mimi
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by mimi on Oct 14, 2007 10:49:18 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by madmacs on Oct 16, 2007 8:23:02 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Fun manager on Oct 16, 2007 10:41:26 GMT 7
Actually, I wish they had adopted a different line. They should not have disclosed that they were able to decode the swirl pattern. They could simply have pretended that they got the originals from informants, the originals before the digital scrambling was applied. This way, they would have kept the vital secret that the swirl pattern could be decoded. Other sex offenders could then continue to use the digital scrambling in a false sense of security, and then more of them could be identified and captured. Even if this particular offender suspects that police unscrambled his swirl image, many others would not have thought of it. The police should not have disclosed such an useful secret. Big mistake!  |
|
|
|
Post by madmacs on Oct 16, 2007 13:59:19 GMT 7
I fully agree with you! I don't know why they gave away that secret.
I guess it's a way to advertise their own intelligence...
By the way, is this system of scrambling images often used? I never saw it myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmacs on Oct 16, 2007 14:52:29 GMT 7
|
|
mimi
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by mimi on Oct 19, 2007 21:05:46 GMT 7
|
|
