Epstein files: survivors' names remain exposed

A survivor who testified before U.S. lawmakers in May said, "I can't live without constantly looking over my shoulder," describing how her personal information was published in January when the Department of Justice (DOJ) released hundreds of thousands of documents linked to financier Jeffrey Epstein. "I can only imagine what long-term impact this mistake will have on my life," she added.

Three days after the DOJ put the largest of twelve Epstein databases online on 30 January, a DOJ lawyer told a federal court that a "human or technical error" was among the reasons identifying personal data about people abused by Epstein and his associates was released. The department said it would remove, review and redact flagged files before republishing.

An investigative team, together with data-processing specialists, spent months examining thousands of files released by the DOJ. In the six months since the publication, researchers identified dozens of records that still contained names, photographs and email addresses that could be used to identify survivors, witnesses, tipsters and other individuals.

By mid-February the team had downloaded more than 800,000 files from the DOJ's Epstein library, a task complicated by a constantly changing archive: new files were added, others removed, and some altered files reappeared after days offline. Comparing their collection with an earlier public archive revealed their set contained over 500,000 fewer files than that prior snapshot.

Digital fingerprints and altered files

To verify what had appeared in the initial release, the researchers created a unique digital fingerprint — a "hash" — for each document. Comparing these hashes with files fetched from the DOJ website roughly two weeks later allowed them to identify which documents remained identical and which had been taken down. They also found files whose names matched originals but whose sizes had changed; analysis showed many of those files had been further edited or had new material added.

For audio evidence the research team worked with the Media Distribution and Security forensic group (MDS) at the Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology in Ilmenau. After removing duplicates from public archives and the researchers' collection, more than 150 audio files remained. MDS forensic analysts used advanced tools to detect production and editing traces invisible to the human ear, to identify reused or modified segments, and to assess whether recordings may have come from the same microphone or setup.

Milica Gerhart, a forensic audio analyst at MDS, said: "If you look at the content of these audio files, you can see that much of the personal information was not redacted." Patrick Ajhrot, head of MDS's group at Fraunhofer, warned: "There is a reason why such material is handled so carefully in court proceedings. Once sensitive or identifying information is disclosed, the harm can no longer be repaired." The team also found instances where an edited clip masked a caller's phone number while another version of the same clip contained the caller's full name and direct contact details.

The researchers sent their findings and examples of unredacted personal data to the DOJ but received no reply. In April the Office of the Inspector General at the DOJ announced it had opened a review to assess the department's compliance with the Epstein Records Transparency Act. In July lawmakers proposed an Epstein Records Transparency Act II that would allow survivors of sexual abuse and state governments to sue the DOJ if it fails to follow the protections set out in the original law.

Survivors whose information was released without redaction have since testified about harassment, humiliation and physical threats. With some of the publicly posted material still available on other platforms and in some cases on the DOJ website, the consequences continue to disrupt survivors' lives. "While the rich and powerful remain shielded behind redactions, my name was exposed to the world," one survivor who testified before Congress in May said. "The evidence is right here," she added, "yet those in power would rather allow us to be destroyed socially, emotionally and physically than admit their own responsibility."

Photo: press material from the event