I remember seeing, as a teen, the horribly sad face of a woman ravaged by drug addiction. From then on, the lure of taking drugs has never appealed to me. Perhaps you need to show the following pictures to a son or daughter getting into his or her teen years. It worked for me, and could for your loved ones, too.
See the slide show From drugs to mugs: disfiguring toll of addiction.
Natasha Caruana took clandestine photos of the married men she went on dates with. Now, she is displaying them for the public to see. To keep their identities secret, she avoided photographing their faces.
The questions of ethics, morality, broken trust and betrayal inevitably crop up here. Even though the faces are not shown in the photographs, there should be enough details to recognize a person, especially by someone very close to that person, say a wife. I have always been mystified (and angered) by TV journalistic shows that presumably hide a witness’ face, blackened it and/or disguised the voice to protect his or her identity. If I am close to that person (say, we work in the same office), I should be able to easily tell who it is. Mannerisms, silhouettes, speaking style, all serve as telling clues.
What do you think? Does the fact that these men were cheating give an artist the right to publicly display photos of them? What happens when a subject on a photo is recognized? Is it only one life affected? Two? A whole family?
source BJP
Can the court trust photographic evidence anymore now that it is so easily doctored in a photo editing software? Mark Wood addresses this issue in an interesting article over at BJP. He encourages Police (and CSI) photographers to shoot in RAW instead of JPEG. He argues that not only does a RAW file provide more data to work with but, because RAW is read-only, it has more integrity in court. How do you prove that a JPEG has not been tampered with? By having the RAW file available. Used in a camera that records GPS location, the EXIF metadata encoded with every picture provides a pretty good record of the when, where and what was recorded at the scene of the crime and what changes may have been applied to the JPEG version.
It’s a very convincing case and this is no doubt the way to go.
Read the whole article at: BJP.
I would however still caution that photographic evidence should not be granted unchallenged status in court, especially in JPEG form and even when backed up by the RAW file. A picture could still be doctored in-camera before it is saved as a RAW file. In that case, what the RAW file would be recording would be already suspect.
