|
 |
October 30, 2003 YES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE TYPES OF PDF FILES....A couple of weeks ago the Justice Department, after finally acceding to a Freedom of Information request, posted a study on "workforce diversity." However, it was heavily redacted: nearly half of the report was blacked out. But in yet another example of utter cluelessness about how computers work, the report was posted on the web in PDF format. More specifically, it was posted in a PDF format called Image+Text, so while the viewable image was redacted, the underlying text (which allows you to search the document) was still there, buried in the innards of the file. Not buried for long, of course. The good folks at the Memory Hole helpfully restored the text, and even highlighted the redacted parts so we can all see what it was that DOJ wanted to hide. Both versions are here for your viewing pleasure. You know, I sure hope the guys working on terrorism are a little more clueful about computer protocols and file formats than these guys. This is pitiful. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 30, 2003 09:45 PM | TrackBackComments
Doh, tried to use (strike /strike) Great find, Kevin. Thanks. Posted by: fouro at October 30, 2003 10:03 PM | PERMALINKIt's a shame someone had to figure this out. They might have continued to make the same mistake for years. Now this will probably be the only time. Posted by: Mario at October 30, 2003 10:03 PM | PERMALINKSince we're in full tin-foil (aluminum-foil?) mode, couldn't we just hope that the flunky TOLD to redact the report said, "I shall." But, serriptitiously redacted it in just such a manner so that other people could unredact it? ...maybe? I can only hope. --Ventura County, CA Posted by: Darryl Pearce at October 30, 2003 10:20 PM | PERMALINKForget the bone head bureaucrat that let this happen (hey, on second thought, maybe it was intentional...). Look at the substance. It was redacted because it was possibly negative. As in, maybe we could do a better job at promoting diversity. What is so freaking secret about that? This Adminstration just makes me want to ram my head in the wall and make all the pain go away. David Lynch used to have a cartoon strip in the LA Weekly called "Angriest Dog in the World." It was always only 3 panels of a very angry dog chained to a stake pulling as hard as he could. It had three speech bubbles with painful banalities that differed each week. "Uh, oh, report says diversity is not as good as it could be at DOJ." "No way, DOJ?" "Yep. Dang, better redact THAT report." GRRRRR. (Hey, I'm not in LA anymore. Does that strip still run?) Posted by: 537 votes at October 30, 2003 10:26 PM | PERMALINK "It's a shame someone had to figure this out. They might have continued to make the same mistake for years. Now this will probably be the only time." Quick, Kevin, produce about 3 posts on Luskin, a couple on Easterbrook, and bury this post way down at the bottom. You owe it to your country. Posted by: Another Bruce at October 30, 2003 10:26 PM | PERMALINKThis Adminstration just makes me want to ram my head in the wall and make all the pain go away. You still have a wall left? My apartment looks like Gene Hackman's at the end of The Conversation. Posted by: Kevin K. at October 30, 2003 10:32 PM | PERMALINKOops. LA Reader, not Weekly.
Apropos I say.
They might have continued to make the same mistake for years. Now this will probably be the only time. My wife just made the same comment when I read Kevin's post to her. I'm more cynical. I think we can expect each department and bureau to have to rediscover it for themselves. This administration is the most secretive since Nixon’s (more so really). But secrecy means three steps of atomization. Separating the government from the public, separating the public from each other, and separating elements of the government from each other. There is no reason to expect lessons learned by one branch of the government to be available to other branches. Confusion and ineptitude always favor the opposition. Posted by: John J. McKay at October 30, 2003 10:36 PM | PERMALINKHA HA HA HA HA HA HA Score -1 for Ascroft. If they'd just released the damn thing asap, admitted what problems there were, and said they were working on them, this would be a complete and utter non-issue. But you can't do much worse than stonewall for two years then released a blacked-out report ... that's still readable anyway. What idiots. What sad, sad, idiots. It amazes me that paranoid conservative opaque-government types STILL haven't figured out in the post-Watergate world that opacity and denial often comes back to bite them in the butt. Everyone has faults, and you always risk the existence of error or a whistleblower. So much safer to admit your faults up front. I'm going to be laughing all night long. Great post, Kevin. -Ev having now browsed through the document, I am baffled. why black *any* of this out? none of the data or exposition I skimmed sounded like a mystery to me. does anyone at DOJ think that we cannot guess that minorities are less well represented in positions of authority than in the organization as a whole? I feel more strongly than ever that rather than have classification and redaction be the default, that we need a system where any government bureaucrat who wants to withhold something from his employers (i.e., from us citizens) needs to go to court, as the police do to get a search warrant. the NSA would get its secrecy warrants pretty easily; the DOJ's diversity report, I'd hope, never would. Is it really legal to black out a section under the FOIA just because it's somewhat negative? It is interesting that the blackouts seem less geared toward protecting the department, and more toward protecting its management. Posted by: Boronx at October 30, 2003 11:41 PM | PERMALINKSomeone in the know needs to research very quickly if there are other documents where this has happened. Posted by: Boronx at October 30, 2003 11:42 PM | PERMALINKAshcroft has been caught with his redacted pants down. How embarrasing for him, and for all his hack supporters like Glenn Reynolds. Posted by: Hacticus at October 30, 2003 11:55 PM | PERMALINKI'm with WCW on this. The redacted parts are largely innocuous and utterly predictable. It's almost like they really can't tolerate ANY level of criticism, from anyone. It's a Very spooky feeling, almost as if you are listening to a replay of the entire Cold War BS on secrecy, only from the Soviet side. There was no need to redact much of what they did, and the report is mostly unharmful to the administration. Unhelpful perhaps, but it goes to the absolutely Nixonian attitude they've got about all governmental information that they sought to hide this stuff. You've got to ask: 'WhY?' and 'Why bother?' There was no reporter who was going to wade through this stuff to make a story on deadline, and there's very little 'interesting' in it. So again we've got to wonder: What's up with that evil dolt Ashcroft? Is he simply as paranoid as he is power mad? Is this a good combination for someone who leads the SS...er... DoJ? Posted by: VJ at October 30, 2003 11:56 PM | PERMALINKHeh. This is as good as Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt. Posted by: Felix Deutsch at October 31, 2003 12:39 AM | PERMALINKIt looks like they redacted all the brief, easy to understand findings of fact to prevent others from quoting them in unflattering news articles. Posted by: clem at October 31, 2003 01:29 AM | PERMALINKActually, Mario, Boronx, et al., this is hardly the first time this has happened. I don't remember specific instances offhand, but it's the kind of thing that makes semi-regular appearances on Slashdot. Probably at least a couple of times a year. Posted by: John at October 31, 2003 01:32 AM | PERMALINKOn the cover page, they state that "All excisions are made pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA." Exemption 5 refers specifically to "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." My question: How is this at all applicable to the redacted portions? Posted by: Ficus at October 31, 2003 02:15 AM | PERMALINKThis proves that the reporters in the mainstream covering the Bush adminsitration are either incompetent, lazy, or both. The techniques memory hole used were elementary. How come it took a low budget website, instead of a crack Times reporter, to figure this out? Every pdf that has redactions should have been examined as a matter of course by the vaunted American press. And yes, someone right now should be going through every other redacted document posted in pdf format -and not only from the US government- and uncover more information we're not supposed to know about. Posted by: tristero at October 31, 2003 02:22 AM | PERMALINKBoronx: Yes. In particular, someone needs to check the redacted parts of the 9/11 memo. You know, the stuff with _____ Arabia. Posted by: godlesscapitalist at October 31, 2003 03:09 AM | PERMALINKAs one who has done business with the govt (fed, state, & local) including the schools: they are, as an organization, largely clueless about run of the mill technology. Sure, they understand big, sophisticated stuff like satellites, submarines, etc. but are just as clueless as your grandparents when it comes to standard issue office and home technology. Posted by: steve at October 31, 2003 04:18 AM | PERMALINKGiven that the blacked-out portions are apparently innocuous, other
than being bad news for the government, it would be nice to see this
lead to a little more furor over the administration bloaking out other
things like, say, sections of various reports dealing addressing the
Saudis. I was the first person to request a copy of the Attorney Workforce Diversity report from DOJ in April 2002, yes 2002, under the Freedom of Information Act. DOJ sat on the request for months. For at least eight months, they said they couldn't locate the report. Even though it was sitting on the desk of the Deputy Attorney General and his assistant, they claimed they couldn't locate it. That was probably because the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) wouldn't give the report to the Office of Information & Privacy (OIP) which handles FOIA requests to the DAG. The DOJ probably erred in the redaction because the handling of the FOIA was done differently than other FOIA requests because of the perceived sensitivity of the information, and perhaps because there was a disagreement over what to release. There is, of course, no justification for the decisions to redact the information that was removed. DOJ realizes that THEY handle the administrative appeal of the decision to withhold these records, and could dispose of that rather summarily. If someone were so bold as to sue in federal court, the judge gives the agency the benefit of the doubt and would not be likely to second guess the agency and examine the document in camera (in the judge's chambers). So the DOJ and other agencies are emboldened by their previous success with ridiculous redactions of this sort, and have probably deluded themselves into thinking that they've followed the rules. But the emperor really has no clothes, and it is quite apparent that they have been abusing the "deliberative process privilege" for some time. Won't this prevent other documents from being seen? We were concerned about this, and we checked all the government pdf files we could find, and none of them were redacted in this manner, although in the past some have been. So we figured this was an anomaly and the benefits from disclosure of the information would outweigh the risks of disclosing "sources and methods". For the last two years, starting before 9/11, the Bush administration and the Office of Information & Privacy, the DOJ office responsible for instructing all other federal agencies on the use of the Freedom of Information Act, has been pushing the over-use of the b(5) deliberative process privilege and the use of something called Low B(2) - to withhold what they call internal administrative materials. Under the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno issued orders that the so-called "low b(2)" was not to be used, and all records should be released unless "foreseeable harm" was likely to occur. Ashcroft issued a memo changing this and encouraging agencies to withhold records. Russ Kick has done a great job in putting together his web site, thememoryhole.org, and I encourage you to take a look at the various offerings there. Posted by: Michael Ravnitzky at October 31, 2003 04:39 AM | PERMALINKThe link doesn't work for me. Please tell me it still works for others, and it's just my computer being wacky. Posted by: Dan at October 31, 2003 04:55 AM | PERMALINKLink doesn't work for me, either - with or without my pop-up blocker. Posted by: NC Progressive at October 31, 2003 05:13 AM | PERMALINKCancel that.....just took it's sweet time. Posted by: NC Progressive at October 31, 2003 05:14 AM | PERMALINKWow! They're *still* doing that? This particular bug first surfaced a few years ago ... again, with Justice. I guess those lawyers just don't learn. Posted by: Ray at October 31, 2003 05:20 AM | PERMALINKYou'd think they'd have SOMEthing of a clue when it came to the internet, yes? After all, they keep arresting pedophiles, don't they? Unbelievable. Posted by: Scott at October 31, 2003 05:25 AM | PERMALINKCouple years ago, this happened with CIA informants' names, so no, the anti-terrorism people aren't any more clueful. Posted by: phil at October 31, 2003 06:02 AM | PERMALINKGolly, not this again. I thought the US Federal Government would have been very careful to make people aware of this issue. There are even tools to help with pdf redaction. You know, I sure hope the guys working on terrorism are a little more clueful about computer protocols and file formats than these guys. Well, three years ago the New York Times published a CIA document about the overthrow of Mossadeq and Now the cat's out of the bag. It's a front page story on the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/national/31JUST.html?hp Posted by: JB at October 31, 2003 06:23 AM | PERMALINKI have to agree that there isn't much here worth blacking out. It's a self criticizing report basically saying that the DOJ section chief is the problem. This is a postion that suffers from the lowest turnover and has the most influence over hiring. The report was finished 18 months after Ashcroft took over. The Democrats should feel lucky that Ashcroft didn't release the thing right away and start saying that there was a diversity issue at the DOJ. He screwed up by holding onto it and redacting portions of it. It would have been partisan (in Govt? shocking!), but if Ashcroft had done it he could have laid the majority of the problem on the previous administrations (Clinton's, Bush I's, even Reagans and Carters). And have been able to say that they (current administration) were the good guys as they found the problem and would now take steps to fix it. Note that this problem could probably be traced back to the beginning of time if you wanted to. I gotta give KPMG (whom, like all consulting firms, I despise) some kudos for not watering down the report. Most of this goes back to Government Bureaucrats being unable to critically look at themselves. And I'm sure we're all shocked by this aren't we? I don't see what the big problem is. The magic hand of the market was used to ensure that this report was created and distributed in the most EFFICIENT way possible. If they had done it the old, bloated government way, using experts in the field, it would have cost $20.00 more. But by using the competition of a fair market, and the magic hand of
the market, this was handled by CS students in India at a fraction of
the cost to the government, once again proving that the free market is
the BEST way to handle a diversity of issues. John, you're right, that problem with PDF redaction has been known for a long time. I found a recent article here at the Times, but I think there was even an incident back in 1999 or 2000 when the CIA made the same gaffe. Posted by: Kevin at October 31, 2003 06:31 AM | PERMALINKUnder the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno issued orders that the so-called "low b(2)" was not to be used, and all records should be released unless "foreseeable harm" was likely to occur. Ashcroft issued a memo changing this and encouraging agencies to withhold records. Just one more reason to wish Clinton could run again... If he did, he'd win. Posted by: chris at October 31, 2003 06:33 AM | PERMALINKChris, Enjoy the Republican presidency while you can, Black Oak. (He can only steal one election, right?) Posted by: chris at October 31, 2003 06:55 AM | PERMALINKChris, Thanks for the chuckle. That wasn't expected. Posted by: Black Oak at October 31, 2003 06:59 AM | PERMALINKOld problem -- happy to see it recur. This issue even led to a Simpsons gag. Recall the one where "Mister X" had a website exposing Springfield gossip & politics. Homer had created a "redacted" image of himself with the face covered by a black box. But when we saw visitors access the site, first the Homer image loaded, then the "redaction" sloowly overlaid it as the page completed loading... Posted by: Mister X at October 31, 2003 07:04 AM | PERMALINKHere's a thought: the DOJ didn't redact those numbers because they're "bad", but rather because they undermine the administration's united front against affirmative action. Emphasizing the need for a diverse workplace and management is precisely what the administration doesn't want to be seen doing. Of course the real reason they do it is because they can. That's all the justification they've ever needed. Posted by: phil at October 31, 2003 07:19 AM | PERMALINKYou know, I sure hope the guys counting the votes for our computerized elections are a little more clueful about computer protocols and file formats than these guys. This is pitiful. BTW, props for the use of "clueful". I've been trying to get people to use the word "patheticity" for a while; what do you think of it? It rhymes with "electricity" and is used in sentences like "This legislation underscores the patheticity of this administration's gestures toward its centrist constituents." Posted by: Cryptic Ned at October 31, 2003 07:37 AM | PERMALINKYou can redact every report ever pdf'd on a government web site and still nobody will hear about it in the Red States What would the Freepers do if Dubya had sex with Hillary? Posted by: chris at October 31, 2003 08:02 AM | PERMALINKI know, I know, it was off topic, but Fyreflye just got me wondering what it would take... Posted by: chris at October 31, 2003 08:05 AM | PERMALINKThe inept redaction is all part of a clever plan. They intended for the redacted part to be recoverable, so that people can see that the Bush administration censors out completely trivial information. That way, eventually people will get bored with demanding uncensored information. Then they can censor out the really bad stuff. Originally, I thought that Cheney's blocking the disclosure of the notes on his meetings on energy policy were a cleverly laid trap. The Democrats would howl for full disclosure and make a big political stink. Then eventually Cheney would give in, and the revealed documents would amount to nothing. It would make the Democrats look like they were making a mountain out of a molehill. But it didn't turn out that way. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 31, 2003 08:35 AM | PERMALINKWhere's the kitties, KEVIN? And what do you mean you don't have a wall??? Nothing got burned down did it? Posted by: Cheryl at October 31, 2003 08:46 AM | PERMALINKThis kind of cluelessness goes back to before the advent on computer documents. I once waged a year-long FOIA battle with the FAA to get some documents (this was 1984 or thereabouts). They refused to release them based on "privacy" concerns. They finally agreed to release the documents provided they could sanitize them so that the participants in the events could not be identified. Sure enough, I get a big box full of documents. In every case, all the identifying information had been blacked out--but only on the first page of each report. It was left intact on all subsequent pages. Not that it would have mattered if they'd done it to all the pages. Apparently the budget was so bad that they couldn't afford a new Magic Marker, so you could read all the blacked-out information by simply holding the page to the light or placing it against a white background. Posted by: Derelict at October 31, 2003 08:47 AM | PERMALINKThey redacted it to keep it from being used in a discrimination lawsuit against them. They especially didn't want anyone to see the recommendations because they don't plan on implementing any of them, which could be taken as evidence of intent in a future discrimination suit. Posted by: treetop at October 31, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINKYou know, I sure hope the guys counting the votes for our computerized elections are a little more clueful about computer protocols and file formats than these guys. This is pitiful. *chortle* Read up on the Diebold complex (especially the leaked support emails) and despair. Posted by: Felix Deutsch at October 31, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKHey! That message from "treetop" above wasn't me, the original, I think. Why would they use my name for that comment? Anyway, no problem, I'm changing my name! BTW, Cryptic Ned, I kinda like patheticity, but I think I've already used patheticness myself to mean the same thing. Posted by: treetops at October 31, 2003 04:22 PM | PERMALINKThis isn't the first time idiots have made this exact same mistake. The Wash Post made the same error in releasing a doc related to the DC sniper incident just last year. And three years ago the NYT made this mistake in posting a CIA document. Even if you are technically clueless there's something about knowing the past or being doomed something something? what was that? http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0308.html#8 Posted by: Lawrence Riske at October 31, 2003 04:24 PM | PERMALINKWell, they could have been stupider. They could have redacted it by whiting-out the sensitive parts on their monitor. Posted by: jsg at October 31, 2003 06:01 PM | PERMALINKGod had some serious quality-control problems. Posted by: Robinson Michael at January 20, 2004 05:22 PM | PERMALINKBelieve those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.. Posted by: Beckrich Amy at March 17, 2004 05:23 PM | PERMALINKFriendship make prosperity more shining and lessens adversity by dividing and sharing it. Posted by: Malloy Mary Esther at May 2, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINKIt's never right to say always, and always wrong to say never. Its rather interesting for me.. http://asthma-symptoms.healz.com/ Truth is not determined by majority vote Posted by: Fryling Milo at June 30, 2004 05:52 AM | PERMALINKbig boner bonus - Naked Teens - Hardcore Amateur Movies - Hardcore Digital - Hardcore Maidens - Hentai Studios - Asian Exxxtasy - Average Girls - Babes N Cars - Cute GirlFriend Posted by: all sites access at June 30, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINKI've been watching some sites that were linked from weblogs. Also google said that in the future expired domains that still have
links on dmoz and other sites will lose those links when the domain
expires !!!!!!!!! Posted by: Lyrics at July 23, 2004 07:49 PM | PERMALINK Time will end all my troubles, but I don't always approve of Time's methods. Best XXX Sites - You may find it interesting to check the sites dedicated to http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.online-deals4u.com/ phentermine http://www.online-poker-4u.com/ online poker - Tons of interesdting stuff!!! Posted by: viagra at August 15, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
