And just like the case in Eindhoven not long ago, , video footage is shared on social media sites. Mugshots of the perpetrators have been recorded by CCTV cameras/ still images of this footage has been spread.The image also holds a location and a time-stamp. This new marriage of surveillance and social media, however, should be watched closely, as one might ask where the boundary lies in sharing such images on the Web. It seems difficult to be critical towards this endeavour to call upon social media in helping to find these suspects. Chance increases that either a) somebody form the pictures is recognized by name, location, or scial group or b) the public display might force the suspects to turn themselves in. It does awkwardly resonate with public scorn -politics (‘schandpaal’ in Dutch) of medieval times. One critical difference might be that in medieval times, once its was done, it was done (oke, either that could end up really bad, meaning you were really done, or you were released after a while). The question here is how long stories, and pictures such as these live on once in the digital realm. A second objection could be to aslk if it is really our task, and our responsibility as citizens to mingle in this case? The clear call for citizen responsibility als bears as a consequence a citizen jury, or ‘judgement’ that coms very close to vigilantism.. Being the devil’s advocate here, is not that exaclty the reason why we installed a police force and aa criminal justice system?