Nonsense. Showing an undoctored video (otherwise known as evidence) of an unknown person isn't defamation. Calling someone, by name, a thief - that could be defamation.
Or for privacy and protection, company policies in place for good reasons, etc.
Correct, and the operative word is “could”. If you have direct evidence of them stealing, such as video footage, then it’s not defamation. The central issue of a defamation or libel lawsuit is whether or not the person making the statement believes it to be true.
Also true. Most of the time when someone’s face is blurred it’s out of an abundance of caution or company policy. News organizations have deep pockets and that makes them a target for lawsuits, blurring the face ensures they have no liability even if it’s highly unlikely posting the raw footage would incur liability
Because, I would imagine, this video has been passed from the Rivian owner, to the police, to the news media, it could have been either the police or the TV station that made the decision to blur it - as is their prerogative. We would like to see it unblurred. I will concede the point that either of those organizations, could have decided against that (based on policies, or on legal or PR considerations - and an abundance of caution).
I too concede that what I originally said was not quite accurate, and that it is likely that the face blurring is the CYA attitude and precautions that organizations showing videos take. I bet that there is a site somewhere that has the original video as is.
No it's not. Sentry mode is better than any other system recording system in a vehicle.
