California Family Fights For Privacy, Relief From Cyber-Harassment 544
theodp writes "Just days after his daughter Nikki's death in a devastating car crash, real-estate agent Christos Catsouras clicked open an e-mail that appeared to be a property listing. Onto his screen popped his daughter's bloodied face, captioned with the words 'Woohoo Daddy! Hey daddy, I'm still alive.' Now he and his wife are attempting to stop strangers from displaying the grisly images of their daughter — an effort that has transformed Nikki's death into a case about privacy, cyber-harassment and image control. The images of Nikki, including one of her nearly-decapitated head drooping out the shattered car window, were taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response and went viral after being leaked by two CHP dispatchers. 'Putting these photos on the Internet,' says the family's attorney, 'was akin to placing them in every mailbox in the world.'"
You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The family filed a formal complaint about the photos' release, and three months later, they received a letter of apology from the California Highway Patrol. An investigation had revealed that the images, taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response, had been leaked by two CHP dispatchers: Thomas O'Donnell, 39, and Aaron Reich, 30. O'Donnell, a 19-year CHP veteran, had been suspended for 25 days without pay. Reich quit soon after -- for unrelated reasons, says his lawyer. Both men declined requests for comment, but Jon Schlueter, Reich's attorney, says his client sent the images to relatives and friends to warn them of the dangers of the road. "It was a cautionary tale," Schlueter says. "Any young person that sees these photos and is goaded into driving more cautiously or less recklessly -- that's a public service."
If that does not satisfy you, I'm not sure what will. Sue your police department for large sums of money but it won't take the pictures off the internet.
Today the entire family is in therapy, and they've taken out a second mortgage to cover the costs of their legal battle.
Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy. Apparently this has been a very rude wake up call. Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.
If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.
In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.
cyber-harassment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Likely to backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a random Joe like myself, who hasn't heard of Nikki Catsouras: now I'm aware of the existence of grisly photos of this unlucky young woman. Some of these random Joes will likely be interested in seeing those photos in spite of the family's wishes. And thus the number of people who saw the pics has increased.
Unfortunately, their only practicaly recourse is just not to look at those pics. I, who has not heard of this woman or her accident before, have not seen the photos, ever, so it is possible to avoid seeing them.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to add to this; I admittedly searched for her name after reading the article and the top google search is someone who registered her name.net. I'm not going to link; I'm sure others are going to have the same idea as I did to get an idea of the repulsiveness of the photos.
What a horrible horrible set of pictures. I've seen other death photos on the 'net (haven't we all) but this hits their family with what I would think an unbearable amount of sorrow and anger. No one should see their child that way....
I feel very sorrowful for the loss of the life there, whether it was a reckless act on her part or not. However, it is purely a dick move to send an e-mail as stated in the summary. Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.
That.
The only thing that will give some sense to the death of their daughter is if it deters other young men and women from doing the same mistake.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
It was a spoilt cocained out of control girl trading hard on the privileges her "loving parents" gave her without regard to common sense, and when she ran out of them and ended up a splattered mess, they are now blaming the world.
Yup, use your money for good. Suing other people because you're disgusting excuses for horrible parents who let their coked-out daughter continue her life "Oh yeah we were going to take her to a beverly hills therapist on monday" and have access to a $90K sportscar -- well guess what. You failed as parents. You failed as human beings.
If you want to know whom to blame, mommy and daddy, go take your wads of orange county cash and stand in front of a mirror. If that looks greek to you, well, that's because responsibility and raising kids go hand in hand, and you didn't get it and still don't get it.
E
Re:Likely to backfire (Score:3, Insightful)
The 2 responsible should be fired (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just the start.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.
Which is difficult if someone sends you shocking photos of your dying daughter...
Re:Likely to backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it possible?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is random assholes exploit the same things that political dissidents require for their freedom.
It's also why spammers prosper so well, because they abuse people's need for email.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Cyber-Harassment is the problem, not censorship.
If someone robs a bank, the answer isn't just to put bigger locks on the bank. The answer is to catch and stop bank robbers.
If someone kills someone with a knife, then the answer isn't to just block knifes with bullet proof vests. The answer is to catch and stop people who kill other people.
Censorship avoids facing the real issue. Its the extremely twisted behaviours that censorship is asked for, that are the real problem. Shutting out and hiding away isn't the answer. They need to caught so others will not suffer.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.
Why? You know where the link goes. If you don't want to see it then obviously you don't follow the link.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.
How so? The problem is not the pictures being out there its sick fucks from anonymous and 4chan emailing them to the family with captions. The police snafu, helps increase awareness that taking cocaine then driving can lead to horrible consequences, but anonymous harassing the family of a dead girl just offends.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of a story about the Buddha. Paraphrased: A woman came to the Buddha filled with grief over the death of her child. She asked the Buddha if there was anything that could be done to cure her grief. The Buddha said he knew of a concoction that would do so, and listed off ingredients. The woman got excited and said she would collect the ingredients post-haste. Before she left the Buddha said "The ingredients cannot come from a household that has experienced the loss of a loved one (child, parent, grand-parent, sibling)." The woman agreed to follow the directive and went off in search of the ingredients.
Everywhere around town she went she found people that were willing to give her the items she requested. However when mentioning the stipulation that it come from a home where no one had died, everyone had to turn her away. She went throughout the whole village and was unable to find someone that had not dealt with such a loss. Realizing this, she discovered the cure to her grief.
Life spares no one of suffering.
Are the people posting these all over for kicks utter twats? Yes. Is the family over reacting? Also yes.
No one should have to see their child in such a way, but plenty people do. If you live in a warzone like Iraq or another country that deals with terrorist bombings all year long, likely you've seen it live.
But by all means, let's make an emotionally charged issue out of this. Let's censor the Internet. That will surely stop these things from happening in the first place, right? Thank goodness!
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
They did sue the police department:
There is still an appeal pending, but really, what would you want to see happen? As we blaze forward into the future it's going to becoming increasingly likely that some technology will capture some event most of us would rather not remember. Yet trying to lock up ownership of the past would be even worse than the ridiculous problems copyright laws are causing here in the digital age. You've already acknowledged that once the images have escaped it's basically impossible to put them back in the bottle. Trying to target the original source of their escape seems just as quixotic to me as going after any of the subsequent copies. Certainly, from a legal standpoint it might be easier to discourage and prosecute the source of a 'leak', but towards what end? A sanitized world in which we can all happily only view those events we all agree should be remembered?
Seems like karma to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Wish I had a mod point - well said!
These same freedoms are the ones terrorists exploit for their causes.
These outrages cannot be legislated away in a free society but will still be used for political gain and propaganda by our so called representatives.
Re:How is it possible?!? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Legal options are not the only options. Legally, once the information is public, the public can probably do what they want with it (not including harassment). That does NOT mean that our only recourse is judicial. The described behavior is unacceptable, and as a society, we should express our outrage at it. Not through the courts, but socially.
This means that if someone you know forwards you an email with this picture, let them know that their actions are unacceptable and threaten your relationship with them due to its absolute callousness and offensiveness. If someone shows it to you in the office, let HR know about their completely unprofessional behavior. If you learn of web sites with this picture, rather than visit them and provide them with advertising revenue, page hits, and general validation, ignore or block the web site. If you know of news sites that publish the picture, avoid or boycott them.
We have power beyond just the law to curb intolerable behavior in our society. We can exclude people who do things that are legal but still wrong from the social groups that we all depend on. Don't let the parent poster fool you into thinking you are powerless.
There are probably people that think this is as hilarious as tubgirl or goatse. Remind them that there are people in this world that care about human suffering. That there is a difference between what someone intentionally does to or for themselves and the terrible result of an accident, however caused. Remind people of suffering, and teach them to respect it, not enjoy it.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Two cents:
1c. OCPD response seems surprisingly disinterested and callous
2c. If the pics had been taken by a 3rd party, such as press photog, then the anger could hardley be focussed on the release, 'cos that's what photographers do
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't think holding inept police department officials accountable is constructive? I think the tone of the article shows they realized fighting the internet is a losing battle and have given up. While those on Slashdot might know it's a losing battle, a family in a tragic situation unfamiliar with the internet might not be so wise. And who can blame them? Acting on emotions is human. But the article leaves things with this thought:
Thank you Catsouras family.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
So the cops have no duty to keep the images private, but every random person on the Internet does?
No, wait, the article admits they have no legal basis to do so, yet they are sending C&Ds anyway. Screw them and especially screw their attorneys, who are knowingly sending baseless C&Ds.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, you pass these points and begin moralizing about the circunstances of the accident. What does it matter that the girl whose photos were -unlawfully- distributed was DUI? It makes it more ok than if the girl was sober and the accident was someone other's fault?. It has no relation at all. Also, it is disturbing to find that you do not know nothing about her family except what you read in the article/s, and yet you are able to judge their actions just from your prejudices.
IMHO the family has all of the right to complain about the mishandling of the pictures and the very light disciplinary action taken. And suing the PD is a sensible action to take, given that it is it that should have ensured, in the first place, that procedures, sanctions and information to the agents are enough to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not.
What this whole situation shows is that "intellectual property" is still a good idea, if legislators hadn't completely distorted it. The pictures exploit the public image of Nikki Catsouras, they should be the property of her family. Aside from use in police investigations, the CHP has no right in delivering those photographs to anyone.
I think the two investigators who leaked those photos should be permanently removed from any police work, they have shown they do not have the moral preparation for such work.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
> It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.
Respectfully, I don't agree. The photos show a truth: a truth about what happens when we speed at 100mph on cocaine and fly off the road. They show a truth about how incredibly fragile we are. That we are mortal.
I don't need reality sanitised for me by censorship. I don't need or want polite euphemisms covering up the gory realities of life. The only thing that censorship can result in is ignorance, and ignorance leads to an inaccurate view of reality (delusion) which leads to bad decisions.
Unless you work in emergency services or the army, it's unlikely that you'll ever see such a brutal example of our own fragility and mortality. Why should we be shielded from the truth about our own nature? How can this lead to anything good?
When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some asshole hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some assholes with bombs hadn't killed the child. I saw the ugly reality of war in a way that I couldn't have unless I'd been there.
It's important to know the truth, and an ugly truth is ALWAYS more beautiful than a pleasing lie.
I'll qualify that by saying that the (real) asshole in this story - the person who sent the image to the family (not the people who took the images in the first place) did them no favours at all and deserve to be prosecuted and punished (in the UK, I imagine it would be an easy case of 'causing alarm or distress'). What they did was an act of singular cruelty, and what I have said should not be misconstrued as a defence of them or their actions.
For the rest of us, there's no good reason not to know that travelling at high speeds whith out proper control of our vehicle will result in such a thing - and to see it. Reading a few words describing the gore does not leave the same impression. If anything, I think it would do all teenage drivers a favour to know exactly what can happen to them, their freinds and their families if they don't exercise proper control of their vehicle.
Surely a good reason to oppose censorship.
Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution may be to prevent such photos from being taken. Alternatively, as a society we might simply shun those who enjoy such activities, asking them kindly to look at their naughty pictures in the privacy of their own home, not on the public street.
Re:The 2 responsible should be fired (Score:5, Insightful)
Persons of authority should be held to more account than the citizens they protect. This was not a mistake, accidentally leaving the files on a vulnerable computer or on an internal server that happened to be externally visible for a day.
This was an effort by those officers to distribute the files to people outside the police department who, frankly, had no business seeing them. They say it was to discourage their own family from driving drunk or speeding, but who's to say. If they had been informed about normal procedure and knew these pictures should not be distributed then they should be held accountable for it.
Don't charge them for mistakes. Charge them if they willfully breached protocol for their own fun. And make it harsh.
Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others (Score:5, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. There's a reason I don't own a television. The TV shows produced with a big budget use it to depict grisly murder on a nightly basis (Dexter, CSI). The ones with a smaller budget use it to depict misery and failure ('reality' TV). The religious channels wallow in it and use it to guilt people into donating money, thereby excoriating their guilt, which instantly translates into 'I can watch it some more now, and even if I'm a horrible person for doing it, I'm also forgiven.' The hundreds of available channels serve only to multiply the effect. No thanks.
Because it's interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every visit http://www.stileproject.com/ [stileproject.com] ? It's full of death, accident, and medical photos. It's interesting. If you've ever wondered what happens, for example, when a motorcycle loses against an 18-wheeler, you can see for yourself.
It's plain old curiosity.
Everyone is fascinated with images of mortality, for in them they see their own possible demise.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that will give some sense to the death of their daughter is if it deters other young men and women from doing the same mistake.
The problem is that it won't.
These shock campaigns do *zero* to prevent young people from repeating the mistakes. Most youth believe they are invincible, and act accordingly. Showing them stuff like this just makes them say "oh, gross" as they repeat the mistakes, believing that it will never happen to them.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about another parent who maybe saw their innocent child "in that way" because of the actions of an impaired, drug-addicted teenager driving a stolen car recklessly through a residential neighborhood. It's not like the girl was only putting herself in danger. She clipped another car then slammed in to a toll booth. She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.
I understand she had suffered a brain injury early in life and there were other circumstances that contributed to her addiction, and I'm not judging her for any of that. But her actions could have been devastating to another family as well.
I have no idea who is taunting this family, and agree sending the photos to the family simply to taunt them is a dick move. But they are displaying classic Streisand Effect tactics: telling the rest of us we should give up our freedom and anonymity rather than them accepting that their daughter's actions may ultimately result in them seeing some horrific photos of the way her corpse looked after she killed herself.
The article states that they are all getting counseling and I think that is a good thing. My family suffered the loss of a child, and it is a life-altering experience for everyone left behind. I think they need to deal with accepting her loss, the guilt they may be feeling for actions/inactions on their part that all of us feel "when it's too late," and they need to come to terms with the fact that these photos are out there.
Keeping the other kids off the social network sites is probably a good idea for the time being, but they all need to prepare themselves for the possibility that they may encounter them one day.
Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have the right to complain about the stupid callous behavior of others. And I also have a right to point out when my police department violates protocol. The family of course has no right to censor the internet, and they can't even if they tried. They would just end up having to see the photos more often in an attempt to censor them.
Such photos have to be taken as part of police protocol, records must be kept. How those records are disseminated are of critical importance to all of us.
Generally speaking, as a society we do shun people waving banners of dead mutilated babies in the street. And most people aren't brought over to someone's side because of disruptive and shocking photos (referring to various protesters who use gory pictures as part of their demonstrations). Also society, generally speaking again, shuns people who would take a picture of a dead teenager and place captions on them at an attempt at humor.
I think fake gore is hilarious, you dress someone up with blood and brains everywhere, comedy gold to me. But if someone had to die to make the picture well it's a little harder to laugh at it. Sure laughter can be good medicine, but so far all the jokes with the photos were unfunny and in poor taste. For a tragedy to be a comedy I think there needs to be some irony, and there is no here. Deaths like these are just some stupid shit that happens all too often.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some asshole hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some assholes with bombs hadn't killed the child.
Well said.
In this case, we shouldn't wish that the pictures hadn't been posted. We should wish that the girl hadn't taken cocaine, hadn't driven at 100 mph on that road, hadn't lost control, and hadn't died.
in the UK, I imagine it would be an easy case of 'causing alarm or distress'
Here, I disagree. One person's "alarm or distress" is another person's "freedom of speech." We can generally agree in this case, but where do we draw the line? It isn't very far from this to "don't depict Mohammed in a cartoon."
At the end of the day, you can always filter your own mail, and grow a stronger skin. However, once we start censoring, you cannot express certain things, even when they are appropriate.
What they did was an act of singular cruelty, and what I have said should not be misconstrued as a defence of them or their actions.
According to the family, so was publishing the photos at all.
I would not defend their actions, but I would defend their right to take such action. And I find it especially ironic that you close with:
Surely a good reason to oppose censorship.
...except the censoring of sufficiently alarming or distressing things?
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the people in the other car she hit?
Has poor Mr. Catsouras got anything to say about that?
The term for this is... (Score:3, Insightful)
...Streisand Effect.
For once, I actually feel sorry for the family, and would much rather the images never made it out. However, the consequences of having an Internet capable of silencing something like this, once it's out, are unacceptable.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "censorship". To call it this is silly. The parents arguably have a case about their consitutional right to privacy being violated. You cannot have "privacy" without this thing that you and the GP are calling "censorship".
You do not have a right to say, or do what ever you want and then cry "censorship" when someone tries to stop you.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm always amazed by the comments of people who consider themselves less well off. Your comments are a thinly veiled attack on them because they have more money than you. Sad.
Believe it or not, being successful does not make you an asshole, it just makes you successful.
Re:Because it's interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
you can see for yourself. It's plain old curiosity.
I could, but I most certainly won't. There are things I'm just not curious about. I know such accidents exist, I know people are fragile, I know people die. I don't need to see it in detail.
Everyone is fascinated with images of mortality.
That some people are fascinated with those pictures is fairly self-evident. However, most of us are grossed out and feel the pain of empathy for the victims and their families. These are not pleasant feelings, and we try not to seek them out.
That said, I don't believe in censorship, and as long as all you're doing is viewing those photos, go ahead I guess. Just don't send it to the rest of us, please. Also, the people who leaked the photos should be sued. The people who sent the photos to the family via e-mail should be prosecuted for harassment.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why people feel the way they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Acting like she was some kind of mental handicap is a bit silly. There is no guarantee that had anything to do with this and it'd be my opinion that it would more likely be plain old peer pressure that caused her to try cocaine.
While this may have started off for those reasons. Their fight only makes things worse because people go through this same sort of thing all the time and they don't have rich parents wanting to make a scene and change their law for their child.
It's no surprise they're all in therapy if they're basically putting themselves in the poor house over this.
I personally rather run the risk of seeing pictures of dead family members online rather do something that could lead to the hindrance of free speech because as it's been said this isn't a problem with free speech. It's a problem with some clowns not taking their job seriously and it's rather common as I knew a volunteer fireman who kept a photo album of accident pictures and he had shown them to people like it was his pride and joy.
People have always been like this and always will and you can't stop it by passing a law. You only end up ruining life for those with decency.
Re:Seems like karma to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because they're well off does not mean their motivations are any different to yours: happiness, family, safety, achievements, fulfilment, etc.
Leaving aside the question of whether they're well off, different lifestyles do actually reflect different motivations.
Your comments are a thinly veiled attack on them because they have more money than you.
Getting back to the question of whether they're well off, the article mentions that they've taken out a second mortgage on their house. Depending when they took out their mortgage relative to the housing downturn, they may actually have a negative net worth (owe more than their assets). Given that I have positive net worth, I may actually have more money than they do. On the other hand, they are almost certainly spending/consuming at a much greater rate than me.
Believe it or not, being successful does not make you an asshole, it just makes you successful.
They lived in a bubble where everyone around them either believed that (e.g. their neighbors) or pretended to believe that (e.g. their hair stylist). The internet popped that bubble. The family was exposed to the fact that a lot of people don't respect, and even dislike, rich people.
Now, you're probably going to claim that there is no reason not to admire and respect rich people. My view is that the situation is complex and nuanced and can be argued either way
First, there is a fundamental question of whether the purpose of life is to do as much as you can for yourself or to do as much as you can for others. But the situation is more complicated. Some people would argue that doing as much as you can for yourself is equivalent to doing as much as you can for others because people are compensated according to how much they contribute to the economy. That is, rich people deserve to be rich and, furthermore, rich people should be admired and respected because they have contributed the most to society.
Of course, there are obvious counter-examples to this. Inherited wealth is one example. The financial company CEO's who walked away with hundreds of millions after bankrupting the world financial system are another recent example. Basically, these CEO's exploited flaws in the system to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
If one were given to generalization, one could find numerous examples of people whose wealth or earnings is clearly disproportionate to their contribution to society. One could then make the argument that rich people are people who exploited flaws in the system which allowed them take more than their share: that rich people deserve to be detested and reviled.
So, what's the truth? At the risk of a middle ground fallacy, I'd say that the truth is a little bit of both. Some rich people have made above average contributions to society and some haven't: some rich people deserve to be admired and some rich people deserve to be detested.
So, what about real estate - the profession of the family in question. Well, land isn't generally created or destroyed. In a certain sense, real estate is a zero sum game: for every winner there's a loser. Not only that, but when a person is born into the world, all the land is already allocated out. Some people who were born earlier came along and said "this is mine" - but they didn't produce the land: it was just there. That's not to say that there isn't a legitimate need for a system to decide who gets (exclusive) use of a parcel of land or that real estate agents provide absolutely nothing of value. On the hand, much of real estate is a zero sum game with people trying to take advantage of each other while not actually producing anything of real value.
So you could argue either way: that this family was scum or that they weren't. The reality is that there are people who feel strongly both ways. The internet exposed this family to opinions they don't like (that the family was scum) - but that's the internet for you
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:1, Insightful)
It is you who has not thought it through. Saying "we will never stop harassment" isn't a reason to stop trying to stop harassment.
The behavior behind anyone who intentionally inflicts harassment is something we as a society have to deal with and stamp out. The people intentionally inflicting suffering on others need to be stopped.
Some people like for example the case of the woman bullying a girl who ended up committing suicide demonstrate there are a minority of people in this world who are deeply evil in their intentions to inflicts harassment and suffering on others. Censoring these people isn't the answer.
Like it or not, the Internet is effectively a window into the way people think. That means the whole of society is getting ever more exposed to the thoughts and intentions of others. This is forcing society to have to face up to the horrors of a minority who intentionally inflict suffering on others. Sooner or later that pressure is going to force society to deal with them once and for all. To stamp them out of society once and for all. To no longer have to accept the minority who intentionally inflict suffering on others and show so little empathy to others.
Ultimately the minority who intentionally inflict suffering on others are yet again another example of cluster B personality disorders. Most people don't realize how this minority of people think, yet everyone at some point in their lives sooner or later has to face them and ends up suffering for it. But that is changing. Large numbers of people are starting to understand how they think because now we as a society are having to ever more face up to how they behave on the Internet and the reasons that drive them to behave the way they do.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
A well written post. It will be nice if you can explain some of your finer points, since I don't seem to be capable of comprehending TFA, your post, and further googling.
---
It was a spoilt cocained out of control girl trading hard on the privileges her "loving parents" gave her without regard to common sense ...
I fail to connect between your point and TFA. Where do they fit together?
"In third grade, Nikki was diagnosed with a brain tumor ... 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday -- perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control.
---
... have access to a $90K sportscar ...
Once again I failed to understand what you mean, as I'm confused by TFA again:
a car she was never allowed to drive
Where and how do they fit?
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Sending a taunting email to the father was cruel, and I wouldn't condone that. However, a photograph of an accident site in a public area is a FACT, public information, and I'm not sure intellectual property rights would be relevant.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality of it is she was an out of control 18-year old girl using cocaine and taking a vehicle she wasn't able to drive safely.
Did she use cocaine? yes.
Did she have easy access to the Porsche and keys? yes.
Was she in any way punished or grounded or restricted for use of drugs and stuff? No.
Who is to blame: the parents
Why should we blame the parents: The function of parents is to protect their children. These parents didn't protect her from drugs; they didn't protect her from thinking she had no rules. Clearly they used their privilege of wealth to let her do what she wanted... and so she did.
They should sue themselves.
E P.S. Lest anything I say be construed as some sort of gladness... let me be clear... I'm not "happy" this young lady is dead, nor do I take any special "joy" from pointing a finger at the responsible parties... the adults... the parents... I'm just joining in the discussion to say they have nobody to sue but themselves. If I could wish that girl alive I would.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
This is within the CHP's right to release. What about all the damage she caused. The public has a right to the information through FOIA.
Judging by the action taken by the CHP (suspending the two officers involved) they didn't have the right to release the images in the manner that they did. CHP my have a legal right to release the photos, but it probably doesn't involve leaks to internet websites, it probably involves more formal public channels.
Re:close, but no cigar (Score:1, Insightful)
Harassment is breaking the law you dumb motherfucker!
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, much of my personal information is publicly available if you know where to look... that doesn't give you a right to make a phone call and remind me of all of the painful events in my life.
I would say it does. If you don't want that to happen, hang up on me, and don't post those details in the first place.
He sent it to her family with the intent to do emotional harm... that is, or at least should be, a crime.
So, when a bully teases me on the playground, should I sue?
Sorry, but "intent to do emotional harm" is not a crime, and should not be. When I say "fuck you" right now, I should not go to jail for doing so. And yes, fuck you -- I like my civil liberties.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
"In third grade, Nikki was diagnosed with a brain tumor that doctors didn't think she'd survive. It turned out to be benign, but 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday--perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control."
If this article is to be our source, that seems pretty conclusive to me: Doctors told the parents it might affect her brain in that way. The only part that is "allegation" is that it had something to do with the cocaine use or the activities that night. If you simply want to call people liars without any particular reason to believe it is so, well, I can't stop you. But it's not a compelling argument by any stretch.
They're bad parents because they have a car key somewhere and trusted their daughter not to steal a car? It truly astounds me how much slashdotters who obviously aren't parents think they know about parenting.
I obviously don't know their particular situation, but in my house we have four people (parents, my brother and myself), all of driving age (actually all adults, if that makes any difference). There were keys to just about every car lying around the house, because our driveway is long and we have a garage, but not enough room to put all of the cars in a position that they can leave without having to move any other cars. We can't park on the street overnight due to local legal restrictions, so it's important to us to be able to leave at whatever time we want without having to wake people up and rummage through their purse or pockets. I suppose my parents are bad parents if this leads to me stealing their car without their permission, speeding down the highway and wrecking into a tollbooth?
Erm, how the hell do you know? And what does "and stuff" mean?
Maybe she wasn't punished for drugs. We'll assume you're right, even though you're obviously just making shit up to fit your theory. Time and again here we belittle law enforcement for punishing drug users. Clearly, we say, what these people need is help to beat their addictions. Suddenly when it's a parent instead, trying to get help is an inappropriate response? You really believe a good grounding would set a drug addict straight? She was going to a therapist; maybe that was a bad choice and a drug addiction center would have been better. Maybe that choice and those 12 hours were the worst decision they've ever made in their lives -- but it doesn't make them bad parents, particularly if this girl's last brush with cocaine ended up with a cocaine-induced psychosis.
Aside from the fact that I obviously disagree about their responsibility, it's worth noting that this girl was 18 years old herself. If we're compelled to assign responsibility for somebody's actions, I think the adult person whose actions we're talking about is a much more appropriate place to start--particularly if all we have against the parents is "they didn't ground her!" and "they let her steal their car by having a key!" Both of which are frankly ridiculous.
Judging by your previous post... yes, you're just one of those asshats who hate "spoilt" people because they have money you don't; who tries to rationalize their ugly glee at other peoples' misfortunes by whatever means they think might stick to the wall. Give me your parent's email address. I want to let them know what a shitty job they did with you. Fair's fair you know.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:1, Insightful)
Second, if you DO have a coked-up daughter with "impulse control loss" you don't leave keys around whether or not you "...have a long driveway." You "impulse-control proof" your house.
Look this isn't personal but clearly the parents didn't "child-proof" their $90,000 Porsche based on their "impulse control less" daughter or whatever their story is. Clearly they didn't prevent her from getting coked up, and clearly they didn't prevent her from going out.
You can spin it any way you like. They didn't do THEIR JOB to protect THEIR DAUGHTER from herself and from causing harm to others. If you want to make it about me disliking privileged kids you're way offbase. I dislike privileged parents who don't live up to the responsibilities that come with those privileges. Rich or poor, many kids or one, $90K Porsche or $1,500 pickup truck -- that girl had issues and her parents failed her.
Best regards,
E
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, CHP could sue the employees for cost recovery and damages as a result of the infringement, but in reality (a) you don't sue your employees for that kind of thing, and (b) the police union would go apeshit, etc, etc.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
I would not defend their actions, but I would defend their right to take such action.
I find two things terribly wrong with this statement. One of them is that freedom of speech does not, and never has, been intended to allow an attack on private individuals. That's why we have laws covering things from harassment (which this would seem to certainly qualify as) to slander and libel (these don't apply here, but they help illustrate the point where freedom of speech crosses the line). You are free to speak out against a government or other public institution, although you must be able to back up what you say. You are unlikely to wind up in court for privately attacking somebody verbally, although it can happen. In a case like this, though, the sender of those emails ought to face consequences - their actions had no purpose except to harm, you'd be crazy to say that they were not harmful, and there was no form of justification.
Second, regardless of whether the pictures got distributed, the *names* should NEVER have been without express consent. This is more about the cops who released the photos than it is about the assholes who sent the emails, but in any case there is no reason why anybody outside the police department and other organizations directly associated with the event would need to know who this girl was, who her father was, or any other information that could lead somebody to the family's email address. Anonymously distributing the pictures (without consent) as "an example of what a really bad crash can do" still seems a slightly grey area, morally, but there is no reason that they should be distributed without anonymity.
Re:Why people feel the way they do (Score:3, Insightful)
Post a picture of anybody with a good story to go with it and within a week you will have their name, their dogs name and who they bought their house from.
Re:Why people feel the way they do (Score:4, Insightful)
"I personally rather run the risk of seeing pictures of dead family members online rather do something that could lead to the hindrance of free speech because as it's been said this isn't a problem with free speech. It's a problem with some clowns not taking their job seriously and it's rather common as I knew a volunteer fireman who kept a photo album of accident pictures and he had shown them to people like it was his pride and joy.
People have always been like this and always will and you can't stop it by passing a law. You only end up ruining life for those with decency."
Yes, but it will be grandstanded by the legislature in the interest of "protecting us". This is the same reason we have the "Patriot Act" and "Fusion Centers". The politician will say that it is better to take away the rights of millions to save a life - hence the nanny state which is another name for fascism.
All Griefers Go To Hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe it has been standard practice that images taken in a public place are the property of the photographer. They didn't break into a morgue and take the photos. These were taken on a public highway. They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive. In that context, does the good of these images outweigh the family's "right to privacy" on a public road? I understand the pain these images could cause, but they should be able to avoid seeing them. The people e-mailing these photos to them should get prosecuted though.
Yes, the issue here is not the existence of the photos but the person who emailed them to the farther. One has to question their mentality.
no censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seems like karma to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain to me how you are supposed to stop "easy access to coke", if you have a real answer to that I am sure that law enforcement would love to hear your ideas.
That one is so obvious I'm not even sure why I bothered to reply, but still, it has to be said...
You don't stop easy access to coke. You raise your kids in such a way that they don't want that coke in the first place. If you fail in doing so, then, yes, you fail as a parent, and the blame is yours.