Face blur, bah!
Why blur the face when it was published on Facebook, as well as various media outlets. eg: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4816461a11.html
A failed safe-cracker has been cuffed after New Zealand police posted CCTV images of an attempted burglary on Facebook. CCTV cameras captured the hour-plus attempts of a man who attempted to prise open a safe at the Frankton Arms Tavern in the early hours of Monday morning. The man broke in through the ceiling of the bar …
He was doing this in a small room which is described as "rather warm at the best of times" and he took his balaclava off because he was sweating.
They showed the footage of him on the TV news when he spotted the camera in the roof. It was priceless watching his face falling faster than Paris Hilton's knickers at the first sign of a video camera.
And they identified him in one day.
I'm sure that the TV news services showing the CCTV footage (not just a still) and taking the piss out of the guy probably had something to do with it; he had the balaclava down at first, but pulled it up when he, supposedly, started getting a bit toasty.
Paris, because she also likes peeling off in front of a camera.
Fair enough. What irritates me is news reports that say that somebody is "alleged" to have done something, even *after* that person has been found guilty and sentenced for the crime.
But then again, why don't we go the whole hog and insist that because accused people (generally, not specific to this case) are *supposedly* innocent until proved guilty, they shouldn't have their NAMES disclosed publicly unless and until they are found guilty.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019