Necrophilia

[Juspar Emvan]

I'm gonna contradict myself here

Or at least I know it will appear so to someone.

I stand by the two things I've said. 1) The Necrophilia thing is gross. 2) The photo lab was out of line.

I'd like to add - I'm glad the guy got busted, and I do come from a position of differnet basic beliefs and upbringing.

Now what the guy did was wrong, illegal (I expect illegal here too) and disrespectful to both the deceased and their families. I'm glad he got stung for it.

Flipside . . .

No matter how highly trained technicians are I don't think they are trained lawyers or law enforcers, so what gives them the right to pass judgement on anyone? I agree that they have the right to decline the customers' business, but we're not talking about that here.

At what point is it acceptable for me to say "Hey, I think what you did was wrong, I'm gonna get you busted"? Welcome to the Hitler Youth everyone. There are so many shades of grey out there and the people who see the photos have absolutely no idea of circumstances or situations.

Frankly I stand steadfast in my belief that the lab was out of line and has no right to report their customers. There is implicit trust that the sole right to posession of the film being processed belongs to the individual paying for it - that is why privacy should be expected.

The end never justifies the means.

 

[Never]

Photo of dead, naked child in sexual position.
Show me the shade of grey there.

No, the lab technicians didn't 'play' amateur detective, they showed it to real police and lawyers who decided that what the man did was really illegal. If the lab technicians had show a picture of two people going at it no action would have been taken.

In addition, no, there is no written or implied confidentiality when you hand over a roll of film to another person. Confidentiality only exists when it states so in writing and even then the law can rule otherwise. Privacy only exists in private. Showing something to a lab tech is no more private than showing it to the person who pumps your gas or the mail carrier.

 

[Closet Desire]

It really is...

...a tough call isn't it?

One really should be able to go through life without worrying about whether someone on the street is really going to report him for jaywalking or littering. Some things we should be allowed to govern for ourselves even if that fudge the letter of the law a bit.

I think a distinction has occured here that might help. While pictures of erotica are more a "moral" issue (regardless of laws concerning it)and open to interpretation by a lot of individuals, the photos of the dead people were clearly a "crime" without a lot of gray area to consider.

I think we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in having our film processed and perhaps the responsible thing for photo labs to do is to clearly post a sign concerning their policies on nudity, erotica, and dead people. That makes it a business decision rather than a legal one.

Most of us who don't think we are breaking any laws and are comfortable with the photos we have taken should be able to have them processed in confidence. Those few who are stupid enough to publicise illegal activities probably deserve what they get (to wit...the thugs who attacked women in Central Park last year and were stupid enough to video tape it).

Maybe it's more of a two way thing.

There's one other thing. I used to work as an investigator so I took lots of photos that might arouse suspicions. The photos were often of women and children and were obviously taken without the knowledge or consent of the subjects. Sometimes they were taken through windows which the subjects had left open (hence my mention of expectation of privacy). Sometimes they could even be pretty steamy and sordid (mid-day hotel rendevous). However, I was working within the letter and authority of the law. I discussed my work with the photo lab that routinely processed the photos (doing them yourself in a darkroom opens them up for scrutiny in court unless you are a qualified "expert" in photo processing) so they knew the nature of the shots. I also had them sign a confidentiality agreement so I had a piece of paper to fall back on. If you are a photographer it might be wise to be open with the processor and discuss things before giving them your film and build a relationship over time that prevents misunderstandings that might involve the police or child welfare services.

I guess you need to realise that the photos you take are going to be seen by other people. If you're not comfortable with that then you should find a confidential processor. Here they advertise in the back of photo mags. They too would probably report something obviously illegal like murder, rape, or dead people.

Well, that's about the extent of my wit today.

[Edited by Closet Desire on 01-16-2001 at 01:24 AM]

 

[BrainyBeauty]

CD- you were right. It DOES make for great discussion

April, thanks so much for answering my question! I couldn't figure out why this man would be so stupid. He KNEW what he was doing was illegal and repugnant and sure to arouse suspicion. I wasn't sure why he wouldn't process the film himself. I imagine one day he will end up on the list of really dumb criminals that we read about on the internet! Thanks for the 4-1-1.

Bs, Juspar and CD, we are not so far apart. Thank goodness we all agree that playing peek-a-boo with dead bodies is a no-no. (I've been worried that someone would pop up on here and claim that dead people make the best lovers)

Nowhere on here have I seen anyone promoting or accepting a policy of invasion of privacy. I see your points and I agree they are valid. We should be worried that the government or our neighbors will call 1-800-ICAUGHT YOU! and report us for some such nonsense. Hey- doesn't that already happen? - we have tons of numbers for people to call: if you spot a drunk driver; if a parent is abusing a child; if a person is abusing the elderly. All of these have numerous instances of fraud and abuse. It IS scary to think that someone might misinterpret our behavior, become a 'narc' and turn us in for no good reason.

And Bs, you are right- it is happening in little doses everyday. My friends laugh at me when I complain about the grocery stores. I became angry when they switched to the universal bar code to scan our purchases. Their claim was that it helps with inventory control. Fine, if you pay cash. There really is no problem. However, if you pay by credit card or debit card, as I am wont to do, they now have a computerized list of your buying habits. That is bad enough. I really don't like the fact that Kroger's knows that I buy candy (that can make you fat), vodka (that can make you drunk) beef (that can give you high cholesterol), whips and chains (uhhh, for my career change as an animal trainer...yeah, that's what they're for!)

Worse yet, they now SELL this information to marketers, manufacturers and who knows- , maybe even police or government officials. Can't you just picture this scenario: "Hey- Aetna- Miss Brainy Beauty bought some steak- you better raise her insurance premiums cause she is a candidate for a heart attack! And, State Troopers- be on the alert- this chick just bought some alcohol- better follow her to make sure she doesn't have an accident. Senior Services -she bought some Depends- I bet she is beating her grandma!"

That is an invasion of privacy. I DO resent it. I HAVE railed against it from the start. I don't take it lightly. And I haven't even done anything to break the law! Never, the sweet and smart-as-a-whip little girl understands it. She hit the nail on the head here folks. There was no gray area in the matter of the photog with the dead bodies. Necrophilia is against the law and I don't care if it was a pimply 18 year old working the night shift (It wasn't BTW) -he did the right thing!

 

[Closet Desire]

Pop up and like?

Oh...shudder.

What you bring up about how the use of marketing info from your purchases is really interestings. It's the source of quite a bit of friction between the EU and the US. Privacy laws here are very strict and you're not allowed to collect or distribute information unless you are registered with the Data Protection Registrar, report exactly how you will use the information, and give the subject full control over whether or not it is used. Instead of checking a block to say you DON'T want it used in marketing you have to check a block saying you DO want it used. Subtle differences.

Last I heard, US internet companies were being blocked from any major business ventures here because privacy of EU customes cannot be assured in the US system. I'm not really sure of all the details on this...just snippets here and there.

Still, a land of contradiction, just like the US. Sweeping legislation was just passed (or being considered...my memory lapses again) allowing the government to monitor all internet communication without a warrant or cause. Creepy stuff.

Don't you think it's ironic that the USSR attempted to control the free exchange of information and when computers came out to the public they failed miserable and it was one of the underlying catalysts forcing the system to fail? Now the US and EU are wanting that power for themselves?

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Someone wrote asking for an update on the photographer:

The news reports indicate that there has been no answer at either his home or studio by phone or doorbell. (Gee, now there's a surprise!) Investigation is ongoing.

CD- that problem is not restricted to internet commerce. Several US companies are under scrutiny for deceptive practices on several fronts. But I think your example of requiring people to actively "un"register for something instead of the opposite is out and out trickery. I think the lowest, dirtiest trick is making people believe they are registering for a sweepstakes prize, using that to gather all sorts of information and then bombarding them with endless sales pitches.

BTW, speaking of the EU, just when the heck are they gonna change the banana policy? We have a little company over here that is on the verge of filing bankruptcy (probably even as we speak) You may have heard of em..Chiquita.
And how is the euro performing now? Is it any more stable? Just questions from a curious yank!

I agree it is ironic that the US and the UK are now reaching for that power. Knowledge is power. We have something going on like that involving the FBI and other agencies that use a program to open emails that contain any 'keywords'. I remember someone starting a thread about it here- I recall it was something like Carnivore? Someone help us out here.

 

[Closet Desire]

Ahhhh...the banana wars...

...for the US it's Cuban sugar and for the Brits it's bananas. I've read about it from time-to-time, but seems every country has it's prejudices. They come up with all sorts of logical reasons not to buy something from somebody. I dunno (raising his hands in disgust). Me? I'm a capitalist...I believe you should buy and sell any way you want without governments getting in the way. On the flip side, the US passed a tariff that was targeted at stopping a Devon company from selling their jams and jellies to hotels in the US. It was revenge for something the EU did to the US. I get lost. Don't these people have better things to do?

The Euro...now that's a loaded questions. I'm afraid I'm a bit irreverent. I learned enough in International Economics (one course) to know that prices are set by the health of the economy and not by the currency. I think the euro's a fudnamentally good idea (covers head from pelting rocks) for the same reason that each state in the US has the same currency. I don't think there will be any real stability until it is moved into full effect. The big problem is going to be that people will discover their actual economic ranking against other countries. Now, you have to convert everything. For example...a cappucino in London costs about £2.00/Paris £15 francs (£1.50)/Mallorca 200 ptas (80 pence). What will happen is that prices will change to reflect the relative health of the economies. Oh...said too much already...

 

[Gaucho]

Re: CD- you were right. It DOES make for great discussion

I really don't like the fact that Kroger's knows that I buy candy (that can make you fat), vodka (that can make you drunk) beef (that can give you high cholesterol), whips and chains (uhhh, for my career change as an animal trainer...yeah, that's what they're for!)

Whips and chains, huh? At Krogers? Damn!

No wonder we don't have any of those in Vermont.

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Let's go Kroger-ing

Whips and chains, huh? At Krogers? Damn!
No wonder we don't have any of those in Vermont.

Sure- they're in between the floral shop and the seafood counter.

Doesn't Grand Union or A & P carry them? LOL What stores do you have up there in the arctic circle anyway?

 

[Closet Desire]

Actually...

...we prefer the whips and chains at Pet Smart...better quality and lower price! Of course...you have to put up with pimply adolescent staff who don't understand why a 40 year old woman is giggling at the horse whip display!

 

[Closet Desire]

Now where were we?

Oh yeah...photo labs. Here's an interesting story about Wal-Mart and their policy. An employee was fired for turning photos into police which he/she deemed abuse. The child was collected by police and put into foster care, but the employee was fired for not following policy which requires a management team to make the decision. I applaud Wal Mart for what seems like a good compromise between social responsibility and the privacy of the individual. What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/18/wal.martfiring.civ.ap/index.html

 

[BrainyBeauty]

I agree with you again. What is this world coming to?

Police praised Gasper's actions, but Wal-Mart's policy calls for a management team to make decisions about such photos

I believe that this is the case in most instances. Companies seem to universally write and follow a standard operating procedure where the employee reports his/her suspicions to their manager. The manager, in turn, is the one who makes the decision and final determination to contact authorities.

Someone said it earlier- I think it was Never- that millions of pictures of naked children playing in the tub or outdoors cross the desk every day. They are not all pornographic, nor are they singled out and reported to the police.

Gasper's attorney had argued the Wal-Mart policy violated a state law that requires citizens to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

Again, most states do carry some law on the books where citizens (regardless of occupation) are required to report suspected child abuse or other crimes.

I want to reiterate that I do not advocate vigilante justice. Nor abuse of the system. It does seem worthy to discuss that this kind of situation just screams "Guilty till proven innocent" (the very opposite of what most people believe our justice system to be).

In the case of your friend and that woman here who had to go to court: Their reputations were ruined, their finances severely diminished, their peace of mind shattered.

Whether expressly stated or merely implied, the expectation of privacy when turning over photos for processing, remains subjective. As I said, it was reasonable to believe that with subject matter as shocking as this was, did that photographer really expect to remain anonymous and untouched? My first question of this thread was- why was this guy such an idiot? Why didn't he process this film himself?

Not sure if this really applies here but I say "Caveat Emptor". Buyer beware. You turn in disgusting, illegal photos, you 'takes your chances' and get in trouble! Don't go crying in your beer about the fairness of it all when you have to face the music and are held accountable for your actions.

Back to you CD!

 

[Closet Desire]

Here's the wind up...

...and the pitch!

I can't disagree with anything you said, I don't think. Seems like most of the controversy in a society concerns maintaining the right balance between individual and social interests. Of course, the kids' position is unique since they have to rely on individuals for care and protection. When that fails there isn't anybody else but the society to protect them.

When I have photos of CD-able that are rather more personal I don't take them to the local Jessops because they know her and it could be embarrassing for them (I don't think it bothers her). They aren't porn, but tasteful and artful nudes. I just feel more comfortable sending them off to an anonymous lab in Devon.

This whole idea of confidentiality is sort of at the core of our business. We see clients for a wide range of psychological and therapeutic issues and have guidelines not only from the Data Protection Registrar but also the British Psychological Society. I'm responsible to the DPR and CD-able is responsible to the BPS. We got into a really sticky one a few months ago when I, as business director, entered into business agreements with several other firms. Unknown to either of us, one of our patients was married to one of the parties and having an affair with another one. The patient, of course, didn't know about the business affairs going on. It was complicated further by the unfortunate fact that the business parties were behaving unethically. We managed to hold it together as just one of those things that happen, but without clear rules and personal ethics we could have really exploited the situation.

I think you're right. We do expect some confidentiality, but at the same time if we are stupid enough to incriminate ourselves in a crime or, worse, the abuse of a child then we shouldn't really be surprised when the police come a knockin' at the door.

 

[Juspar Emvan]

All right, catch the bad guys!

Here's my issue with the etical delema, and it has been pointed out here already.

Are the false acusations (and the pain and suffering inflicted by those) justified by the legitimate cases where the bad guys get busted?

I say no. Which is the basis for my argument that it's not right for the the lab tech to report a customer for suspected _____. I couldn't load the article about the Wal-Mart dismissal, but the policy of management team decision seems to be a viable compromise. Don't get me wrong I loath people who abuse, degrade and disrespect - but these crimes evoke emotion to the point where the accused is guilty until proved innocent, and often beyond.

I'm so glad I don't have to make laws, because I can see the need to protect the innocents out there. Photographic evidence (even out of context) can be pretty damning, but isn't conclusive. I don't know what the ultimate answer is, but I feel that it's not right to report on the basis of photos sen at a processing lab.

 

[romanticgal]

I have to agree with Brainybeauty about the photolab and morgue thing. If my loved one was there and someone decided to take pictures like that I would want him or her stopped. Afterall the people in the photos aren't able to agree to that kind of thing now are they?

A little to the side about invasion of privacy. As a future educator(scary huh!) I have to sign a morality clause in my contract. If it is found that I have done something that goes against the general community's morality I can lose my job. Now I feel that as an adult anything that I do with other consenting adults is our business as long as we are discreet and don't hurt anyone else it's nobody else's business. But the majority of people don't see things that way I guess.

 

[Closet Desire]

An American invention...

...oh...I can't let this one go...MORAL TURPITUDE! That's what you're talking about. My British friends all but roll on the floor at this one because when you fly into the US from another country you have to swear that you have never been guilty of moral turpitude. I don't know if cigars can be implicated in moral turpitude or not. Anyway...it's the most moronic thing I can imagine and I'm sorry you have to sign an agreement to it.

Imagine this...you write a really erotic story for all of us here at Lit. The parent of one of your students in class reads the story as well as your posts and pieces together that it might be you. He tells his friends at Sunday School and the next thing you know...you're standing on the carpet defending your job, your career, and even your future. I mean think about it. Could you author a book of erotica in your name or would you have to use a pseudonymn?

I love lots of things about America (of course, I'm American), but this is the one thing that could very well keep me from ever moving back again. Moral Turpitude...from the country with more government scandal, more...aw hell...don't let me get started!