monero4freedom
I am not a mod, but as far as I remember that "screenshot" reprinted in the article looks like one of the two images redacted above.
The other image apparently depicted an employee of the company during a conference call. As a means to demonstrate that the source was valid, I can somewhat understand, why it was made. However, I still felt uncomfortable about it and support that it was eventually removed.
Generally speaking, as advocate for privacy, I think every private person deserve their privacy whether working for a company developing phone intrusion tools or not.
Unless there are grave reasons for publication outweighing it, ofc. IMO the latter was not the case here.
If there are doubts concerning the authenticity of the sources and additional material deemed necessary, I rather prefer a different handling. Discuss that material was obtained and - if it was deemed necessary to substantiate it - better discuss privately with moderators (or maybe news editors) first whether they needed the screenshot (of the person) 1:1 in a private way.
I personally wouldn't like to see my face exposed w/o my explicit consent, I'd strongly prefer we'd not expose other persons as well.