5 ms·
You can see the erroneously redacted image here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo
by Zambyte 10mo ago
You can see the erroneously redacted image here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo
- Amezarak 10mo agoIt wasn’t erroneous. The DoJ said they were redacting the faces of all non-celebrity women and children under the presumption they could be victims.
- Arn_Thor 10mo agoIn that case it makes perfect sense
- Arn_Thor 10mo agoI know what picture we're talking about. 1) it's not the same as the Getty stock image everyone seems to mistake it for. 2) we don't know if the redaction is erroneous or intentionally misleading, but either way the non-celebrity faces were redacted even though another image of them exists in the public domain. Probably easier to just apply a blanket policy when handling all these images rather than observing edge cases.
- wahnfrieden 10mo agoThe redaction is a distraction. The concern is that it is from a charity event that is seemingly unrelated to Epstein
- Arn_Thor 10mo agoIf Epstein had the photo in his possession, then that would explain why it's there!