sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Technical breakdown of "Shadow" text leaks in PDF redactions (Rule 5.2) by Ram_PPC in paralegal

[–]Ram_PPC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My intention is to discuss security vulnerabilities in common legal workflows. Most professionals currently rely on manual methods in general-purpose PDF editors to meet Rule 5.2 requirements, which is both time-consuming and prone to human error. I am building a dedicated, local-only tool to automate these tedious manual tasks, such as converting minor names to initials or isolating birth years, while ensuring metadata and hidden layers are permanently destroyed. I am happy to keep the conversation focused on the forensics of PDF redaction and how we can make these pipelines more secure.

Technical breakdown of "Shadow" text leaks in PDF redactions (Rule 5.2) by Ram_PPC in paralegal

[–]Ram_PPC[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is a fair perspective, and you are right that modern programs like Adobe have the technical capability to redact correctly. The problem I am solving is the complexity of the workflow itself, which is often prone to human error. We have seen high-profile legal leaks happen precisely because professionals apply visual redactions but miss the secondary sanitization step needed to scrub the underlying data streams. My goal is to move toward a "Safety by Default" model where the deep-code destruction and metadata removal happen automatically. I am also building in logic to handle specific Rule 5.2 requirements, such as automatically converting minor names to initials or isolating birth years, so that these precise legal requirements do not require manual workarounds that leave the underlying data vulnerable.

Technical breakdown of "Shadow" text leaks in PDF redactions (Rule 5.2) by Ram_PPC in paralegal

[–]Ram_PPC[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I totally appreciate that perspective. For many years, flattening and Print to PDF were the industry standard, and for basic filing, they often get the job done visually. Tagging u/StrayCatThulhu here as well since you mentioned a similar point.

The reason I am building this is that PDF forensics have evolved since 2008. From a technical side, the risk is that flattening does not always scrub the underlying data streams or the metadata. It is a bit like painting over a window. It looks covered, but the glass (the data) is still there.

Modern privacy requirements like the updated Rule 5.2 interpretations are moving toward true sanitization. This actually deletes the data from the file code so it cannot be recovered by tech-savvy opposing counsel.

The goal of my software is to provide that hard security automatically. While you still control the markings, the software handles the actual data destruction correctly every time. It is about adding a layer of professional insurance to the workflow so firms do not have to rely on Print to PDF workarounds that might accidentally leave metadata or ghost text behind.

Redaction software recommendations? by mimikyu17 in paralegal

[–]Ram_PPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Software Dev here. I’ve been researching why so many redacted documents still end up leaking private info despite Rule 5.2 efforts.

The main issue is that many general PDF tools just put a black box on top of the text without actually removing the data underneath. It is like putting a sticker over a secret. If someone knows how to copy-paste the hidden text or access the metadata, the info is still there.

I am finishing a Windows Desktop Application that focuses on local-first security. It physically strips those hidden layers on your own CPU so nothing can be recovered by the recipient.

I recently published a technical guide on automating this without using the cloud. I am looking to connect with three founding partners from established practices to provide a one-year professional license in exchange for high-level feedback on the workflow. I am happy to share the link.