> The pictures included closeup pictures of Porras’ hand with visible fingerprint ridges.
I thought via the title that they fingerprinted the lens used to take the photograph, not that there was literal pictures of fingers.
I thought via the title that they fingerprinted the lens used to take the photograph, not that there was literal pictures of fingers.
The article mentions they compared his finger prints to those from the picture. How did they know to check against his prints? Sounds like they already knew who it was, by means that aren't admissible as evidence.
Kinda like 4chan and DMCAs: there’s no point since it’s usually deleted by the time it’s submitted anyway.
For example, they have a (heavily limited) de-facto warrant canary. Since damn near all of them specify that no data should be deleted for a period of time, posting is disabled on a board, or the entire site so nothing gets deleted.
They also disallow posting of files with embedded data (based on some heuristic) and either strip exif data, or forbid posting images containing it. (the exif stripping thing comes from people accidentally doxing themselves by posting an image from facebook a few years back)
So really, nothing about this is suspicious at all, it's completely standard law enforcement practice to obtain fingerprints in any way possible and submit them to the FBI for matching, and then run down any possible matches. Your local police department does this for car breakins if they can spare the resources (not too unusual to get good latent prints off the windows, but it is unusual for police department to spend the time/money). The only odd thing here is LE's fortune, and the accused's misfortune, of images having been uploaded with such clear capture of the fingerprints.
I, too, thought parallel construction.