[sbeckeriv]

Gonna need a little more then a shady pdf without references. Where did the pdf come from and why was it redacted?

[aftbit]

The redactions are tagged with 5 USC 552 b 6 which reads:

>(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-55...

So presumably it was redacted to hide those email addresses.

What I don't understand is why they chose to redact the username part of the address for the fb.com emails, but chose to instead redact the host part of the address for the external recipients.

Here's one of the recipients of this email:

https://www.presidentialinnovationfellows.gov/fellows/george...

[yehosef]

>What I don't understand is why they chose to redact the username part of the address for the fb.com emails, but chose to instead redact the host part of the address for the external recipients.

I think they understood the others worked at facebook, what needed to be redacted to protect their privacy is the name. For the external people, we know what their names are (some are govt officials which is why this is being FOIA'd) but not the domains, it would seem.

[sbeckeriv]

Thanks for explaining the text bits. I would still like to know more about its source before trusting a randomly generated pdf.

cnet reports pretty much the text of the pdf? https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/facebook-teams-up-with-h...

should this be titled with 2021?