This has been known for years (decades?): setting black text against a black background in a PDF doesn’t eliminate the text in the PDF. Duh…
The only reason why this is still an idiotic mistake made by public officials is because public officials are idiots.
The more I read about what’s in some of these files (e.g. a report about Trump being present while a 13yo rape victim’s newborn baby was thrown into lake Michigan), the more I’m starting to think it was intentional.
The people who had to go through this shit to redact it might be fascist pieces of shit, but they’re still ostensibly in fields at least somewhat related to law enforcement. Having to read shit like that, and then be complicit in covering it up… I dunno.
You may never have heard of the AAAA, the Advertisers Against Advertising Alliance…
Imagine a cigarette-company wants some advertising-work done…
Imagine that you’re dead set against cigarette-companies, but they don’t know that…
Imagine getting the contract, & doing advertising-design for them, where they get an advertising-campaign which to them looks good, but … doesn’t work on people…
Imagine that that is exactly what you had intended…
No card-carrying, no meetings, no visible-connections: only independent people contributing independently.
( I suspect that the drugstore “Life” brand, at Shopper’s Drug Mart was done by a member of the AAAA: NOBODY with health-sense would buy that shit, as a result of the campaign they had, years ago, when I lived in a city )
Now remap it from AAAA to someone ordered to redact evil, to protect the regime against accountability…
Imagine you know exactly that this highlighting-with-black won’t work…
Imagine that this is exactly why you use the method: to protect accountability, in a dying-empire’s deathspasms…
It then becomes possible to “do one’s job” & be complicit within the regime ( but notice those falsifying-quotes! ),
while one protects integrity, Justice, & accountability, by doing one’s “job” in a way which enables actual-Journalism, should there be any left, to dig-in…
Beauty, eh?
_ /\ _
the more I’m starting to think it was intentional
That’s a mistake. Go by Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
It wouldn’t be malice, it would be altruism
The important thing is “adequately”. Sometimes the reality can make it improbable.
Hanlon’s razor is and has always been bullshit.
It basically just means “be kind“
It’s always held true for me. Malice - or forethought - require intelligence, something that’s in much shorter supply than anybody would believe.
Stupid usually explains most everything adequately.
Is it, though? Has the system been keeping us down, or are the ppl in charge just stupid and greedy? Assigning intent makes the unfairness sting less.
Hold. What. Where do I find this, please?
I’ve read of the copy/paste unredacting but I’ve yet to read them.
There’s a link in the article directly to the tip report.
Man, the contortions that editor had to go through to get to that tame headline are spectacular. The tip says that he raped a pregnant 14 year old then oversaw the murder of her newborn baby.
Thank you. My default is to assume crazy shit in this timeline is true but some of these sound so fantastical.
Even if the text is removed, if the font is a proportional one, the very exact dimensions of any removed text plus knowledge of stuff like kerning can reveal the text.
As pointed out in the article, how do we deal with documents from people filling the blanks with whatever they want and claim they “unredacted” it?
If they tell you how they did it, you can just do the same thing to the file and see for yourself.
By following the law that required this release of files, which includes things like limiting redactions to specific topics, accompanying the redactions with explanations as to their content, and retaining the unredacted versions for congressional inspection.
They are deliberately creating doubt and confusion to avoid accountability.
deleted by creator
