maelorin: (news)
The New York Times reported last Thursday (22nd June 2006) on a flawed attempt to prevent disclosure of "sensitive material" in a court case. Prosecutors presented documents in PDF format to court with sections "blacked" out. Those sections, when copied into a text editor, say MS Word, disclosed the supposedly suppressed text ... oops.

The report includes a picture that demonstrates how easy the disclosure process was.


This was such a simple thing to avoid - one extra step in the process could have ensured that this was never going to happen.

Once more, the tool is blamed for blatant user error. Though I suspect the oversight can be sheeted home to a lack of education and awareness of how the tools actually work. I can empathise with the poor intern or junior who got stuck doing the cut and paste and./or file conversion - been there, done that. But hitting "Print to PDF" was not enough here - the "blacked-out" text really ought to have been replaced not just covered up.

WYSIWYG has made people lazy (lazier?) when it comes to creating documents. What You See Isn't All of What Is Actually There. Just because it looks fine on the screen and on the print out, and just because the PDF version doesn't include all the stupid MS metadata, doesn't mean the original data - the data that was actually important to cover up - was adequately masked.

Computers do exactly what you tell them to do, and nothing else. Covering text with black background/foreground really only makes it unreadable - it doesn't replace the text. You have to explicitly replace the text.
Music:: "Weird Al" Yankovic - You're Pitiful
Mood:: 'cold' cold
maelorin: (news)
The New York Times reported last Thursday (22nd June 2006) on a flawed attempt to prevent disclosure of "sensitive material" in a court case. Prosecutors presented documents in PDF format to court with sections "blacked" out. Those sections, when copied into a text editor, say MS Word, disclosed the supposedly suppressed text ... oops.

The report includes a picture that demonstrates how easy the disclosure process was.


This was such a simple thing to avoid - one extra step in the process could have ensured that this was never going to happen.

Once more, the tool is blamed for blatant user error. Though I suspect the oversight can be sheeted home to a lack of education and awareness of how the tools actually work. I can empathise with the poor intern or junior who got stuck doing the cut and paste and./or file conversion - been there, done that. But hitting "Print to PDF" was not enough here - the "blacked-out" text really ought to have been replaced not just covered up.

WYSIWYG has made people lazy (lazier?) when it comes to creating documents. What You See Isn't All of What Is Actually There. Just because it looks fine on the screen and on the print out, and just because the PDF version doesn't include all the stupid MS metadata, doesn't mean the original data - the data that was actually important to cover up - was adequately masked.

Computers do exactly what you tell them to do, and nothing else. Covering text with black background/foreground really only makes it unreadable - it doesn't replace the text. You have to explicitly replace the text.
Mood:: 'cold' cold
Music:: "Weird Al" Yankovic - You're Pitiful
maelorin: (lawyers)

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK Tory leader proposes US-style Bill of Rights
Joe Shaulis at 2:26 PM ET

[JURIST] UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron [party profile] said Monday that he would appoint a panel of legal experts to examine whether the increasingly-controversial Human Rights Act of 1998 [text; JURIST news archive] should be replaced with an American-style Bill of Rights. Speaking at the Centre for Policy Studies [think tank website] in London, Cameron asserted that the act doesn't adequately protect rights even as it makes fighting crime and terrorism more difficult. Cameron said [text, PDF]:

So I believe that the time has now come for a new solution that protects liberties in this country that is home-grown and sensitive to Britain's legal inheritance that enables people to feel they have ownership of their rights and one which at the same time enables a British Home Secretary to strike a common-sense balance between civil liberties and the protection of public security. The Conservative Party, under my leadership, is determined to provide a hard-nosed defence of security and freedom. And I believe that the right way to do that is through a modern British Bill of Rights that also balances rights with responsibilities. This would clearly set out people's rights, would enable those rights to be protected in British courts, and would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and terrorism.

The Human Rights Act was passed to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights [text; BBC backgrounder], which Britain signed in 1953. Cameron said his proposal would not withdraw Britain from the convention and would continue to allow UK citizens to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights [official website].

The governing Labour Party immediately attacked Cameron's remarks [party press release]. The government's chief legal adviser, Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith [official profile], described the Bill of Rights proposal as "muddled, misconceived and dangerous" [BBC report].

Reuters has more.
The Guardian has additional coverage.
BBC News offers recorded video of the full speech.

Music:: "Weird Al" Yankovic - You're Pitiful
Mood:: 'frustrated' frustrated
maelorin: (lawyers)

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK Tory leader proposes US-style Bill of Rights
Joe Shaulis at 2:26 PM ET

[JURIST] UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron [party profile] said Monday that he would appoint a panel of legal experts to examine whether the increasingly-controversial Human Rights Act of 1998 [text; JURIST news archive] should be replaced with an American-style Bill of Rights. Speaking at the Centre for Policy Studies [think tank website] in London, Cameron asserted that the act doesn't adequately protect rights even as it makes fighting crime and terrorism more difficult. Cameron said [text, PDF]:

So I believe that the time has now come for a new solution that protects liberties in this country that is home-grown and sensitive to Britain's legal inheritance that enables people to feel they have ownership of their rights and one which at the same time enables a British Home Secretary to strike a common-sense balance between civil liberties and the protection of public security. The Conservative Party, under my leadership, is determined to provide a hard-nosed defence of security and freedom. And I believe that the right way to do that is through a modern British Bill of Rights that also balances rights with responsibilities. This would clearly set out people's rights, would enable those rights to be protected in British courts, and would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and terrorism.

The Human Rights Act was passed to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights [text; BBC backgrounder], which Britain signed in 1953. Cameron said his proposal would not withdraw Britain from the convention and would continue to allow UK citizens to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights [official website].

The governing Labour Party immediately attacked Cameron's remarks [party press release]. The government's chief legal adviser, Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith [official profile], described the Bill of Rights proposal as "muddled, misconceived and dangerous" [BBC report].

Reuters has more.
The Guardian has additional coverage.
BBC News offers recorded video of the full speech.

Mood:: 'frustrated' frustrated
Music:: "Weird Al" Yankovic - You're Pitiful
maelorin: (no happy ever after)

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK will not ask US to release Guantanamo detainee Hicks
Holly Manges Jones at 7:04 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US
Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June.

From Australia, ABC News has
local coverage.

Hicks just can't win a trick.

But then he must be a dangerous terrorist. You know, like, oh, some guy who recently converted and was very serious about it all. Is this guy who was picked out of a crowd because he was not like the others really so dangerous? Or just very, very inconvenient ...


Note: if you're Australian, don't expect the Australian government to help you out if it's not convenient for them ...
Mood:: 'sad' sad
Music:: Kyle XY 01x01 ... OMG ... why!!
maelorin: (no happy ever after)

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK will not ask US to release Guantanamo detainee Hicks
Holly Manges Jones at 7:04 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US
Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June.

From Australia, ABC News has
local coverage.

Hicks just can't win a trick.

But then he must be a dangerous terrorist. You know, like, oh, some guy who recently converted and was very serious about it all. Is this guy who was picked out of a crowd because he was not like the others really so dangerous? Or just very, very inconvenient ...


Note: if you're Australian, don't expect the Australian government to help you out if it's not convenient for them ...
Mood:: 'sad' sad
Music:: Kyle XY 01x01 ... OMG ... why!!

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
2
 
3
 
4 5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31