The insurrection committee's public hearings

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by El Guapo »

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:31 am
El Guapo wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:28 am The guy's last name is actually Chesebro? No wonder he turned out bad.
I honestly thought it was another reference to Trump's spray-tan until I read the emails.
Yeah, me too.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by ImLawBoy »

Had he played his cards right, he could have been King of Wisconsin.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Blackhawk »

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:34 am Had he played his cards right, he could have been King of Wisconsin.
The Big Cheese!
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:46 am I’m reading :
So it won’t show up on word searches
Heh. We did a deep dive on this today with a few of my work colleagues. It almost certainly wasn't some primitive cipher. Our collective opinion (and several are ex-FBI forensic investigators) is these were printed either physically or to PDF or some other format, and then processed by OCR software, and the spaces are processing artifacts. The software possibly couldn't distinguish between an a 'i' and 'l' and inserted spaces. There are signs of it that in the Tweet. However, this opinion is also heavily informed that they know this is how investigators typically process evidence. This also usually is fixed before it hits the court room. One of the guys in the discussion used to conduct non-NatSec 'mole hunts' and quipped they would look at the investigation team for the source of the leak - if they were looking for the press leaker. Fun color there!

Edit: Just finally read the politico article - it indicates these emails were inadvertently leaked as part of the Congressional investigation. It doesn't change much analysis - and the assumption that it was raw evidence is probably right.

Anyway, the tell tale signs are that the address fields ( To:, From:, or CC:) typically are auto-populated by the email client from the person's contact list or a directory. The first name in the CC: field is 'Chr s Gardner' instead of 'Chris Gardner'. It doesn't make much sense to obfuscate that when the raw email address (presumably blacked out) would necessarily have complete email information. The idea it'd prevent a FOIA search doesn't make sense since at the raw level the email has to have real email addresses and the searches are performed on the email system.

Technically you could do some obfuscation after the mail is received and stored. However, that would probably prevent the auto-population of the names from the directory. There'd have to be a lot of customizations stitched together to make this work end-to-end and it wouldn't even prevent the FOIA search.

I'll also note that the word TENTATIVELY in all upper case is intact. Other capitalized 'I's are also intact.

I rate this as 'not plausible'.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

That would be some pretty poor OCR. And at the same time incredibly consistent for a bad OCR. I've OCRd thousands of contract documents over the years, have never seen results like that. It will usually make a best guess rather than delete a character and insert a space.

I wouldn't put it past these wannabe operatives that they just did a find and replace with space for a few letters, thinking it would do the job. The fact that it is useless doesn't make me think it's any less likely. In fact, it makes it seem more likely.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:55 am That would be some pretty poor OCR. And at the same time incredibly consistent for a bad OCR. I've OCRd thousands of contract documents over the years, have never seen results like that.
OCR is just one possibility but OCR on consistent fonts is a very different story from handwritten or xerox'ed content where a lot of noise has been introduced. It also could be a range of processing artifacts from other sources. It also could have been introduced while analyzing the documents and it was an intermediate step in a software chain.

Again this was a group of people including me who have done thousands of these investigations. Based on the limited information we have this is the opinion. Is it perfect? By no means, we're missing tons of context but the problem remains that we've collectively never seen anyone attempt to cover their tracks *this way* when there are more effective ways that are so much easier. :)
I wouldn't put it past these wannabe operatives that they just did a find and replace with space for a few letters, thinking it would do the job. The fact that it is useless doesn't make me think it's any less likely. In fact, it makes it seem more likely.
Eh. Not really. The problem is the address fields (why I called it out). That is *auto-populated* so you'd have then argue down a long list of things (for example they changed it in the directory). We talked through a lot of this. But it's all a lot of work. I

The assumption that changes a lot of context is based around the source. Are they a result of discovery from a government system or potentially a cloud-based system? Was this processed by some 'central authority'? That'd mean this was most likely introduced after printing or electronic conveyance.

It's alternatively possible the emails were turned over by Eastman or their tech person themselves and forgot they did this but it's fairly down the list of implausible.

Edit: Another counter argument that just popped into my head. If this was done by humans, why is it so consistent? You'd expect an 'i' or 'l' to slip through here and there then. Instead, it's fairly uniformly processed which points to machine. Could one of these boneheads have written a program to do that? Maybe but again we're still getting into very wacky territory where someone is doing a lot of unnecessary work in the midst of their scheming.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Alefroth »

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:34 am Had he played his cards right, he could have been King of Wisconsin.
Is it too late?
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Unagi »

OK, first - I think it's clear from the contact's name evidence that the document we are looking at isn't a raw copy of the email - and is rather a 'cut-n-paste' from an email into a Word/rich text file.
I think if we could see the redacted email addresses and if they contained a lowercase I or lowercase L, those would also be replaced with a space - and hence wouldn't have worked as an email.

I think that the above 'document' was then given an ole' Find/Replace on the lowercase I and the lowercase L (never the upper case of either) to be replaced with <space>.

That's the simplest and clearest path from a normal email to the document we are all trying to read.

Why was that was done? I'm not entirely sure - but it would seem it was done to keep the file (the leak) from being found if a search on all files against strings of text from that email were performed. This wasn't done to cover the tracks, was it?

It was done to hide the leaked email, no?

The failed OCR idea seems super weird.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Alefroth wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:30 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:34 am Had he played his cards right, he could have been King of Wisconsin.
Is it too late?
He gouda been king, but he's such an unbrielievable muenster that havarti given up on the old goat.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Unagi »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:39 pm
Alefroth wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:30 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:34 am Had he played his cards right, he could have been King of Wisconsin.
Is it too late?
He gouda been king, but he's such an unbrielievable muenster that havarti given up on the old goat.
BLUUEE!!!
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by LordMortis »

havarti
:clap:
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:32 pm OK, first - I think it's clear from the contact's name evidence that the document we are looking at isn't a raw copy of the email - and is rather a 'cut-n-paste' from an email into a Word/rich text file.
I think if we could see the redacted email addresses and if they contained a lowercase I or lowercase L, those would also be replaced with a space - and hence wouldn't have worked as an email.

I think that the above 'document' was then given an ole' Find/Replace on the lowercase I and the lowercase L (never the upper case of either) to be replaced with <space>.

That's the simplest and clearest path from a normal email to the document we are all trying to read.
The problem here is this was output from an investigation - possibly by Eastman's own lawyers, law enforcement, or a third-party firm (which is the standard when not done by law enforcement). And I work at one of those third-party firms. We know what we are looking at. :)

These type of issues are normal during investigations - multiple layers of processing are typically done. That's just part and parcel for the activity. Sometimes you get requests to send over raw work output and it sometimes has errors. That seems the most likely thing here.
Why was that was done? I'm not entirely sure - but it would seem it was done to keep the file (the leak) from being found if a search on all files against strings of text from that email were performed. This wasn't done to cover the tracks, was it?
This wasn't a leak it was provided by the investigation team to the committee. It's possible the investigators got it this way. FWIW the article comes to the same conclusion - they called it a formatting error - which again IMO is the most likely explanation. I have little reason to believe this was some sinister, amateurish plot to obfuscate the activity. It's most likely just an electronic version of the game 'telephone'.
It was done to hide the leaked email, no?
Probably not.
The failed OCR idea seems super weird.
Well weird except that it is actually fairly common. Which is why it is was the top guess as most likely.
Last edited by malchior on Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Carpet_pissr »

LordMortis wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:50 pm
havarti
:clap:
Oh que-so, just partial credit for all that work? I'm feta with this place.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Alefroth »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:59 pm
LordMortis wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:50 pm
havarti
:clap:
Oh que-so, just partial credit for all that work? I'm feta with this place.
Do Gloucester! Do Gloucester!
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Alefroth wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:35 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:59 pm
LordMortis wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:50 pm
havarti
:clap:
Oh que-so, just partial credit for all that work? I'm feta with this place.
Do Gloucester! Do Gloucester!
Nay, has it occurd to you that that would be a Gloucester-fuck of dairy-based puns, more than this forum could take, and would likely cheese off a lot of people off that are trying to seriously discuss (check's title) some committe trying to insert a ton of pubic hair (into what?! So weird, and why would that require a committee?!)
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Alefroth »

:lol:
User avatar
Brian
Posts: 12553
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:51 am
Location: South of Heaven
Contact:

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Brian »

I camenbert this for much longer.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Blackhawk »

Grate. Just grate.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Brian wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:10 pm I camenbert this for much longer.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Oh well DONE, sir! I was trying so hard to fit camembert in, but I bleu it!
Blackhawk wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:21 pm Grate. Just grate.
Funny, but nacho best pun work.

Also:
Image
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:07 pm

Edit: Another counter argument that just popped into my head. If this was done by humans, why is it so consistent? You'd expect an 'i' or 'l' to slip through here and there then. Instead, it's fairly uniformly processed which points to machine. Could one of these boneheads have written a program to do that? Maybe but again we're still getting into very wacky territory where someone is doing a lot of unnecessary work in the midst of their scheming.
Surely you know of Find & Replace, a feature in most productivity applications.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

Believe it or not I like the puns! I mean it's silly but we all need some silly now more than ever.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Always good to have some levity up paneer.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Pyperkub »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:56 pm
malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:07 pm

Edit: Another counter argument that just popped into my head. If this was done by humans, why is it so consistent? You'd expect an 'i' or 'l' to slip through here and there then. Instead, it's fairly uniformly processed which points to machine. Could one of these boneheads have written a program to do that? Maybe but again we're still getting into very wacky territory where someone is doing a lot of unnecessary work in the midst of their scheming.
Surely you know of Find & Replace, a feature in most productivity applications.
The Chese has Boro'd too deep for that?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:56 pm
malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:07 pm

Edit: Another counter argument that just popped into my head. If this was done by humans, why is it so consistent? You'd expect an 'i' or 'l' to slip through here and there then. Instead, it's fairly uniformly processed which points to machine. Could one of these boneheads have written a program to do that? Maybe but again we're still getting into very wacky territory where someone is doing a lot of unnecessary work in the midst of their scheming.
Surely you know of Find & Replace, a feature in most productivity applications.
I'll say it again for the cheap seats - it does not explain the address fields - which again is why I pointed them out. What I'm talking about is having the 'cipher text' in the actual emails. It's not possible or so improbable that it is nearly the same thing. It had to be post-email client. We are seeing something received and processed. So if you want to argue these guys copied emails out, then obfuscated them, and kept them lying around that way...and the investigators lazily picked them up and sent them onto the committee...you could do so. However, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Especially if this was some scheme to be sneaky.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Carpet_pissr »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:36 pm Always good to have some levity up paneer.
OK that is hard core. Well played, sir. I glanced at that one for 2 seconds and moved right along. No grater challenge in the list of potential cheese puns than that one.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Unagi »

Brian wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:10 pm I camenbert this for much longer.
It's just a curd to me this has gone on whey too long.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Agreed. Time to rind this down.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:38 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 3:56 pm
malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:07 pm

Edit: Another counter argument that just popped into my head. If this was done by humans, why is it so consistent? You'd expect an 'i' or 'l' to slip through here and there then. Instead, it's fairly uniformly processed which points to machine. Could one of these boneheads have written a program to do that? Maybe but again we're still getting into very wacky territory where someone is doing a lot of unnecessary work in the midst of their scheming.
Surely you know of Find & Replace, a feature in most productivity applications.
I'll say it again for the cheap seats - it does not explain the address fields - which again is why I pointed them out. What I'm talking about is having the 'cipher text' in the actual emails. It's not possible or so improbable that it is nearly the same thing. It had to be post-email client. We are seeing something received and processed. So if you want to argue these guys copied emails out, then obfuscated them, and kept them lying around that way...and the investigators lazily picked them up and sent them onto the committee...you could do so. However, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Especially if this was some scheme to be sneaky.
We don't know it failed on the address fields since they're redacted. If it didn't, they'd still redact them since they'd be easy to figure out.

If you mean the missing letters in the address names, if the emails were copied whole cloth, find and replace would work on them.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Unagi »

Just to be clear LB, you are saying exactly what I was saying below, correct?
Unagi wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:32 pm OK, first - I think it's clear from the contact's name evidence that the document we are looking at isn't a raw copy of the email - and is rather a 'cut-n-paste' from an email into a Word/rich text file.
I think if we could see the redacted email addresses and if they contained a lowercase I or lowercase L, those would also be replaced with a space - and hence wouldn't have worked as an email.
I think that the above 'document' was then given an ole' Find/Replace on the lowercase I and the lowercase L (never the upper case of either) to be replaced with <space>.
That's the simplest and clearest path from a normal email to the document we are all trying to read.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:07 pmWe don't know it failed on the address fields since they're redacted. If it didn't, they'd still redact them since they'd be easy to figure out.
I was not commenting on the blanked out fields...since that'd make no sense. I remarked several times about the auto-populated text. The text in the address fields that isn't the email address. That isn't in the raw email. It is populated by the email client (usually from a mail directory).

There is a near binary conclusion when data is manipulated in the auto-populated fields and the body of the text. It indicates almost with certainty it happened *outside* the email client. The opposite is true. If these changes weren't in the auto-populated fields then it'd be a sure sign someone manipulated the *body* of the email. It's less conclusive that it happened in the email but it is easily verifiable by going to the raw email. These are just a characteristic of the way email is processed and stored. Now you could do surgical manipulation but who has time for that since it's so easy to defeat in a proper investigation.

I never said different. I only commented originally that because the email was almost certainly manipulated outside the email client that it almost certainly means it wasn't something these folks did. And the most likely manipulation would be the manipulation done during the investigation because it is exceedingly common.

The boil down is that if Eastman et. al. did manipulate it to hide their scheming, it'd almost certainly appear ONLY IN THE BODY. And it wouldn't propagate through the email chain. That's it.
If you mean the missing letters in the address names, if the emails were copied whole cloth, find and replace would work on them.
I'm not arguing you can't cut and replace text. Of course they could - but only after the emails were copied out of the email client! And maybe they did that but it wouldn't matter (it's easily discovered) and I can't figure out why anyone would do that.

Edit: This whole thing reminds me why electronic evidence is such a time sink. People have to be walked through how it works in painful detail to get them out of thinking it matches with their everyday use of the tools. It's not. You have to understand all the various complexities and decompose all the steps along the way - often without a reliable audit trail. And even then the output is often just a likelihood since there are a lot of potential (but unlikely) ways to get from A to B.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by El Guapo »

Can we create a metadata debate subforum?
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

Metadata. Interesting choice of a word. So what you are saying is you've worked this stuff? :)
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19324
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Jaymann »

Darn, I was playing games and missed out on the fun due.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:08 pm Metadata. Interesting choice of a word. So what you are saying is you've worked this stuff? :)
I'm a lawyer.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:10 pm
malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:08 pm Metadata. Interesting choice of a word. So what you are saying is you've worked this stuff? :)
I'm a lawyer.
I just had to educate a general counsel of a publicly traded company about the concept of metadata. Lawyer's vary greatly on this subject. :)
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Unagi »

Is metadata really that mysterious?

Don’t get me wrong, all this talk about FBI sleuthing is super impressive.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by geezer »

Unagi wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 6:53 am Is metadata really that mysterious?
Probably not in the OO community, or similar tech-aware places (or in legal spaces where the origin/routing of an email would be of concern). Much more so in the general population, in my experience.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by Unagi »

It sounded like malchior was impressed that El Guapo used the word correctly.

Don’t get me wrong El Guapo, you carry a strong air of impressiveness everywhere you go.

:)

But yeah, I come from a data integration background and so maybe it’s just that point of view speaking
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by hepcat »

El Guapo wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:10 pm
malchior wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:08 pm Metadata. Interesting choice of a word. So what you are saying is you've worked this stuff? :)
I'm a lawyer.
Don’t be offended. Because you graciously converse with me about such things as the acting abilities of Mark Wahlberg (or lack thereof), the importance of Z level comic book characters in a post industrial society, and why green milk would be super cool, it’s easy for others to assume you’re also 9.
Covfefe!
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The insurrection committee's public hearings

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 7:28 amIt sounded like malchior was impressed that El Guapo used the word correctly.
It is the term-of-art for this particular line of discussion during forensic/incident response activities. I expect people to get the concept of metadata but it just spoke to me about experience in eDiscovery/investigation contexts.
Post Reply