Read the text of the law. It's only one page. Here is the relevant text:

(b) Prohibited grounds for withholding.—
    (1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.

c) Permitted withholdings.—
    (1) The Attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that—
        (A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
        (B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A;
        (C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;
        (D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person; or
        (E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

    (2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

    (3) To the extent that any covered information would otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that classified information to the maximum extent possible.
        (A) If the Attorney General makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security, the Attorney General shall release an unclassified summary for each of the redacted or withheld classified information.

    (4) All decisions to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.

Not complying with b, i.e. redacting the name of someone who isn't a victim for any reason at all is improper redaction. This happened. A lot.
Not complying with c(1)A, i.e. not redacting victim information is improper redaction. This happened.
Not complying with c(2) by not writing the justification for each and every redaction would be improper redaction.

HTH.

Yes, because we all know that criminals only attack things they are interested in, and would never perform theft-of-service on any old server they find a known exploit works on.

If you actually work somewhere professionally with this attitude, you need to be fired.

True, but that's because when you put the trash on the curb, you are implicitly transferring ownership of it to the refuse hauling company. And they have no problem being answerable to a legal subpoena for evidence - it's their property at that point, and not yours.

This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with someone who still owns the phone, and owns the password to unlock it, and doesn't want to give up evidence against himself - which is their constitutional right.

So, nice red herring.

US Court of Appeals, in the proceedings about presidential immunity:

Note that Sauer is currently the Solicitor General. He maintains that if the President ordered a political assassination of a US citizen, on US soil, for merely political rivalry purposes it would require impeachment before criminal proceedings could occur.

Yes, this is the ridiculous shit the Roberts Court rubberstamped.

For clarity:
1. the DoJ isn't going to fuck over ongoing prosecutions and appeals by releasing evidence into the public and tainting jury pools, should something get remanded back to a trial court on appeal. This should be obvious if you know any damn thing about criminal procedure.
2. I'm not specifically interested in Trump and everything he has going on in these files - if he gets taken down that's life. I'm interested in ALL the guilty pedo fucksticks getting taken down. I don't give a fuck what party they are in, how rich they are, or any other damn thing - if they're a pedo, and there's probable cause that they diddled children, they need to be investigated, indicted, tried, and if found guilty, thrown into prison.

That clear enough for you? Stop dragging politics into a place it doesn't belong, other than it being obvious who is carrying water for pedos by blocking the legally mandated release of this information.

So your position is that some vote-buying campaign can occur today, with a smartphone in everyone's pocket and a live internet stream available to every person, with no evidence, no reporting, and absolutely no proof of it happening. Yeah, that sounds super plausible.

The entire west coast of the US has been vote-by-mail for decades now, and there is absolutely no proof of anything you are talking about actually happening in any measurable quantity. Either this is the best run conspiracy in the history of conspiracies, or it's not a problem to begin with until proven to be one.

So I will reiterate: don't answer questions nobody is asking. Don't solve problems that don't exist, until they are proven to be problems. We have enough shit to worry about that's real, without worrying about the make-believe that only is in the conversation because a massively insecure orange guy can't take the narcissistic injury of losing.

I don't know if his name is redacted or not, because I haven't seen the unredacted files.

However, members of Congress that have seen the unredacted files, as is their right under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have said that files have been improperly and illegally redacted under that statute.

Are you saying they're wrong, without having seen the files yourself? Are you a member of Congress, or a DoJ attorney with access to those files?

Oh no! They expressed an opinion about an opposition political candidate! This has never happened in the history of politics!

Idiot.

So you don't understand that it's a bad idea to release evidence from ongoing prosecutions before the final disposition of those prosecutions?

Thanks for confirming that you don't know how this works - the Maxwell appeals and SCOTUS certiori was not done until Trump was in office. At any point before that, anything in the case could be remanded back to trial court, in which case releasing the files would have poisoned the jury pool.

Maybe stop with your ignorance and political claptrap. Stop with the whatabout bullshit - I think that Merrick Garland was a terrible AG as well, but a past terrible AG doesn't excuse a current AG from being terrible and violating new laws that didn't exist when the last AG was sitting in that chair.

Please stop being an idiot, everyone will be happier.

The Japanese conglomerate model works because the brand itself is essentially a holding company for the sub-companies that are largely independently operated.

There's not a lot of crossover between electric razors, televisions, microwave ovens, and avionics; yet Panasonic does all of those today from the humble beginnings of a guy with a basement who made a battery powered lamp that you can bolt to your bicycle in early 20th century Japan

Those companies hardly ever talk to each other except at a company sponsored tech symposium in Osaka every year out of curiosity as to what other siblings in the family are doing. They have their own CEOs and executives. There is basically only a financial relationship to the parent holding company.

Musk consolidating everything and being a tyrant overlord of it all would be very different than that.

This isn't a new pattern for him.

Remember that he used the Tesla cash cow to bail out SolarCity. Now he's doing the same thing for SpaceX after the IPO, so he can run away with a swimming pool full of other people's money.

Apply:

sed 's/Tesla/TOPIC/g`

to your comment, and you have described 95% of Reddit.

So every corporation is liable for obstruction now for following their own data retention policies?

Legal holds are a thing, for a reason. How can someone be held liable for obstruction when they were never notified not to destroy something, and just decided they wanted to wipe the device and start over from OEM? They can do what they like with their personal property, including wiping encryption keys UNLESS there is a subpoena for records / search warrant. THEN it becomes obstruction.

I'm not a lawyer, but your argument sounds like nobody should ever be able to delete any file, on any device, ever.

Searched, yes.

Siezed, no.

And no law forces you to give up evidence against yourself without a warrant - in fact we even have a whole Constitutional amendment about that. If they want hair / blood samples, that requires a warrant. Why do you think that forcing someone to unlock their phone would not?

To be fair, they're anti-tyranny when the tyrant is doing things they don't like.

When they are aligned with the tyrant, NO PROBLEM TO SEE HERE.

If a Democrat tried any of this shit, there would be a shooting war in the streets from the "ammosexuals" getting all riled up against an overbearing government.

They are all hypocrites. Watch what happens after they lose the election.