This might be a good thing, but since the government has the option to release 100% redacted documents, the Secret Service hasn't really been ordered to release anything other than a stack of black pieces of paper. If they release more than that, it's because they either want to, or don't care.
You see, as The President of The United States of America pledged: if he gets elected, he will create the most transparent administration in the history of the USA!
So long story short, they will not redact anything.
I predict his file will be incredibly boring/banal stuff, with the odd wild conjecture. The blacked out parts will consist entirely of things embarrassing to the agents who compiled it.
It would have the potential to be valuable in the future, if nefarious acts came to light via some other method, because it would potentially show that possibly illegal actions were taken to hide the information. However, if nothing actionable is ever discovered about this case, then the redacted documents would be completely worthless. Only time will tell.
Where I work, the physical document is first scanned into an electronic form (multipage formats like TIFF or PDF, usually). The electronic document is then imported into a proprietary redaction program (there's quite a few on the market, most copier/scanner vendors have an offering).
It then assists with the initial redaction by performing OCR on the content, allowing you to quickly search for sensitive information. The software provides built-in tools for blacking out sensitive sections of the document - some even provide configurable overlays/stamps on the blackouts for why that section was redacted.
Then one or more humans manually go over the documents to make sure that nothing was missed. When they are happy with the results, the document is finalized into a TIFF or PDF document with the pages flattened into single image objects (so you can't just delete the black boxes - they are now part of the embedded image).
The original documents do not need to be harmed in any way, they just need to be able to be scanned to start the process.
Conversion to an image format helps to ensure that if the source was an electronic document that sensitive original source metadata or proprietary document format binary blobs don't inadvertently leak redacted information. If a physical copy is required, you just print it.
>When they are happy with the results, the document is finalized into a TIFF or PDF document with the pages flattened into single image objects (so you can't just delete the black boxes - they are now part of the embedded image).
And if you fail to do that, you get this (original link is gone, but here's the discussion, and the gist is the TSA released "redacted documents" where you could just select over the blacked out areas and ctrl-C to recover the text).
First, you █████████ ███ █████. Then, after █████ ████ █████ ████ the █████, you can either ████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███, or ████ █████ ██████ ████ █ ███'█ ████ ██.
I think the redactions are actually done using a narrow painter's tape, then a photocopy of the originals. The painter's tape won't stick to the paper, but shows up as black on the photocopy.
I would guess that it's not worth the effort, due to the risk of a physical process failing (lose painter's tape, need to make a copy for cutting, etc).
In modern practice, scan, bitmap paint 100% black, print?
In the very few documents I've had to redact (PII, not tyranny :P) I actually used white boxes instead of black to waste less toner, but yeah it's the same idea.
Edit: actually, just put a black filter over the sensitive parts while photocopying. That way you don't damage the original and you can send the photocopy over.
You also have to mess with the contrast levels or set it to "black and white" instead of grayscale. The default grayscale settings on photocopiers tend to leave the copies still somewhat legible (I probably wasn't using the "proper" sort of marker, one of those heavy duty aluminum-can permanent ones.)
They need time to figure out if warrants were actually obtained prior to gathering the information, verses just grabbing all the information via their blanket surveillance.
why is everyone under the impression that they don't already have these in a digital format? I mean.... Utah people. i think they have the storage space. you think they're going to store all this data on americans in a digital format, but when it comes to fbi profiles, they store them in a filing cabinet?
I love the picture. What a political agitator. He was a good little left wing agitator and was fatally shocked to learn that when you're not serving the agenda you can get bit.
On the other hand, serving it WILL get you bit. It takes out a chunk of your personality right away, and then there is the agenda itself, which is an omnivore.
You know, given the choice.. even being a face that is trampled on by a boot, forever, is better than becoming a boot, forever.
Thanks :) Moral high ground is usually a lame "argument", but in response to physical high ground it's good enough I guess, and why not jump to the general case right away, especially at the bottom of a thread ^^ There are (so many) games that really are won by not playing them, Schadenfreude is self-injury, and what people mistake with power is often just a web of desires and fears. So in conclusion, may all beings come to know themselves and achieve enlightenment, and find a pair shoes they really like.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/page/department-justice-black...