way to learn computers. We guarantee it!

It's FAST! You'll be up and running in an hour! Don't waste time sifting through man pages, commuting to classes or seminars. Just pop in the CD-ROM and you're learning!

It's EASY! It's as simple as 1-2-3! GNU GVideo GProfessor's straightforward "What-You -See-Is-What-You-Do" approach makes learning as easy as watching TV!

It's CONVENIENT! We're ready to teach you day and night! With your busy schedule, you don't have time to waste at classes or seminars. Don't fumble through boring man pages. Whatever your schedule, we're ready when you are!

It's COMPLETE! These aren't short teaser lessons. Each 60-minute lesson takes you from installing the software to more advanced skills. And they're not just for beginners! We'll surprise you with the knowledge you'll gain!

Why Am I Making This Incredible Offer? I'm so confident that once you try my exceptional " What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" learning method, you'll turn to us for all your computer learning needs.

* How it works!

The bonus gift and ANY TWO of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10 day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $69.95. Or simply contact our customer care number at rtfm@gnu.org if you decide to return any one of the lessons, and you will be charged nothing more!

Every day hundreds of people just like you learn with GNU GVideo GProfessor this same fast and easy way. If you decide to keep all three lessons, every five weeks you will continue learning by automatically receiving other GNU GVideo GProfessor subjects you have an interest in, billed on the same exact terms as your first shipment. Or simply call and cancel. Everything is up to you! But most important, you are never under any obligation to purchase a subject that you don't keep. Best of all, the bonus gift, and your choice of any two of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours to keep FREE!

f

Re:This happened once before... (1)

zeno_2 (518291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367654)

Ya, I remember when this did happen before, it was on some website, and if you hit stop before the whole pdf loaded or something, it didn't load the black parts that blocked out the text. Why don't they scan the papers with it blacked out already?

Time to bet (2, Funny)

FrankoBoy (677614) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367450)

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

Re:Time to bet (2, Funny)

Catskul (323619) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367506)

Too late, slashdot already shut them down

Re:Time to bet (1)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367552)

Too late, slashdotters all over the web will copy the PDF to their archives, just like the Diebold memos...

Huh.... (2, Funny)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367451)

1 entry found for Redacted. [reference.com]
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.

You'd have thought they would have learned... (0)

Mr. Dop (708162) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367452)

After they did this during the MS trial with PDF and black rectangles.

*SIGH*

You tax dollars at work, glad to see were getting our money's worth.

Sneakiness (5, Funny)

cperciva (102828) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367457)

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

Yes, but how do we know this wasn't intentional? Maybe the employee in charge of the redacting wanted that part of the memo to get out, so he deliberately redacted improperly.

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

Re:Sneakiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367468)

fire!.. fire!.. fire!.. fire!.. fire!.. fire!..

Re:Sneakiness (5, Interesting)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367513)

Yes, but how do we know this wasn't intentional? Maybe the employee in charge of the redacting wanted that part of the memo to get out, so he deliberately redacted improperly.

This would be a brilliant idea to spread false information. Instead of just publishing false information, write false information into a PDF and cover it with black rectangles. Not only do you have all the conspiracy theorists believiing whatever BS you wrote, you also have have a defense should anyone find out: it was blacked out, you weren't supposed to read it.

Re:Sneakiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367608)

Maybe even the guy was a gentleman of color?

And in other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367461)

And in other news, Ford today announced a new initiative to reinvent the wheel.

Said spokesman, Bill Patteyunk, "We've tried and we've tried, but we keep getting this circular thing. We'll keep trying and trying until we've accomplished what we've set out to do."

Ford shares were up with the news.

your tax dollars at work (5, Insightful)

dauvis (631380) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367462)

If I had information that I didn't want the public to see I would have at least made sure that the information was not accessible by someone who is using a hex editor. I made a PDA program for myself that stored passwords I had for various websites (when you have a different one for each site, it sometimes gets a little hard to keep track of them in your head). However, before I actually started using it, I looked at the binary image of the record or the PDA that was being created. Well, it turned out that the mechanism for "securely" storing the information was just making it inaccessible through the API. In the end, I had to write my own storage mechanism using a standard encryption technique. The moral of this story is, just because you can't get to it doesn't mean it's not there for someone to find.

Of course the people/person at The Memory Hole will be labeled as a hacker/pirate/terrorist by the justice department.

Re:your tax dollars at work (2, Funny)

Politburo (640618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367601)

If I had information that I didn't want the public to see I would have at least made sure that the information was not accessible by someone who is using a hex editor.

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

Why assume it was a mistake? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367463)

Who was being sneaky here? The department, for wanting to block out so much of the report? Or perhaps a person down low in the organization, who knew it was going to be put on the web site after "editing", and deliberately did it in such a way that the clueless PHB would okay it, but that the info would be available if anyone cared to really go after it?

Slaves resist their masters in many subtle ways. Wage slaves do, too.

Re:Why assume it was a mistake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367587)

Don't worry. Monday at dawn he will be called into his manager's office, and scolded for "confusing" the public with his poor redacting. Yeah, that's the word: "confusing"! Yeah that's it: if the public reacts strongly to the revelation, it's not because they are rightfully shocked at them, no, it's because they are confused!

Still waiting... but... (3, Insightful)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367465)

On the whole measuring diversity is pointless.

The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it. Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).

Re:Still waiting... but... (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367586)

I would ordinarily agree. Except that I have seen cases firsthand where given the choice between a black man and a white the white's will take white every time. Granted the blacks will take blacks in a heartbeat over a white. It's not evil, it's human nature.

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 these artificial rules to keep the game balanced for everyone.

Re:Still waiting... but... (0, Insightful)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367614)

But, our population is perfectly diverse, so our workforce should reflect that. What? Our population is mostly white males? Huh, I thought our population was mostly black and hispanic women, since those groups have special recognitions and opportunities, while white males have no special exceptions granted to them. That'd be racist and/or sexist, after all.

Then again, I'm glad that I can't get a job based on anything but my qualifications for that job - I'd be annoyed if my skin and gender put me above someone else.

Re:Still waiting... but... (4, Insightful)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367648)

On the whole measuring diversity is pointless.

The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it.

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

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

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

Nude Lynch Photos (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367466)

Get your free naked pics of America's latest hero

http://www.militarycorruption.com/PFCLynch.htm

Re:Nude Lynch Photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367560)

damn you! they're not there!

Please ignore... (3, Funny)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367471)

That text behind the curtain!

(Spins handle to fan up flames)

Re: Please ignore... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367647)


> (Spins handle to fan up flames)

Oh, just what's needed on Slashdot!

What they remove (5, Insightful)

big_debacle (413628) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367474)

I think it is most interesting to see what the government has decided shouldn't be revealed to the public. Classified sources? Nope. National Security threat? Nope. Poor HR? Yes. Discrimination within the government? Yes.

Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration.

Re:What they remove (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367526)

Amen.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367680)

Yeah, well Hillary Clinton munches carpet ;-)

Re:What they remove (4, Interesting)

Jameth (664111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367531)

I agree, and have said such many times.

However, I wish I knew about this kind of shit from the Clinton administration. Maybe this happened then, too. Maybe not. I honestly haven't a clue what happened then because the Republicans were so obsessed with his dick.

Re: What they remove (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367629)


> 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 (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367679)

You can bet that the Republicans are working harder to find some poop on Howard Dean than they are on finding WMD right now.

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 (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367541)

...and next time try convincing people that the blacked-out parts are for national security.

What makes you so certain... (0)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367603)

that the President, or a Cabinet official, personally ordered the redaction? That's like saying that Bush personally ordered Mayor Street's office in Philadelphia to be bugged. It's a non-sequitur.

But it does speak volumes about your personal prejudices.

Re:What makes you so certain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367637)

Well someone ordered it and it certainly wasn't me. Its about time soneone is held accountable for these obviously retarded mishaps, don't you think? The President appears to be harborring liers, at the very least. He could very easily be harborring terrorists and deserve the same attention we paid to Iraq.

How can we know when we're constantly being censored and lied to?

Re:What they remove (2, Insightful)

defaultXIX (106977) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367649)

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

Re:What they remove (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367686)

it is not the "bush" admin.... get off your bush bashing liberal thinking. it is ALL of them ... your pall clinton also. i am gettting so sick of seeing all the bush/republican bashing here. this is suppose to be a "techies" place, not a liberal minded political place. i can get that anywhere. PLEASE, keep you crappy bush slams to yourself. they are old and tiring. did you know clinton signed over our freedom to the un??? look it up, he sign an order that if the prez died the US would become TOTAL un run. how is that one for size??? huh??? not buch CLINTON!

both sides are corrupt evil jerks. look at the fact that they never have any one against a self given pay increse.... if thew demicrats were so holy and good they would vote AGAINST a self inflicted rase. but no, they cheat us just a bad. take money from the "rich" [anyone working and making money] and give it to the "poor" [anyone leaching of the gov cuz to lazy to work].

and this is the same across the world. polititions are just there to take your money and possetions and give it to their "pals" or put it in thier own pockets.

so, please, PLEASE, stop saying how evil bush is. he is just like all the rest including your "savior" clinton

Hahahahahahah (-1, Redundant)

ghoul (157158) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367479)

....I will post when I stop laughing

FIA is a sham (3, Insightful)

CausticWindow (632215) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367480)

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 (1)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367562)

Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?

Well, this one, for starters. Although the substance was their unintentionnally...

Re:FIA is a sham (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367683)


> 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.

Accountability for such actions? (3, Insightful)

ftobin (48814) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367481)

Am I the only person who feels such actions are an atrocity, as they are willful censorships of documents critial of the department? Unless the department can be held accountable for such deeds, these scenarios are going to play out repeatedly.

Re:Accountability for such actions? (1)

Dr. Blue (63477) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367534)

I simply don't understand this at all, and when I think of it then yes it is definitely an atrocity, and it pisses me off.

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 reason for redacting something being legitimately classified info.

Re:Accountability for such actions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367617)

I don't see any different between this and CNN's coverage of Iraq before we attacked them.

Still think censorship isn't a bad thing? Okay, censor the world from our children, fine. They grow up not knowing the world. Censor the wars from our people, fine. They never know why these wars happen or what gets accomplished. Censor the government's mistakes from the people, fine. The government goes on making more mistakes.

But what happens when those mistakes were made on purpose or for reasons other than national security or welfare of our citizens? What happens when they use the power of our government and military for personal gain instead of the common good. What happens when they decide to lie to us?

We don't have all the facts.

Beware of Photoshop, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367486)

As Cat Schwartz [catschwartz.com] knows, Photoshop sometimes leaves extra stuff behind [fuckallyall.com] , like your breasts.

xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! (1)

op00to (219949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367488)

I loaded up XPDF, highlighted a blacked-out portion, cut and paste, and blammo, I got the text! Way to go.

Re:xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367626)

does this make the author of xpdf a terrorist as he built a tool that circumvents a technical barrier the government constructed to block confidential information from outside access ?

possible legal options these days ....

Re:xpdf -- revealing redacted documents for years! (1)

Gid1 (23642) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367663)

Heh.. you don't even need xpdf, cut and paste, or third-party plugins. Just activate the Accessibility functions in Reader 6.0.

Now I Feel Safe (1)

Jameth (664111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367489)

No, honestly. There's more to fear from a tyranny than an enemy, and it's hard to run a Tyranny when your completely incompetent.

No, that was unfair. They're only mostly incompetent.

Just a thought but... (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367495)

What makes you think that all of this was unintentional?

Re:Just a thought but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367555)

What makes you think that all of this was unintentional?

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity"

So, uh, (1, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367497)

If you wanted lots of people to read something, what would you do? Release a gov't document that is easily accessible, or release one that is actually easily accessible but appears to be a massive cover up?

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, (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367664)

You're giving them too much credit. This appears to be simple incompetence. I'm suprised this kind of stuff doesn't happen more often.

-B

NEW YORK TIMES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367505)

Uh oh, it's the New York Times. Better double-check the facts to make sure they're not lying again.

Good (2, Insightful)

scrotch (605605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367510)

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

$2M I'll write a page :D (2, Insightful)

llZENll (545605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367516)

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

Re:$2M I'll write a page :D (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367621)

You tax dollars at work.

Un-Redacts? (0)

Space Coyote (413320) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367521)

Couldn't you just say "Memory Hole Dacts Redacted DOJ Memo"

Memory Hole Goes To Jail (4, Funny)

thelizman (304517) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367532)

Memory Hole to be Charged With DMCA Violation

Reuters 11-01-03

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

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

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

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

Fake. Mod down (1)

extra88 (1003) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367639)

This is entirely made up.

Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail (1)

KD5YPT (714783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367651)

So basically the Department of Justice blame Memory Hole for their fault of putting a very bad protection on confidential material. Quite the finger pointing DoJ and get your acts straight.

Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? (2, Insightful)

ftobin (48814) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367538)

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 (5, Funny)

giblfiz (125533) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367542)

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

what can and can't be blacked out? (0)

forkspoon (116573) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367546)

Aren't they only allowed to black out stuff because of national security concerns or if it relates to ongoing operations, not just critisism?

Travis

Yes (0)

thelizman (304517) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367572)

If there is a resonable risk to national security (i.e., revealing information about intelligence collecting techiniques, agents in the field, et al) it can be censored. This, however, is a report about diversity. I seriously doubt there's anything in there about the number of undercover agents and their assignments.

Do It Right (3, Interesting)

spoonist (32012) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367548)

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.

Re:Do It Right (1)

javabsp (591265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367596)

Print the black-out'ed paper and then scan them back is probably easier

Old computers reveal hidden info. (2, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367557)

I saw a similar botched attempt to hide info in a document from a networking company. It was intended to illustrate some web-based employee-finding application. Various sensitive information was "X"-ed out.

But on an older computer there was a delay between rendering the sensitive info and rendering the overlaid "X"s. The "hidden" data was in plain sight for a readable fraction of a second. A quick screen-grab at the right time could easily capture a static image of the employee data on the CEO and other employees listed in the figure.

Sometimes older computer can be more fun.

What really worries me... (3, Interesting)

Dinosaur Neil (86204) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367558)

...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... (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367597)

What is this facination with Montana. There are some perfectly desolate spots in the Appalacian mountains. Granted, you will be fighting off hillbillies, but at least you'll be using your cache of firearmes for something.

possible trick (1)

ShecoDu (447850) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367565)

I havent checked the article or whatsoever, but based on what I've readen here... its a PDF with a black image over the text, right?

if that's so, why not put a fake document image with some missleading text that make everybody think that's the real content of the document, avoiding smart hackers' suspicion.

I might just be wrong anyway. sorry.

don't flame... I'm just a regular slashdot observer.

The point was already made.. (1)

cft (715198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367584)

I'm sorry if I just don't get it, but I did not really see any mention of anything that actually refuted any of the DOJ claims.

All I see is a bunch of clarification of the points that would not have been appropriate to mention at a press conference (the likes of which the soundbytes were taken from).

I also notice that none of the new powers can simply be used willy-nilly. They all require the permission of a judge (who may well interpret the warrant request as, well, unwarranted).

Didn't we meet these guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367588)

I recall from an earlier interview how a number of DOJ lawyers read /. and they were talking about how they would be just as quick to defend violations of the GPL as they were to throw people in jail over a few songs.
I haven't heard the DOJ say a single word about SCO up to this point.
It really is bizarre what's happening in the federal government. It's like the powers that be think they can just spin everything and nobody is ever going to remember a word of it later. Just keep on lying and make sure they get another shot of Ms. Rice and the President. There's nothing racist about Bush's policy in the Mideast --why look, he's taking a picture with a black woman right now!

Read the manual (1)

locarecords.com (601843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367591)

Or maybe it's best that Governments actually *don't* read the manual!!

Great get out clause for whiste-blowers!

Mirror (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367594)

Free Mirror for both files [Zip Format]
"diversityanalysis.zip"> [thedrydock.net]
MD5 D6BC1FA89F8AF7AF27A94916F9570D85

PDF mirror (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367598)

I suggest downloading each file completely, and then viewing locally (vs viewing with a plug-in, downloading one page at a time in your browser). Trying to pull down a page at a time as you scroll isn't efficient with PDFs unless you're local (10mbit+):

IPv4:
diversityanalysis.pdf [artoo.net]
doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.pdf [artoo.net]

IPv6:
diversityanalysis.pdf [artoo.net]
doj-attorney-diversity-unredacted.pdf [artoo.net]

Question.... (1)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367612)

Is it possible that minorities feel slighted because they view themselves as being "minorities"?

After glancing through the unedited PDF... (1)

Bobulusman (467474) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367618)

It's a little odd how they chose to edit it. For example, they would sometimes cover the summary sentance of a paragraph, but the meaning of it could still be guessed based up the rest of the paragraph.

Other places are more logical coverings, though.

DOJ Memo - encrypted by SCO and SunnComm (4, Funny)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367633)

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

No wonder they can't catch Bin Laden.

Am I the only one... (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367634)

... that thought this was about a buffer overflow bug allowing someone to read classified documents?

Proof of abuse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367638)

This is just proof of W's admin using the issue of National security to avoid anything that would be critical of it.

wysiwyg (1)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 10 years ago | (#7367645)

Always knew that wysiwyg was a stupid people trap.

More info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7367684)

Democracy Now [democracynow.org] ran a good story on thursday's edition i believe. They also ran an whole hour segment on the voting machine scandal.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>