First of all, redacting a document is altering it, therefore it becomes invalid. Second, the cert number is a means to validate the said document, that number leads to no more information then is contained on the document that is submitted as proof.
"Someone" obscured the number for a reason alright, the reason being it is a fraud, there is no other reason.
Even if it is real, what possible information is on a BC that is private or at least that the public doesn't have a right to know?
You are completely missing my point. A JPEG image of an official document is not an official document. It is not an official document before you alter it, after you alter it, or if you translate it into Klingon. Altering a digital image does not affect its status as an official document, because it never was an official document.
I really don't know how to make that any clearer.
Second, the cert number is a means to validate the said document, that number leads to no more information then is contained on the document that is submitted as proof.
Accepting for the sake of argument that that is true -- I don't know one way or the other -- it's irrelevant. My assertion was that someone believed that the certificate number was something that ought to be obscured before the image was posted to the Web; that caution may have been unnecessary.
Even if it is real, what possible information is on a BC that is private or at least that the public doesn't have a right to know?
The parents' social security numbers, for starters.