Redaction contract
Every public document and every artifact built from it must satisfy this contract before it ships. No exceptions, no “just this once”. Published so you can audit it.
The absolute prohibitions
| Never publish | Why |
|---|---|
| Any image depicting minors | Consent belongs to their parents, not to anyone in this investigation (Y-6a) |
| Any image from the harvested persona album | Photo library of a real image-theft victim. Never contacted, no consent (G, M-1, W-3) |
| The unverified residential address tied to a registration | Unverified. If a real person lives there they are a victim (U-2) |
| The solicited bank account number | Suspect-side financial detail. Law enforcement and the bank only (Z-1, Z-26) |
| The archived HTTP session capture | Carries 209 live Cookie and 2 Authorization headers (Z-26) |
| The unredacted solicitation screenshot | The profile thumbnail is an image-theft victim’s likeness; it also shows the account number (Z-9) |
Nobody on the named-individuals list is named as a suspect, participant, or person of interest in any public document. The named holder of the solicited account is UNDETERMINED — recruited mule, identity-theft victim, and operator all fit the evidence equally (Z-4). The operator side of a published conversation is fair game. The victim side belongs to the victim. Everyone else in the frame belongs to themselves.
All three consented to attribution. Version 1 uses Complainant A, B, C anyway — consent given in the first flush of anger is real, but given without much sense of what it feels like to be a searchable result attached to “puppy scam victim” for years. Pseudonymity is reversible. Publication is not (Y-6).
“One of the complainants forwarded the initial material” is safe only while no public document says which lettered complainant forwarded anything. The moment one does, the clause resolves retroactively across every brief that carries it, all at once (Y-2).