[www.cnn.com]

At?
Or TO?

Heard that story... there have been many like it from all kinds of film developing places. This time it was Walmart...

Walmart doesn't have the power to take the kids away... some incompetent low-level bureaucrat DOES.

---

Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.
--

--

--
Eureka, CA

Read about that in a thread at dpreview. Sad story. Bathtub pictures are a time-honored parental tradition. I know there's a shot somewhere of me in my birthday suit in the kitchen sink. What's even scarier is some of the people in that thread blamed the parents, one called them "perverts."

Unfortunately any lab you take your pictures to is likely to call the authorities on such innocuous pictures, out of fear of being sued.

Yet another sign of the crumbling of our society.

Edit: I live Arizona, and I can tell you that this states CPS is a freaking disaster. Besides this botched case, they've let quite a few children die at the hands of parents or guardians that they already knew about.

---

[picasaweb.google.com] [www.flickr.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2009 09:01PM by Don Kiyoti.

I didn't know Wal-Mart was bathing children now

---

Grateful11

has everything to do with the people running the lab. sadly, yes, they're morons.

---

Some minimum wage sexually repressed idiot reports innocent pictures to an untrained sexually repressed cop and the parents have their kids taken from them.

The parents are taking CPS and Wal-Mart to court and I hope they get a multi million settlement.

The behavior of that dumb cop is why we should bring back the stocks and pillory.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

This is crap. Stupid people needing to be important. The dad holding the kid wrapped in a towel??? Geez.

I still remember episodes of "Leave it to Beaver" showing a bare-bottomed Beaver baby picture. That was the 50's, right?

Like I said, stupid people.

It's unfortunate, but fortunately we also can take nice quality photos with digital cameras within our homes and print them out with inexpensive color printers with a quality that nearly matches a professional film print.

So it's sad but kind of moot; I'll still take the other photos to a store but anything involving nudity stays in the home (and never posted online.)
g=

The lab people fear losing their jobs or worse if they DON'T report the pictures. It's part of the Zero Tolerance idiocy nowadays.

What a messed up country this is sometimes.

---

I still remember episodes of "Leave it to Beaver" showing a bare-bottomed Beaver baby picture. That was the 50's, right?

The average Joe in the 50s was evidently pretty clueless if a popular TV show could feature a character named "Beaver Cleaver". Surely at least some people must have been snickering quietly. Maybe that particular slang term is of more recent vintage?

Walmart pays for lack of nicer words, the lowest common denominator of labor and runs labs that hire qualified professionals with common sense out of business. This is the phony baloney company that claims to have moral Christian values but sells adult videos in overseas operations.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

Give it a rest. How much education does it take to run one of those automated photo machines. I'm glad I have the option, not everything needs the professional touch or the professional price. I also have the option to print them myself except that with the cost of the lousy ink carts, it's cheaper to take them to WalMart.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 12:27AM by celliott.

in this day and age I'm still surprised that there are people stupid enough to take pictures anywhere close to those and have them developed anywhere.

---

The Taoist Zhuangzi said, "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone".
The sociologist, and historian, Adam Ferguson described the phenomenon of spontaneous order in society as the "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design".

Sorry, but I disagree. Some of the pics showed full frontal nudity. Discretion says bathtub pics should not. Easily sent out on the web by perverts. We have some bathtub pics but no frontal nudity.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy
Sorry, but I disagree. Some of the pics showed full frontal nudity. Discretion says bathtub pics should not. Easily sent out on the web by perverts. We have some bathtub pics but no frontal nudity.

Well well, we found someone who would have turned them in.

---

Speedy makes a point though - it can be about the guy that has access to the photos and what they might do.
The parents are most certainly innocent and do not deserve any grief about them though.

A friend runs a local color lab and he did all the work for the local police and sheriffs office. a few years back
he found out the hard way (detectives showing up) that one of his trusted employees was making copies of the
crime scene photos they were trusted to process (murders, suicides etc ...) and had several large binders full.

Apparently there is/was a group of "collectors" of such images. Just goes to show you I guess.

A quick side story - when I was in high school I sold cameras and we had send out processing (pre-dated 1 Hour service)
On a very regular basis someone would drop off a roll of film and ask for assurance that the lab would print everything
We would assure them that yes, it was going to a huge lab and photos were unseen by humans for the most part.

Of course we would make a mental note of the customer and the employees would be sure to check the photos
out when they were returned from the lab. Some of those folks really needed a Polaroid.

---

Well well, we found someone who would have turned them in.

Good to see that there are stupid judgmental people here as well as those they accuse of the same qualities.

Exactly what did Speedy say that tells you he would turn somebody in?

He's talking about somebody who apparently made a huge tactical error in this age of paranoia, who should have known better.

'fil addresses one of Speedy's points, and it's a valid one.

Apparently, in your need to feel important, you overlooked that.

Now, how many of you are willing to do something about this other than call those people names and proclaim your superiority?

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

ug, there are some critical logical points regarding what constitutes child porn and these are forever confused and innocent people get grievously injured to feed the fearful mob.

>>Exactly what did Speedy say that tells you he would turn somebody in?

"Some of the pics showed full frontal nudity. Discretion says bathtub pics should not. Easily sent out on the web by perverts." - thats my take on it, maybe yours is different.

>>'fil addresses one of Speedy's points, and it's a valid one.

I need to summarize it since its not spelled out anywhere -

Its wrong to get pics of nude children developed because someone might get a hold of them that gets off on them.

Bull@#$%&.

Its not our duty to keep people away from their creepy desires. Some people get off on people dressed up as animals. creepy, but nothing wrong with it.

Child porn is wrong because children are harmed. A parent taking bath time pics of children DOES NOT HARM THEM. Nor is there anything sexual about it even if you have some sort of hangup about baby genitals. Its all perfectly fine.

The parents have done nothing wrong but "they should have known better". Sure, blame the victims.

---

Common sense and political correctness, WalMart, law enforcement, DA and child services gone wild.

Are we in America?

Quote

He's talking about somebody who apparently made a huge tactical error in this age of paranoia, who should have known better.

I agree, those officers and their superiors were buffoons of the highest order

The parents have done nothing wrong but "they should have known better". Sure, blame the victims.

That's not necessarily a matter of blame. It *is* a matter of discretion. I assume the parents had no ill intent and therefore certainly do not *deserve* this fallout.

But this is not the first, second, or even third time such an incident has made national news. I believe the parents *should have known* the potential consequences and the end results, however undeserved they are.


Its wrong to get pics of nude children developed because someone might get a hold of them that gets off on them.

Wrong, no. Smart, no. Poor judgement, yes. Not because somebody "creepy" might get a hold of them, though I certainly wouldn't want that of *my* children's photos. But not smart because of the potential repercussions.


Child porn is wrong because children are harmed.

So, if a child is photographed nude but not "harmed", the result cannot be child porn? So for instance, if a parent photographs their nude child and sells the pictures to anybody who fancies them, that is not child porn?

I don't believe at this point that the parents were acting criminally, but how you define child porn and harm seems pretty flawed to me.

ug, there are some critical logical points regarding what constitutes child porn and these are forever confused and innocent people get grievously injured to feed the fearful mob.

Agreed.


The motivation of the Walmart employees has not been established by anybody outside of the MRF, based on the link. I don't think the fallout was based on trying to protect innocent photos from potentially falling into evil hands, as you imply.

I believe the employees and investigators felt that the photos were in fact child porn and not potential fodder for deviants. So however incorrect they were, they appear to me to be acting within their purview rather than trying to keep creepy people away from their desires. That is to say I think they believed the parents to be the creepy people.

Now I don't deny that I could be incorrect.

And since the judge made his decision and the parents are pursuing litigation, the question remains-- what will those who are morally outraged by the parents' (and children's) treatment do about those who were morally outraged by the photos? Forget about them until the next opportunity arises to badmouth "sexually repressed", "low-level bureaucratic" people who "need to feel important" people?

We *may* not have a duty to keep people away from their creepy desires (if they only remain desires) but I think we have a duty to protect people from abuse, be it from other people, a system, a bureaucracy, or even themselves, on occasion.

But sitting around a cracker barrel calling perceived incompetents various names doesn't do a whole lot to help the victims.

At least not any victims.

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

I caught this story earlier this week and my friends and I shook our heads at it for a good hour or so. To us, it feels like the Wal-Mart employee is like every other Joe Schlub in this country and thinks s/he's a citizen detective on CSI or something. Common sense & context says those were harmless images. They were family vacation pictures which means there were other photographs of the parents & the kids where they were clothed...ergo, anyone with a bird brain could figure out it was their father and things were okay.

I also have to wonder if anybody below the age of 25 never had photos taken of them in a bathtub or something. What in the world would make that so effin' shocking? Has that tradition been lost or are these folks just that stupid? Not everybody is a child molester, and even still, you can't stop all of them. Really.

And what mattkime meant by no kids being harmed, I read it as the intent was not to harm the kids. If some sleazy ass employee decides to steal their photos and sells them without the parents' knowledge, what are you going to do? The issue is, so far, the kids were not harmed and there was no intent to harm them and anybody with a clue could figure that out.

I personally feel the parents should also sue the individual employee along with current suit against Wal-Mart, the police and CPS. If that one joker didn't think he was a citizen detective, then this would have never happened. I mean, the mother lost her teaching job over this whole debacle. Come on now. I would also sue the school board to get her job back as well. Someone on that board could have used common sense as well. If reporting photos is in the company policy, then again, the person should have used common sense and not reported it. Plenty of times company polices go against logic and humanity. There were 8 photos out of 140 or so. What if that employee just happened to not turn his head when they shot out? Then none of this would have happened.

---

trisho.
----------------
Official Card-Carrying Mother Earthin' Sl*t.

It is super messed up that we combine "nudity" and "sexuality" so instantly. The two can be completely exclusive of each other. The Puritans still rule in some ways.

---