Preferences

I want to believe this is malicious compliance.

Lots of loyalists have replaced people there. It's for sure incompetence.
There are hundreds of thousands of documents being reviewed by probably a thousand or more FBI agents. There is zero chance they are all loyalists.
The pool of competence was still diluted
Indeed, incompetence is basically guaranteed if the organization selects for allegiance rather than competence. But I prefer to think that at least part of this was malicious compliance, because that suggests that at least some people at the FBI still have their soul.
I would imagine it would be possible to track down who was responsible for redacting X set of documents, so this seems rather risky?
Since hundreds of people were involved the most likely explanation is incompetence
Once I worked for a company that got a quote in the form of a Word document. Turned out it had history turned on and quotes to competitors could be recovered.

There is a lot of incompitence when it comes to file formats.

For one of my first jobs I negotiated a better offer because "strings" on the document revealed the previous offer they'd sent out, and made me confident I could ask for more.

Though, makes me wonder if someone has intentionally sent out offers like that with lower numbers to make people think they're outsmarting them.

Never match wits with a stringscillian!
You don’t even need a digital format for this. When I was a consultant I waited in a room with a flip chart for a negotiation. I flipped through the “old slides” of the flip chart and found one where they did budget planning for the project. This was very good background info for the negotiations.
To be fair handling Word documents is much more complex than redacting a PDF properly.
Similarly, I’ve been sent PDF proposal letters by my customers with redacted pricing from my competitors so I can compare the scope against mine. A simple unflatten reveals the price along with the scope.
The most likely explanation when hundreds of people make the same fuckup is the tooling and/or process sucks. Not that hundreds of people lack basic competence.

The most recent analogy I have is field techs in IT work. A company sends out "truck roll" tickets, and then complaints when there is a 40% failure/re-work rate on said truck rolls.

A single or handful of techs with said failure rate? Yep, perhaps incompetence.

A global failure rate across dozens of cities/countries and 40+ technicians total? No longer incompetence. At least at the field tech level. That's a documentation, process, and standards problem 100% guaranteed.

That some above average highly competent "hero" technicians are able to compensate for it is irrelevant.

I'm sure not all those hundreds have been involved with every document.

I'm kinda surprised (and disappointed) nobody has done a Snowden on it though.

I think it's more that the analogy is broken.

If I have a sheet of paper and I color a section black. That's it. It's black. No going back.

So I can see people thinking the same for PDFs. I drew the black box. It's black. Done. They don't realize they aren't dealing with a 2D sheet of paper, but with effectively a 3D stack of papers. That they didn't draw a black box on the page, they drew a black box above the page over the area they wanted to obscure.

The fact that this happens a lot is an indication that the software is wrong in this case. It doesn't conform to user expectations.

Having lots of people involved means that it's more likely to be malicious compliance or deniable sabotage. It only needs one person who disagrees with the redactions to start doing things that they know will allow info to leak.
Doesn’t having lots of people involved also raise the chance of incompetence?

You’re more likely to get at least one inept agent in a random sample of 1000 than a sample of 10.

Yep - I think they're both likely.
> Since hundreds of people were involved the most likely explanation is incompetence

Hundreds of people might be involved, but the only key factor required for a single point of failure to propagate to the deliverable is lack of verification.

And God knows how the Trump administration is packed with inexperiente incompetents assigned to positions where they are way way over their head, and routinely commit the most basic mistakes.

And here we are again rediscovering Hanlon's Razor.
It wouldn't be malicious though. Well, it's malicious towards the Trump administration, but not towards the people. Quite the opposite.
The maliciousness is always towards the compliance.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

See also “weaponized incompetence”, which usually has to do with getting out of work but in this case could easily be used to get away with “bad” work for longer.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/weaponized-incompe...

The other side of that same coin is to never admit to malice if your actions can be adequately excused by stupidity.
In 2025, never attribute to incompetence what you could to a conspiracy. [sarcasm]

They fired/drove away/reassigned most of those who are competent in the executive branch generally, it is pretty easy to believe that none of those managing the document release and few of those working on it are actually experienced or skilled in how you do omissions in a document release correctly. Those people are gone.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal