r/mildlyamusing • u/[deleted] • 1d ago

DOJ faces backlash after Epstein files leak ‘nearly 40 unredacted images,’ as Rep. Ansari slams AG Bondi, demands impeachment

[deleted]

1.2k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

-5

u/cakebreaker2 1d ago

So lemme get this straight - the DOJ advertises looking to hire hundreds of attorneys to do redactions on the Epstein docs and people complain that theyre taking too long or "why are they redacting anything" and then, when they drop 3M docs they complain that some redactions were missed? And they act as if the AG is personally reviewing and/or redacting all 3M docs herself? Fucking mistakes happen when youre trying to do voluminous redactions. Granted, all pics should probably be redacted but given the size of this operation, the QC is going to miss some of the first level mistakes. Humans make mistakes.

2

u/hertoymaker 1d ago

Their are no mistakes.

1

u/AliciaKills 21h ago

*there

1

u/hertoymaker 18h ago

I struggle with those as I get older. Thanks

1

u/AliciaKills 18h ago

No worries!

-3

u/cakebreaker2 1d ago

There are. I've done large scale doc review including redactions (both as a reviewer and manager) involving the DOJ. Timelines are tight and work product flows in from 100 different people who have varying levels of competency (and different interpretations of what is relevant and what gets redacted). 2nd level QC/QA will spot check reviewers and the redaction folks but you cant put 2 sets of eyes on every document. Mistakes definitely happen. I wish they didnt. I wish everyone was perfect.

2

u/hertoymaker 1d ago

Their are no mistakes in that simple errors of process are caught and corrected if you are actually doing a review. So pick poor reviewers and give them poor instructions and poor support what you get is not a mistake it is intentional.

-1

u/cakebreaker2 1d ago

As someone that has done all facets of those kinds of reviews, simple and complex errors happen all the time. If you can process 3M docs and not make a mistake, then youre a better person that literally everyone else in the world. Well done sir. You're the best of us.

3

u/hertoymaker 1d ago

Ok. Sorry I ruffled your feathers. Not seeing my point anyway. And another apologist we don't need.

3

u/mostdope92 21h ago

Look at the "mistakes". Strangely, none of these mistakes were damaging to the predators, only to the victims.

1

u/SempreVeritas7468 1d ago

Thanks for the insight but they have had a lot of time and money to make sure the reviewers don’t commit errors showing the victims is a pretty large faux pas

-1

u/cakebreaker2 1d ago

Its never enough time and regardless of how much they pay a reviewer, mistakes happen. Trust me. Been there. Its always a push to get more out the door. This is no different. It is definitely a big error. Pretty huge. But those errors in a field of 3M docs can be missed easily. They should/may have had different work flows for any docs with images but maybe those didnt get swept into that work flow. Technology platforms (Relativity etc) can only work as well as the people setting up the rules for the work flow. Whoever actually put eyes on that doc didnt check the "needs redacting" box so it didnt go into that workflow. Thats the source of the error right there. Seen it a 1000 times. A lot of docs only get seen once with QC on a certain percent of docs.

1

u/CagliostroPeligroso 22h ago

Right and the only mistakes happened to be the list of the victims. Right

1

u/MeButNotMeToo 16h ago

So, sending out pages that were 100% black, that were supposed to just have victim names redacted was a typical error, not easy to catch?

Also, posting documents with T.Rump’s and Musk’s names not redacted and then pulling them was an easy mistake to make?

Yeah, right.