|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 07:44 AM EST |
That's a rather good take on things :)
If MS doesn't trust their own file format, why does anyone else?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 12:22 PM EST |
>>Clearly they have either negligible technical competence,
By selecting something besides DOC or DOCX, I would say that MS' technical
competence has improved from nonexistent. Given that they used TIF, though,
that degree of technological expertise is still negligable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 12:42 PM EST |
I think that this merely confirms that all the intelligent
technical people have left the Redmond campus. The only
people left are PHB's and lawyers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 01:15 PM EST |
Odds on they just took the safe method: print the documents, review them,
then scan the reviewed printed pages in for submission. That's one of the few
ways you can guarantee that what's submitted is exactly and precisely
what you saw on the page and nothing more. If I'm dealing with a text-based
format (eg. the OpenDocument formats, which are just a zipped folder containing
XML files which can be dealt with as text) it's possible to scan the text
looking for occurrences of things you know shouldn't be in there, but even then
it's possible to miss things (if for instance the text is base64-encoded it may
be visible in the document (the software decodes the element's contents
automatically) but the string you're searching for won't be literally present in
the XML). And in a binary format like Word, or an XML format like Word's new one
where things are so chopped-up that string matching can't easily be done, you'd
be a fool to assume that you knew exactly what was in the document
file.
It's at least encouraging to see Microsoft's attorneys being
careful about leaking information in electronic documents. But frankly I'd love
to see the courts go back to specifying documents to be "Courier New 12-point or
equivalent typeface producing 10 characters per inch, 1-inch (10 character) left
and right margins, 6 lines per inch (66 lines per 11-inch standard letter-sized
page) with 1-inch (6 line) top and bottom margins, single-spaced". Translation:
fixed-pitch font, 60 lines x 60 characters per page. You can do that on any
printer, and do it in a plain text file with no possibility of embedded
non-visible data. End of redaction problems in legal documents. Also end of
software version compatibility issues, I don't know of any word-processing
software that can't correctly read plain text files. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 07:03 AM EST |
It wasn't MS that filed it as a tiff, it was the law firm that is representing
them. A law firm generally has their own way of doing things and this one would
have filed a redacted document the same way regardless of who their client was.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 11:58 AM EST |
:-)
Some years back I had an issue with the way a MS service accessed my webserver.
I phoned the Dutch support line after I couldn't find other contact information
on their web site, but I was told they did have a web form I could use and I was
explained how to get to the correct web page. It turned out not to exist. It
took another phone call to discover something the Dutch support person didn't
know: the contact page was missing on the Dutch version of the site, Dutch
support personnel themselves used the English version. So I switched to English,
found the page, and found that to be able to write to them I had to accept a
software Eula. I don't use MS software, so naturally I
declined and I couldn't use the form.
I ended up sending one of the largest software companies in the world, who build
and sell email clients and servers, teamware and what more, a complaint by snail
mail because they couldn't be reached electronically (I did ask for an email
address but the guy wouldn't give me one). I never got a reply.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 12:01 PM EST |
Or perhaps they just wanted to make it more difficult for PJ to do her job.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
