A proposal needs a record.
The basis for the legal and security distinctions on this site, and the limits of the environmental case.
Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552, published by the U.S. Department of Justice
Section 552(b) addresses segregable material and indications of deleted information and exemptions, with exceptions where those indications would harm protected interests.
Limit: this supports a specific federal-law context. It does not establish that every law, agency policy, or court rule permits every redaction appearance. This project makes no universal “no statute requires black” claim.
Covering text is not removing it.
Preparing Your CM/ECF Filing — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
The court warns that graphical coverings can leave underlying information recoverable, and that files may contain hidden metadata.
Application here: the comparison contains only fictional public text and empty omission markers. It demonstrates appearance, not a method or tool for redacting real documents.
The environmental case remains to be tested.
We propose testing whether lower-coverage marks reduce ink or toner use in printed redacted records. This site publishes no measured toner savings, emissions reductions, cost savings, or agency trial results.
Printer maintenance, jam rates, processing times, staffing effects, and equipment life are separate questions. A reduction in drawn area cannot establish any of those outcomes.
The proposed trial describes what would need to be measured. The IRES name describes this project’s proposal; it is not evidence of adoption or endorsement.