Re: Dazed and confused ...
Playing Devil's Advocate here. This is where the law for the masses & the rich differ. Someone who could afford a decent lawyer might argue..
(I haven't seen the footage so below is based solely on ElReg article)
a) the fact she was subsequently identified proves CH4 did not do enough to anonymize the footage.
b) who owned the cameras? (breach of trust, data protection etc)
c) the man tried to cover the camera in order to gain privacy (ie: reverse argument of Ofcom).
d) a crime was allegedly committed - why did CH4 not report it to the police, await the outcome then proceed based upon the result?
(I am by no means a fan of the mentality that pisses in lifts btw)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
