Why ‘Redact’ Returned To The Spotlight After The Epstein Files

On Nov. 30, 2019, the Department of Justice released documents that included an email from attorney Joe Nascimento to investigators about a Jeffrey Epstein employee. The message begins, “Good morning,” and then — instead of more words — nearly two lines are swallowed by solid black rectangles.

“Good morning,” Nascimento wrote. “Just wanted to check-in as” — the rest is obscured by black redactions.

Those blacked-out lines are an example of modern redaction: releasing a document while deliberately concealing selected portions. The partial release of the so-called Epstein files has put the practice — and the word “redact” itself — back in public view.

From Editing To Concealment

The verb redact comes from the Latin redigere (to drive back or to put into writing). For two centuries it generally meant to edit or compile text into a coherent form. By the mid-20th century, however, its use narrowed: to redact increasingly meant to remove or obscure information before release, especially for legal, security, or confidentiality reasons, as the Oxford English Dictionary notes.

How Redaction Became Standard

Two technological and legal developments helped normalize the black rectangle. Photocopying made document distribution easier, and the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 opened many government records to public scrutiny. Agencies adopted visible redaction marks — often black bars — as a way to release records while withholding sensitive details.

Inconsistency And Controversy In The Epstein Files

Experts say what counts as “sensitive” is often left to individual officials’ judgment. Stephen Voyce, a scholar of classified records, notes the U.S. government has sometimes redacted information from documents that were already public and has produced differing redactions of the same files over time. The Epstein release illustrated that unevenness: names or references visible in one version were obscured in another.

That inconsistency fueled criticism from lawmakers and survivors. Critics accused the DOJ of both over-redaction — blacking out entire pages with little apparent justification — and under-redaction, as some victims’ names intended to remain private were exposed. In addition, some attempted redactions were undone by simple copy-and-paste or poor methods.

Technical Failures And Human Error

Although secure redaction tools (for example, features added to Adobe in 2006) exist, many organizations still rely on crude techniques that fail to remove underlying text. Such errors can turn concealment into accidental disclosure — as happened when Sony unintentionally revealed confidential PlayStation information in 2023 after redactions were handled improperly.

Redaction Versus Censorship

Is redaction the same as censorship? Some reporters and scholars treat them differently. “Censor” often carries a moral or political judgment, implying the suppression of objectionable ideas; “redact” is more narrowly procedural — releasing a record with stated exceptions. Yet the line can blur, especially when redactions appear politically selective. The Epstein Files Transparency Act forbids redactions based solely on embarrassment or political sensitivity, but debates about selective concealment persist.

Why It Matters

Redaction is not merely a technical step: it shapes what the public can see and how institutions are held accountable. The Epstein files underscore how redaction decisions — whether rigorous, inconsistent, or erroneous — affect transparency, trust, and the privacy of survivors. Moving forward, clearer standards and better tools are essential to prevent both overreach and inadvertent disclosure.