How Internet Detectives Undo the Redaction of Some Epstein Files

Since the American government began publish files on Jeffrey Epstein On Friday, Democratic lawmakers who were victims of Epstein and their lawyers complained about the number of redactions. Among the thousands of documents, many parts or entire pages are blacked out.

But now, some Internet sleuths have found ways to uncover some of this information. Indeed, some detectives have taken to social media to give step-by-step instructions on how to proceed.

“You won’t believe how much I removed these redactions,” social media commentator Ed Krassenstein wrote on X (formerly Twitter). Krassenstein, along with his twin brother, Brian, is a regular critic of the Trump administration.

“I simply highlighted the text, copied it and pasted it into a document.”

He later added: “How many other files are not truly redacted?

It doesn’t work on all redacted files, but the method involves a common “copy-and-paste” flaw found in some PDF documents, Josh Quittner, CEO and co-founder of the technology-focused website Decrypt, wrote in a recent article.

“This type of redaction is a known digital security error that has has occurred in previous high-profile casesallowing for easy retrieval of information,” he wrote.

Phone editing features used to unedit

A second method to undo the redaction is to take a screenshot of some redacted scanned images and use standard phone image editing filters, Quittner wrote.

Using these features, such as increasing exposure and brightness while reducing contrast, users claim they can “see through” the virtual ink to decipher the text underneath, Quittner wrote.

So far, however, it appears that the failed deletions have not provided more details about Epstein’s ties to US President Donald Trump, the The New York Times reported.

But some of the documents users can remove show more examples of how Epstein carried out his abuse and hid his money through financial and corporate structures, the Times reported.

Among the editorial staff that users were able to browse is an exhibition that Ia civil case in the Virgin Islands against Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, who were the executors of Epstein’s estate, the Guardian reported.

It contains allegations about how Epstein and his associates facilitated child sexual abuse, The Guardian reported.

But, as Decrypt’s Quittner noted, some observers are urging caution regarding these unexpurgated revelations.

“While flawed editorial methods are a confirmed technical reality, the specific claims circulating in the viral videos have not been independently verified by news organizations,” he wrote. “There is a risk that some content may be falsified, exaggerated or that unverified rumors may be presented as fact.”

The problem of people digging into records themselves without proper context or knowledge base about the case is a concern that was raised even before the first filing of documents.

In his Five rules for reading the Epstein files In that story, Politico warned that it was important when reviewing documents to “understand your factual sources, their biases, and their limitations.”

“This is particularly important depending on the type of document you are reviewing.”

For example, a file currently making the rounds on social networks is an exhibit from a trial between Virginia Giuffre – who had accused Epstein of having sexually assaulted her – against Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell was accused of helping recruit underage girls for Epstein.

But this file is not part of the documents which have just been made public; rather, it was included in a number of Epstein-related documents revealed in 2024. The document is gaining attention because it contains allegations from a woman who claims there were sex tapes involving high-profile people. But the woman later said she made up the claims.

It is perilous to “retrieve information”

“It’s perilous to retrieve information — even something as simple as an email communication — from a large number of documents and assume you can fully understand it,” Politico wrote.

This is why the media may be reluctant to focus on the emails from Epstein. In a recent interview with The Atlantic, Miami Herald Journalist Julie K. Brown, who has covered the Epstein case for years, said she was asked why major media outlets weren’t reporting on a particular email from Epstein.

The email implicated Trump and former US President Bill Clinton and had already been released before the Justice Department’s recent file dump.

Brown said the media wasn’t reporting on it because of a healthy skepticism about some of Epstein’s emails.

“Because, let’s face it: He was a liar. He didn’t really tell the truth all the time,” Brown said.