I was a confused by a screenshot in the article, with the caption:
> Not the actual site but a similar one
Looks like the article, when speaking of tracing down a wrongdoing suspect, used a screenshot of a Web page of an uninvolved Web site. The screenshot included photos of actual people presumably uninvolved, and a name, phone number, and email address also presumably uninvolved.
While I'd guess this probably reduces Internet vigilantism and accusations of libel (at least involving the actual suspect), I suspect that a journalism professor, editor, or lawyer would advise not to do it that way.
> Not the actual site but a similar one
Looks like the article, when speaking of tracing down a wrongdoing suspect, used a screenshot of a Web page of an uninvolved Web site. The screenshot included photos of actual people presumably uninvolved, and a name, phone number, and email address also presumably uninvolved.
While I'd guess this probably reduces Internet vigilantism and accusations of libel (at least involving the actual suspect), I suspect that a journalism professor, editor, or lawyer would advise not to do it that way.