this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
439 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

12214 readers
843 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ScottThePoolBoy@lemmy.world 178 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong, but wouldn't that be obstructing justice, or something?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 202 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It is the exact textbook definition of obstruction of justice. It doesn't get any more obstruction of justice than to literally hide identities with the express stated goal of obstructing the work of the Department of Justice.

He's taking a page out of Trump’s "it's not a crime if you brag about it on tv" playbook.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 40 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hey everybody, we doin' crimes and shit. Whatchu gonna do about it

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You have the perfect username to make that comment 😆👌

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He killed me with a sword, how weird is that

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Signal still going though, though, so you were vindicated on THAT 🤷

[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Fortunately for the FBI, and for anyone who still believes in democracy, most of these idiots brought their smartphones with them so video hasn't even been necessary to secure convictions. And lots of them recorded video themselves, OF themselves, in order to brag about their crimes online.

[–] BeanGoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Of course, why take precautions? They didn't expect to lose. They expected King Trump to be crowned and bring his chosen people to paradise, and they wanted to make sure they weren't left out.

[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago

Yeah, although something tells me that a lot of them aren't exactly the type who think very far ahead regardless of what they expected the outcome of that day to be.

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They then uploaded the videos to parlor which had no security on their API, so anyone with the address could download every video.

[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

That's hilarious, I forgot about that part. Parlor probably didn't bother to strip out the metadata either, did they? So, full GPS coordinates with every image and video... hahahaha

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 53 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Worse, DOJ certainly had them before Congress so it makes no sense.

[–] Decoy321@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

This is the dumbest part about this whole thing. It's just grandstanding.

Edit: He's already recanted it. Instead saying they are blurring to protect their identities from the public.

Meanwhile, any little suspect from small time crime gets their face plastered all over local news anyways.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Its grandstanding and posturing.

But there is actually a good argument. Someone who the DOJ have decided wasn't worth the hassle to properly investigate might still be identified and reported by a co-worker or neighbor. Which then begins to force the DOJ's hand (they are still cops so they might ignore it but...). I personally think everyone who crowded outside the building deserves to be locked up, but I can see an argument that only people who entered the building or who actively caused damage should be charged.

Because yes, facial recognition and DMV databases are already a thing. But, much like with a red light ticket, a decent lawyer can work wonders to argue out "a robot claims that I commit a crime". Whereas having a human in the loop removes that gotcha. Hell, if my cousin is any indication, you don't even need a lawyer to argue against a red light camera or an automated speed trap and just need to care enough to show up to the courthouse for a few hours.

Also, regardless, this is indeed (attempted) obstruction of justice to protect insurrectionists.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Or people think they recognize faces in the crowd, and we get a whole slew of Richard Jewells and Sunil Tripathis

[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

any little suspect from small time crime gets their face plastered all over local news

Only if they're black or hispanic. There's a narrative to push, don't you know.

[–] theotherone@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

It’s theater for their deep state struggle fundraising. Gotta shake down the marks for the cash. You think he’s got a sugar daddy? He’s not a Supreme Court justice………

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He said this at a press conference, was there no push back from any journalist, or was that edited out?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

That's the murmur sound you hear at the very end of the clip as he's about to finish talking: a slew of reporters either pointing out that he just casually admitted to a serious criminal conspiracy or lauding him for protecting the conspirators, defending on the specific media outlets they're from.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 45 points 11 months ago

Ladies and gentlemen:

The Party of Law and Order

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

“Protect them from DOJ”

PaRtY oF LaW anD OrDEr, everyone!

[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fuck this asshole. Post their faces on every billboard in Times Square. Dox them all. Anyone associated with Jan 6 should all be shot out of a cannon into the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, whichever is cheaper. Imagine what would have been going on in this country had they succeeded. That’s what the punishment should be based on.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You give them the glory of such a cool death? Give them a humiliating death, living with a felony criminal record and unable to vote.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Unable to vote and unable to buy guns. 😅

[–] HububBub@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I though it was all leftists, antifa, and FBI plants? Why would Johnson want to hide their faces? Unless the GOP has been lying about that. But they wouldn't do that, would they?

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

"We blurred their faces so you can't prove it's not!"

[–] Senokir@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (7 children)

It's interesting that they would choose to blur them if it's that sensitive considering blurring things isn't actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.

And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn't take long to do either.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Criminals? Yes. Criminal masterminds? Less so.

[–] Decoy321@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It's just an idiotic statement from him, considering the DOJ already had the raw footage since day 1.

...because they're the DOJ.

Also, he's already retracted his statement.

[–] Senokir@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Makes sense. What a ridiculous statement to have made to begin with though.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah, but the Insurrection Hunters didn't have access to these videos & now, thanks to #christofascist Mike Johnson, they still won't.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

That depends on the algorythm and intensity of the blur. Blur is destructive. If you blur good it can't be undone. If you don't blur enough it can be undone to a certain degree, but not completely. I remember one criminal used a whirl instead of a blur and that thing had been undone almost completely.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago

That’s because these idiots struggle with email. They can’t conceive of what you just said

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can you please show an example of this unblurring happening in reality? In my understanding of video editing tools, once the file is exported with blurred details, there is not enough information present in the file to reconstruct the details of the unblurred source without access to the original unexported project files.

[–] Senokir@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That's a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn't matter what you do to it, you won't get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don't see how this technique couldn't be applied.

Edit: and to be clear, I don't know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn't entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I hate to break it to you, but I’m pretty sure the only way unblurring would be possible is if you have the original unblurred source video. Blurred areas simply contain too little data to reconstruct the original. The artifacts of the unblurred face are not stored in the resulting video file for literally every video file type in existence today.

Even using AI to unblurr a video, you would need to show it at least one unblurred picture of the face to properly reconstruct the same face in the original video. Otherwise the AI would just guess and put a random face in place of the original. The regeneration technique you are describing is still science fiction and only exists in movies and television shows.

Edit: your edit is still incorrect. There is no such video editing tool called “unblur.” You can sharpen an image, but there is no way to undo a blur unless you still have the data from the original, which a final exported video does not. The act of blurring removes information, and you cannot rebuild a photo from information that no longer exists. Blacking out faces is in no way necessary for the reasons that you are suggesting.

[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Somehow, I have a feeling this effort will actually help the DOJ identify who these people are.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago

There is a long history of governments not knowing how to properly redact information. There are STILL redacted documents where you can just copy the text out in a pdf reader coming out as recently as (intentionally vague: Within the last year).

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Fucking obstruction of justice for assholes committing treason....he should get the Santos treatment.. Straight to jail.

[–] recapitated@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why is Johnson protecting antifa?

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Why can't antifa stop posing as right-wing nutjobs? There is a consistent habit of antifa posing as established right-wing nutjobs that have a flawless consistent history, as if they have been undercover for a literal lifetime. It is time that they stopped being right-wing nutjobs masquerading as antifa and be treated as who they are, lizard people posing as antifa posing as right-wing nutjobs with a venn diagram that overlaps with pedophiles, like a ring of fire eclipse's totality, persecuting people who live their lives differently than their narrow wold view allows.

Read your Bible sheeple, its all in there.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Where is this video coming from that the DOJ doesn't already have it?

Edit: from another article "We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” the House speaker said. His office later noted that DOJ already has the raw footage.

Exactly as u/Kbin_space_program@kbin.social said below.

[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I imagine that the DOJ absolutely has it.

But telling the cult of Trump that "good ol' Mike" is blurring their faces to "protect them from the DOJ" is an effort to endear himself to the rabid cult mob that doesn't know any better.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

That was my thought as well, especially coming from the party of drama queens.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe from those of the traitors who were such geniuses that they recorded their own crimes and then didn't permawipe the data from their devices? AKA the constituents of Jericho Johnson.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I watched livestreams of it as it was happening, they were never thinking it through

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

So did I and you're (somehow) 400% correct in that assessment.

[–] xenu@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

Johnson will always put the interests of the Christian right before those of democracy.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

just need some time to cheat and lie

load more comments
view more: next ›