How internet sleuths are un-redacting some of the Epstein files

Since the U.S. government started releasing files about Jeffrey Epstein on Friday, Democratic legislators, victims of Epstein and their lawyers have complained about the number of redactions. Among the thousands of documents, many portions of them or whole pages are blacked out.

But now, some internet sleuths have figured out ways to uncover some of that information. Indeed, some sleuths have taken to social media to give step-by-step instructions on how it's done.

"You won't believe how I unredacted these redactions," wrote social media commentator Ed Krassenstein on X (formerly Twitter). Krassenstein, along with this twin brother, Brian, is a regular critics of the Trump administration.

"I simply highlighted the text, copied it, and pasted it in a document."

He later added, "How many other files are not really redacted?"

It doesn't work on all the redacted files, but the method involves a common "copy-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 faulty redaction is a known digital security error that has occurred in previous high-profile cases, allowing information to be easily retrieved," he wrote.

Phone editing features used to un-redact

A second method to un-redact involves taking a screenshot of some redacted scanned images and using standard phone image-editing filters, Quittner wrote.

Using those functions, like increasing exposure and brilliance while lowering contrast, users claim they can "see through" the virtual ink to decipher the text beneath, Quittner wrote.

So far, however, it appears the failed redactions have not provided any more details about any ties between Epstein and U.S. President Donald Trump, the New York Times reported.

But some of the documents that users can un-redact do show more examples of how Epstein carried out his abuse and concealed his money through financial and corporate structures, the Times reported.

Among the redactions that users have been able to peer through is an exhibit in a civil case in the Virgin Islands against Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, who were executors of Epstein’s estate, the Guardian reported.

It contains allegations of how Epstein and his associates facilitated the sexual abuse of children, The Guardian reported.

But, as Decrypt's Quittner noted, some observers are urging caution about these unredacted revelations.

"While the faulty redaction methods are a confirmed technical reality, specific claims circulating in viral videos have not been independently verified by news organizations," he wrote. "There is a risk that some content may be faked, exaggerated for views, or that unverified rumours are being presented as fact."

The issue of people delving into the files themselves without proper context or a base of knowledge about the case is a concern that has been raised even before the first document dump.

In its Five Rules for Reading the Epstein Files story, Politico cautioned that it was important, when looking at documents, "to understand your factual sources, their biases and their limitations.

"That’s particularly important depending on the type of document you’re reviewing."

For example, a file that is currently making the rounds on social media is an exhibit from a lawsuit between Virginia Giuffre — who had accused Epstein of sexually assaulting her — against Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell was accused of helping recruit underage girls for Epstein.

But that file is not part of the documents just released; rather, it was included in a number of Epstein-related documents unsealed in 2024. The document is getting attention because it contains allegations from a woman who claims there were sex tapes involving high-profile people. But the woman later said she had invented those claims.

Perilous to 'pluck information'

"It is perilous business to pluck information — even something as simple as an email communication — from a large body of material and assume that you can fully understand it," Politico wrote.

Which is why media may be hesitant to focus on emails coming from Epstein. In a recent interview with The Atlantic, Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, who has covered Epstein’s case for years, said she was asked why the mainstream media wasn't reporting on one particular email from Epstein.

The email involved Trump and former U.S. president Bill Clinton and had already been released before the recent file dump by the Justice Department.

Brown said the media wasn't reporting on it due to a healthy skepticism toward 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.