Possible illegal discussion

[Marian_Driscoll]

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2364020#2364020

Maybe it is an innocent topic; maybe not. Perhaps a moderator may want to review or keep a closer eye on it.

With identity theft such a serious matter, I wonder why this topic exists and why some of our more helpful posters turned off their 'suspicious activity filter' to offer help in discovering information that was not supposed to be discovered.

(I tried to click the 'report abuse' link for the entire thread but after submitting the comment describing the abuse, the following error is returned: "An unexpected error has occurred")

[dave_milbut · Accepted solution]

i think i recall seeing there's a 254 char limit in the report abuse box. i didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the error when it happened to me...

[Ozzwoman9]

I've seen it before too, but usually when I go back I get logged out...lol go figure!

[MichaelKazlow]

Marion,

I really don't view the discussion as illegal anymore than I view threads that ask for password removal software illegal. Generally, I will not give a helpful answer to such requests----but asking how to do it is not illegal. There are legal reasons to want to be able to remove passwords. It may be legal, but I won't help. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to see past a redaction. HOWEVER, good software will make it nearly impossible to see past a redaction. I think your response in the original thread is appropriate for most people trying to read redacted material. I'd let the person who persists try to make their case for wanting to get past the redaction, before I'd consider helping. However, I would not want to remove the thread. The responses both helpful and not are educational for those who might be interested in the topic. Thanks for bringing the thread to our attention. I'd rather have people ask if a thread should be allowed to continue, than having threads on the forum that should not be allowed to continue.

[Claudio_González1]

I don't know the legal sitution in the USA, but in my opinion, it is at least not ethical to post in a public forum tips for removing password protection from files. The poster has no way of knowing if the asker's reasons are legal/ethical/reasonable or not, regardless of what s/he may have said.

[kingofswimmers]

Does a forum moderator have any take on this? I would have to agree with all of the above.

[Marian_Driscoll]

The recklessness of the thread was that the original poster provided a sample document image.  Regardless of whether the original poster had a personal legitimate reason to be able to see the confidential information, it is lunacy or ignorance to post a sample of a secured document online in this manner for everyone else to examine. What little is visible appears to be a very sensitive document. Fortunately the private information in the document was secured well enough - and/or scanned poorly enough - that not even the general public, which may be much brighter with Photoshop's tools than the OP, can see the redacted content.

[Jochem_van_Dieten]

In many countries the data in the sample document (name, marital status, DOB and a 30 year old address) would be available in public records. It is quite likely there would be more sensitive data elsewhere in the document, but as a sample it was well choosen.

[Marian_Driscoll]

Sorry - you are making a pretty absurd assumption about the content in question. If this was public record, where is the logic in redacting any data?

Based on the filename, it appears to involve an adoption record. Adoption records are most often confidential - - certainly not public records. This can be by choice of the birth parents and/or laws of their land.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Adoption Records are not public record in most state in the US. In fact they are locked up so tight. Its often Difficult for children of adoption to presue looking up Birth Mothers and Fathers.

[Jochem_van_Dieten]

I am not making assumptions. I am specifically limiting my response to the fragment of the document that was uploaded. Elsewhere in the document may be lots of private information, but that wasn't uploaded.

[the_wine_snob]

@Jochem,

I am with you on this. Without being able to look into "the hearts of men," it can get touchy, at best.

Maybe I tend to think the best of people, though have been proven wrong many times.

Were I the director of records in the location that this unknown document originated, maybe I would feel differently.

Hunt

PS - should have followed up on that LSAT test score...

[greenjumpyone]

guys,

from the name of the image and from what little text is available, I don't think it's much of a leap to understand tbat it *is* a document that is not meant to have the information revealed!  It does look to be an adoption document, clearly redacted and trying to get assistance to discover what is hidden beneath the redactions does not seem to me to be appropriate.  If the indvididual wants the information, they really should do all they can to get the information through proper channels.  I also understand that sometimes this is not possible, but I don't think a public forum is the proper place to discuss how to get around legal redactions!

[Chris Cox]

Also, some people are under the impression that the stuff they see on CSI is real... and then they ask how to do it.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

IF they want to see the real reality of what can be done, tune into Forensic Files on TruTV (CourtTV).

[Community_Admin]

Thanks for bringing this thread to our attention. I will review with Adobe legal and see if they have any input. In the meanwhile, we will monitor the thread and keep a close eye on it.

[the_wine_snob]

I will review with Adobe legal and see if they have any input. In the meanwhile, we will monitor the thread and keep a close eye on it.

Please update this thread with any response from legal. I'll be interested in hearing their take on this.

To me, it's a pretty simple request by that thread's OP, but then there could be nefarious elements at work. Who knows? Either way, the reclaiming of that info, without access to the original is unlikely, at best. Unless, of course, one uses the Photoshop - CSI edition, as Chris Cox alludes to.

Thank you,

Hunt

PS - some years ago, someone did a Photoshop-CSI package mockup, but I was unable to locate that. Too bad, as there is a major element of US pop-humor in it.

[the_wine_snob]

With the snippet provided, it would be almost impossible to tell what the document was, who obscurred some aspects of that document and then additional legal research would be needed to determine if any aciton on it was illegal in the domain, where it existed. Without a full disclosure of the document, the location of the document and possibly the history of the document, it would be very difficult.

Though the thread had veered off to the legality of any attempt to get beyond the obscuring of the info, I still offered some hints for the OP. Did I aid and abet a crime? Who knows, full disclosure would be necessary to determine that, just as the intent of the OP would need to be determined.

Just some thoughts,

Hunt