News

The ultimate hack: Ctrl+C Ctrl+V

https://usdictionary.com/definitions/hack/

See definitions 3 and 5 for reference, I believe the term fully fits.

We’re founding a committee to oversee discussions about how to consider moving forward with this. Action will be taken at a faster rate than usual compared to usual congressional processes. This legislative action is expected to take place in 2047 once deliberations are complete.

Can't wait for the Supreme Court to decide in 10 years that releasing a document with ineffective redactions means the document was not technically redacted, so no laws were violated.

¿Porque no dos?

Or, this is what happens when people who work for the government really hate Donald Trump.

Malicious compliance

You have to be more careful than many people expect think with the redaction tool. Sometimes it's text being redacted. Sometimes it's a graphic. Sometimes it's both on top of each other.

That's why my final step in redacting documents for Open Records (I do a LOT of it) is to flatten the PDF.

But the real bitch is protected docs. Some docs keep the redaction tool from working (e.g. docs with digital signatures). Sometimes I actually have to print a doc out and re-scan it to get the redactions to stick.

It's like people saying their facebook got hacked when in reality, they logged in on a public computer and didn't log out. Or their password is their kid's name or some shit.

Adding to theory 2, I bet there was very little record keeping regarding which agent was redacting which document. The point of a coverup is that you try to reduce accountability. Even if only Trump loyalist FBI agents were selected for the censorship job, I doubt they all could remain loyalists after reading the Epstein files.

I was gonna say, "Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake".

I’m sure lots of people figured it out and kept their trap shut.

So long as you say “I’m in” after you hit Ctrl+V, it counts.

I would like to think that it was on purpose. So whoever was working on that knew that someone could realize it. I don't know why I keep having faith in people.

It's a shockingly common source of data leaks. There are some versions with more subtlety, like actually redacting the text but a copy of it remains in the file for version tracking, as a separate layer, or things like that.

PDF is derived from printer control tools, and has a lot of features built in that add flexibility for office document purposes, but can be surprising for people not expecting it.
If you're working as a team to redact documents you might deliberately use something reversible so that the person checking your work can 1) see what you redacted 2) unredact if they think you shouldn't have.
Sometimes people also just don't know there's actual reaction tools built in.

The part that I'm more surprised by is that whatever process they have for releasing documents didn't involve passing it through a system of some sort that automatically fixed that sort of thing.

You think this was a mistake? Certainly some staffers did this on purpose, my friend. Good for them.

One of the documents talked about how Trump and Epstein were involved in the rape of a 14 year old and the murder of her baby so… yes.

One was regarding Alan Dershowitz. Apparently he had sex with a minor then, while defending Epstein on a case, he negotiated immunity for himself.

https://bsky.app/profile/truthfuljai.bsky.social/post/3man6fffimc2e