what exactly does this mean? misrepresenting the altered document as unaltered?
i cant imagine it being illegal to do madlibs
Of course not illegal. When filled out with the official unredaction font [0], time stamped by the Ministry of Information, and delivered in triplicate, personally to Interrogation within 46 hours.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_(decorative_type...
It must be accurate. Even that being said, you still shouldn't reupload your altered document anywhere.
Uh oh!
The redactions by DOJ are so sloppy that you can COPY AND PASTE blocks of text to a new text editor and see the "redacted" text beneath.
Try it yourself.
They did not properly redact many documents.
It's about to get wild.
uv run --with PyMuPDF --with pillow ./unredactor-main/unredact.py
Redactle.net has something similar where you can double-click or tap-hold then type a note over the redacted word.
If you have a known input, you can match all outputs.
Example: Document that DOJ took down and reuploaded that redacted Trump's name when it was previously available. They used the same size boxes in each location.
You cannot do this with handwriting, but fonts have known widths.
You'd never be blase about the same information about your password.
Plus with redaction there's a pretty small number of posible words when the boxes are small.
This doesn't remove redactions, it lets you write over them.
This is trash, IMO.
> I am not responsible for your use of this tool. ... By using this tool you claim all legal liability for any documents you create with it.
Without a detailed and carefully worded license, does this confer any protection whatsoever?
Having asked that, I'm not sure what protection would be needed. Could a victim of abuse of this tool (or similar) seek some sort of take-down of the tool? It seems unlikely but I'm curious about the scenario.
It works now.
For instance, this file says Mona if you remove the top layer https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA000136...
Some others I've seen include 1-3 more letters than are in the redaction.
The redacted words are also redacted in the word index, but the alphabetically preceding and succeeding words are visible, as is the number of index lines taken up by the redacted word's entry, which correlates with the number of appearances of that word.
This seems like rather useful information to constrain a search by such a tool.
Seems silly not to use a mono space font in these cases.
The truth has become irrelevant.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA000250...