First time? The files are absolutely chock full of this stuff. Including one email that said something along the lines of "I had a nice time with your little girls, they were very naughty".

tempest@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 196d

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective

chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 195d (2 replies)

I'm not familiar with everything at the federal level, but I fullfill a lot of Open Records in my state (Texas), and it's illegal to release certain private information about living people in an open records request. Things like social security numbers, DL#s etc, and email addresses are specifically prohibited from release.

Lots of my responses look similar to this if the person's identity in the header is just the email address.

For instance, if the header says John Doe johndoe@domain.com the redaction would black out the email address and leave the name. But if Outlook doesn't have the name saved in the header it would black out everything.

Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 195d (1 reply)

Interesting point. I hadn't thought about that. We can all say he's implicated in sex trafficking, who cares? But due process for all, or due process for none, can't go doxxing people.

However, that being said. There's a small black or above, and a long one below. They can't both be the same email address. Could be a different similar situation as you described, but I bet there's a plain name in there somewhere.

chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 194d

Sometimes Outlook will list an email address in the proper name field in the header too.

For instance their email address may be "suspectedpedophile26@maga.com" and the header will sometimes say:

suspectedpedohile26@maga.com suspectedpedophile26@maga.com

CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 196d (1 reply)

Dwigt

Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 196d

Damn! Beat me to it!

lauseta@piefed.social · 24 pts · 196d (3 replies)

Did you find any other instances of this happening? This could be huge

artyom@piefed.social · 19 pts · 195d (1 reply)

I mean we've already seen them upload docs mentioning Trump, then take them down, and reupload them with his name censored. We have concrete proof that they're doing this. It is huge, but most of us already know it.

D_C@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 195d

The only people who care and want that obese child rapist to be brought to justice are the ones who have no power to do so.
The ones who have that power are either complicit at best, or kiddie rapists themselves. There's no other acceptable explanation.

kingofras@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 196d

not with very quick scans, but its a lot to get through and each censor block like that need a fair bit of context too.

unmarkedbot@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 196d (3 replies)

I swear, this is peak bureaucratic incompetence or intentional obfuscation, take your pick. Turning "don't" into "don t" and then blacking out the split like that is either a hilariously broken redaction script or a lazy attempt to hide stuff without leaving a clean paper trail. Either way it makes the whole dataset less trustworthy.

Congress should subpoena the redaction tool, logs, and original files and hold people accountable if this was done to frustrate oversight. In the meantime everyone archive the originals, compare versions, and make noise. If they think a sloppy auto-censor will stop us from connecting dots, they clearly underestimate how stubborn this community is.

criss_cross@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 195d (1 reply)

Most likely it was a bad regex.

Don(.*)T

Taldan@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 195d

Considering there are only a few instances of don't being redacted, I think it's much more likely the regex was correct, but in this case the OCR missed the apostrophe

InputZero@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 195d

Trump and his administration have already disregarded Congress's directive. What makes you think that another order to release their redaction criteria will be respected?

melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 195d (2 replies)

I guess you'll never see "grape donut" then because of "grape donut".

samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 195d

And because of "grape donut".

ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 195d

Nor Grape Nuts, likely. But nobody eats that garbage anyway.

mcqtom@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 196d

👍

beejboytyson@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 195d

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fKptFV-RGPE The public saftey minister, Peter Braid let this pedo come to Canada for a play called the cursed child. We need to investigate that man and everyone associated with him.

BussyGyatt@feddit.org · -16 pts · 195d (13 replies)

it seems like a stretch tbh. might be easier to start by justifying the assumption he would be referred to as "don t" in the first place. or find some other examples. one strange unexplained redaction of the word "don't" does not by itself constitute evidence of what you suggest. there's already plenty of good reasons to believe donald "the john" trump raped a whole bunch of children and that the criminal justice department is covering up his crimes without reaching for this.

webadict@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 195d (12 replies)

[ removed ]

BussyGyatt@feddit.org · -2 pts · 195d (11 replies)

oh i guess you know how things seem to me better than i do. thats my bad.

i tell you what though, despite the thoughtfulness of your reply, and the eloquence with which it was expressed, i think i will decline to take you up on your advice. you're quite welcome to it, however.

webadict@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 195d (10 replies)

Alright, what is that word supposed to be that's redacted?

Assuming it's someone's name, obviously, why are they redacted?

BussyGyatt@feddit.org · 1 pts · 194d (5 replies)

one strange unexplained redaction of the word “don’t” does not by itself constitute evidence of [doj being caught auto censoring "Don T"]

webadict@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 194d (4 replies)

Why would it be censored otherwise? You didn't say why. It just happened to match Trump's name, though. Weird. Curious, even. It definitely wasn't a victim's name or anything like that, was it?

BussyGyatt@feddit.org · 0 pts · 194d (3 replies)

Why would it be censored otherwise? You didn’t say why. It just happened to match Trump’s name, though.

it doesn't match trump's name though. it sortof matches trump's name in a weird shortening i've never seen before.

It definitely wasn’t a victim’s name or anything like that, was it?

no, context makes it obvious that the word censored was "don't" which i already acknowledged.

Weird. Curious, even.

yes it is weird. it does make me curious. but by itself, that's all it is. just weird.

start by justifying the assumption he would be referred to as “don t” in the first place. or find some other examples.

it's not for the skeptic to prove the negative. the claimant needs to meet a burden of proof to defeat the null hypothesis first. there are a dozen other entirely plausible ways to explain this. accidents happen. people make mistakes, yes even nazis covering up the most heinous child sex crimes.

one strange unexplained redaction of the word “don’t” does not by itself constitute evidence of [doj being caught auto censoring “Don T”]

like, maybe? sure it could be the first drop of a bucketful of evidence that supports the claim. or maybe it's just the thing you already wanted to believe. maybe this single unqualified outlier is just a coincidence. comb through those millions of pages and show a pattern matching this claimed behavior. you say it seems like the thing that happened? cool, then you'll be able to show other instances that show a pattern of "don't" being redacted.

if you wanna ask me a question i'll be glad to answer. if you arent satisfied by my answer i'll explain a different way. if you show me im wrong i'll spin my beliefs around on a dime and thank you for the correction.

but address me in a civil tone next time you reply. i didnt slap your mom, you got no reason to be talking to me like you have been. i dont have to spend time out of my day explaining the burden of proof or the basics of skeptical inquiry to you, and i dont choose to continue in dialogue with a partner who has decided to be stubborn, snarky, belligerent, belittling, deliberately provocative, and knowingly sarcastically hypocritical in any event.

webadict@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 194d

It does match his name. This was a regex search, looking for variations (Don/Donald + T). This is some newbie shit regex searching because this regime hires fucking dipshits. They probably did a search for don(ald)? (t.*)? because they are morons and just blanked out whatever it found. This isn't even a smart redaction. There isn't another option that fits as perfectly as "don t" (And I think anyone would bet thousands on that being the exact spelling censored.) So, yes, it is evidence that they are censoring instances of Trump's name. You might not like it, but this is basic regex search failing that a first job programmer would do because their standards are paste-eaters and wife-beaters. Sorry that you feel that it isn't evidence, but it definitely is, and you have no counterpoint to that.

Regardless, bad faith actors (like yourself) always attack the attitude and never the substance and pretend to be victims, so I don't particularly feel bad for you. I frankly believe you should be banned from this site for your fake haughtiness.

webadict@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 195d (3 replies)

Also, imagine a mod deleting my comment for being mean to someone about the EPSTEIN FILES. Holy shit, some people are fucking fragile.

kingofras@lemmy.world MOD · 3 pts · 195d

the rules, my friend. Just be kind. If you can't be kind, just dont write it.

BussyGyatt@feddit.org · -2 pts · 194d (1 reply)

what does the comment being about the epstein files have to do with not being a dick. like, the mod knew it was about the epstein files the whole time. its in the comm name. they chose to put that rule in anyway? smh some people are so fragile.

webadict@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 194d

Wow, why are you being so toxic buddy? That's so unnecessary and defensive.