Contact

GlossaryPublic records, privacy, and data quality

Redaction

Redaction removes protected information from a released record. Learn how it differs from missing data, withheld records, and statistical suppression.

Redaction is the removal or obscuring of selected information from a record before that version is disclosed. It allows releasable portions to be provided while withholding information covered by an applicable legal protection. In a document, redaction may appear as a blacked-out passage; in a data file, it may appear as an omitted value or field with an explanation.

The reason for a redaction matters. It should be understood through the agency's stated legal basis and the governing records law, rather than inferred from the appearance of a blank or black box.

FOIA.gov explains that federal agencies review responsive records and redact information protected by applicable FOIA exemptions before releasing the remainder. Its guidance also addresses separating releasable information from protected material. These are federal procedures; state and local laws establish their own requirements. FOIA.gov frequently asked questions

Washington provides a state-specific example. RCW 42.56.210 addresses deletion of protected information and requires an agency refusing disclosure in whole or part to identify the specific exemption and briefly explain its application. That is a useful model for reading a Washington response, not a universal statement of every jurisdiction's wording. Washington RCW 42.56.210

Example

Hypothetical: An agency releases a three-page incident report. The narrative remains readable, but a person's telephone number is removed. The response identifies the applicable basis for withholding that information.

The released report still documents the incident, but it does not reveal the telephone number. A reader should not treat the concealed space as evidence that the number was missing from the original record. Nor should the redaction be taken as a finding about the person's involvement in wrongdoing.

Suppose the accompanying spreadsheet contains a blank telephone field without any explanation. That blank alone cannot establish redaction: the value might never have been collected, might have been excluded from the export, or might have been withheld. The documentation or agency response is needed to distinguish those possibilities.

Common confusion

Redaction is different from withholding an entire record. A release may contain both partially disclosed documents and documents withheld in full, with different explanations. Counting only the pages received does not necessarily reveal how much responsive material was identified.

It is also different from correction. Correcting a misspelled name changes inaccurate recorded information; redacting a name withholds it from the disclosed version. Neither should be silently described as the other.

Statistical suppression is related but distinct. A published table may hide a small count to reduce disclosure risk. That is a rule applied to statistical output, not necessarily a redaction from an individual incident report.

Redaction does not erase the event from history or automatically remove the underlying record from agency custody. The disclosed copy and the agency's retained record are different objects.

Interpreting redacted information

Preserve the agency's explanation with the released material. In analysis, distinguish redacted values from known zeroes, unknown values, and fields that do not apply. Combining those categories can produce false conclusions about reporting completeness or event frequency.

Do not fill concealed values by guessing from surrounding text. If the omission affects a comparison, explain the limitation directly: for example, the public file does not support analysis of a withheld personal characteristic.

A redacted document can still be useful evidence, but its evidentiary scope is the information actually available. Describe what it says, what is withheld, and any resulting uncertainty without treating the hidden material as confirmation of a preferred interpretation.

Sources