4 ms·
I also like to think this was maybe done as a form of malicious compliance. Someone inside the agency was tasked with redacting this, and found a way to sneak t
by stingraycharles 10mo ago
I also like to think this was maybe done as a form of malicious compliance. Someone inside the agency was tasked with redacting this, and found a way to sneak the information through but still getting it passed by their supervisors, so that the information got out.
- GuB-42 10mo agoIt reminds me of the 2008 Underhanded C code contest. The subject was exactly this. https://www.underhanded-c.org/_page_id_17.html https://www.underhanded-c.org/_page_id_17.html And the winner's solution is incredibly simple and clever.
- sallveburrpi 10mo agoTo me this is the only explanation that makes sense. However wouldn’t they risk repercussions when this is inevitably found out? I assume they have records who redacted which documents
- stingraycharles 10mo agoYes they may get fired, but it will be difficult to prove intent and very easy to claim incompetence. So I don’t think there will be jail time if that’s what you’re referring to.
- seg_lol 10mo agoThe mal-redacted file actually points to a crime itself of redacting things it shouldn't have.
- fwip 10mo agoOr, if there is indeed an ongoing investigation on those two, it could be leaking that fact, right?
- seg_lol 10mo agoNot in this case, this is just a cover for the guilty because this shows that Epsteins Estate also works for Trump. The rot runs deep. There is no investigation, that is the point.
- DerArzt 10mo agoSome peopledo things acknowledging that there may be backlash for an action when they feel it's the right thing to do.
- stingraycharles 10mo agoSnowden being an extreme example, I feel really sorry for what happened to him but he really did the right thing.
- ErroneousBosh 10mo agoOut of a thousand people? Where they probably have an email from a PHB that says something like "put a black box over all references to <this list of things?"?
- rtkwe 10mo agoThis happens too regularly across both minor and major issues for me to think this is entirely redactors intentionally messing up. It's just a lot of people being pulled on to the job and not all of them are competent. Maybe some of it is intentional but not all of it I'm certain.
- mbesto 10mo ago> I assume they have records who redacted which documents (1) Considering it was a rush job (2) general ineptness of this administration and (3) the management wouldn't have defined the explicit job description ("completely black out, not use black highlighter"), the likeliness that there is any evidence that this was intentionally malicious is pretty low.