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.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Informative)
...but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.
That is correct, sir, and here are the pics you were looking for [bestgore.com].
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
If you can't set a good example, at least be a horrible warning.
With pics.
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)
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: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: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.
Re:Why people feel the way they do (Score:5, Interesting)
this has nothing to do with free speech. One of the OBLIGATIONS of law enforcement is that privacy of certain records is maintained because it's "abusive" for information they obtain in investigations to be used without going through the proper lawyers. Law enforcement ALREADY knows the images taken can hurt people if misused and has rules their employees chose to ignore.
They all know these rules when they sign up, it's very clear, and in this case chose not to follow them.
Re:Why people feel the way they do (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a problem with some clowns not taking their job seriously
Truly. You'd think that this type of thing would be equal to HIPAA
Re: (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: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:5, Interesting)
You can question whether or not other people have the right to see images like that. Personally, I consider pictures of someones death and/or mutilated body are more personal/private than ones genitals.
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.
So what is the penalty of leaking images like this? I take it they will lose their jobs and face a civil lawsuit from the parents, but will they be fined or face jail-time?
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Informative)
The photos weren't taken by a member of the public, but either a) a police photographer, who you can be sure is covered both under the above, and also a stipulation in their employment contract that all images they create for and on behalf of the CHP are the property of CHP, or b) by a CHP officer, also subject to the above.
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 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.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:4, Funny)
A person's likeness, being a natural trait and not the design of any human, doesn't meet the requirement.
What about people that have had plastic surgery?
Re: (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: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: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:4, Interesting)
We can probably isolate three people doing potentially wrong things here.
Firstly, whomever leaked the image to the public. Without knowing the motivation, we can't say much about that. You can argue in their favor and say this was done as a wakeup call to the public about the dangers of reckless behaviour or you could look at it as pointless shocker imagery. I, for one, would go with the free speech argument.
Then, there's the person captioning the image as described in TFS. Freedom of Speech and satire on one hand, impiousness and causing alarm or distress on the other. Again, I'd argue in favor of FoS, as long as this isn't presented in a deceptive, shocker site fashion.
Lastly, there's sick bastards attempting to deceive people into viewing this under the pretense of legitimate content, like property listings. I'm not quite sure how one could possibly argue in favor of that. To me, this seems very fucking sick and absolutely unnecessary. This is where people should, in my opinion, be prosecuted.
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: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
there will always be loopholes and things that are forbidden that shouldn't be if you try it.
That is true. However, you can usually be more specific than "I know it when I see it."
More importantly, laws should be written to avoid false positives. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Given you did read it, and you don't seem to have liked reading it
Actually, I was quite amused.
you can stop me doing this again, but you've already suffered some very small emotional harm,
Perhaps. I'm also somewhat immunized to this sort of thing in the future.
none of the fixes you suggest would stop me using another identity and a rewording of the same text to be similarly offensive in future.
True. But if it barely affected me now, and now I'm ready for it, it's certainly not going to have much more effect in the future.
If on the other hand I'd somehow found out that you'd recently split up with someone, and I sent you that sentence in a private email, then it would probably hurt you a lot more.
"A lot more" isn't saying much. I'll concede that, but i
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:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The letter was *sent* to the father, disguised as a house listing. Something that he as a Realtor would open and read. It was not accidental, and it was not random spam.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Parent implies link to virus! (Score:5, Informative)
-MILDLY IMPORTANT-
If you do go to that website be warned, it does contain the images mentioned but also a video. THIS VIDEO IS A VIRUS. It didn't run very well in WINE but some people have less secure nonfree operating systems.
tl;dr
If you go to her name dot net the video is a virus.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
No about the sociopathy. One's mental state while under drugs is not the same as one's normal mental condition, and this sounds like the flying-high, stupid behavior of a teenager on cocaine. And her family didn't give her access to the car: she stole it from them. I'm really sorry for them: they were apparently starting the long, hard process of dealing with a cocaine user in the family. She doesn't deserve that insult: she might well seriously regret her behavior, when off the cocaine, that she engaged in
Re: (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:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not that they are well off that irks people. Its what they choose to do with that wealth.
I'm a physician and make about $250-300k a year. With this I pay off the debt I accrued in medical school (I put myself through undergrad and med school because I am from a very poor background. Poor as in welfare, foodstamps, and housing projects.) I also pay the mortgage on two adjacent (although modest) homes for myself and my partner's elderly parents. My partner and I share a 6 year old civic (hybrid) although he has 2 used motorcycles as well. We donate about 10% of our income, and I volunteer 2 days a week at a free clinic.
If I had ten times the money I wouldn't buy a porche. I also wouldn't spend my money on a quixotic quest for retribution through the legal system.
That said, the parents of this girl have every right to do so. And we have every right to say that their quest, while understandable, is dangerous in that it threatens the freedoms of speech rights of an entire country. And that statement is not from a place of class rivalry, but from an understanding of free speech and the necessity of defending even repulsive free speech.
You can't just say that censorship is OK when applied to douchebags. Arguably the people who post these pictures and link to them are supreme douchebags. However, I also think that Bobby Jindal, Karl Rove, and the entire membership of the KKK are also arguably supreme douchebags. However others would disagree with me. So we can't use douchebaggery as a bar for censorship. In fact its the very speech that repulses us most that we must defend because that's where freedom of speech is most easily chipped away. See Virginia v. Black et al. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=14776 [firstamendmentcenter.org]
In order for speech to be free, even the most repulsive speech must also be protected.
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: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:5, Funny)
"if your dumb enough to do drugs, then your dumb enough to drive too. just look at drunk drivers."
Yes, everyone that ever drank a beer has driven drunk, crashed and died. I forgot about that.
The real reason those who do drugs don't drive is because they have already lost or never had a license, and don't feel the need to drive.
Yes, that too is an indisputable fact, that everyone that's ever smoked weed is a lazy good for nothing that never got a license. Just like all those politicians. That must be why they need chauffeurs!
Your logic is astounding and undeniable sir!
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be easier to sue the police department make some mad $$$ and use all the mad $$$ to do the same thing.
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: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: (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,
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 th
Re: (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: (Score:2, Redundant)
No, the problem is the pictures shouldn't be out there in the first place. The Internet is such a large place that it has plenty of sick fucks who'll do this kind of shit; the police should know this and act accordingly.
Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not either/or. The cops did wrong, should be fired and subject to punishment for any laws they may have broken as well as civil lawsuits. The 4chan kiddies (or more likely, their mommies and daddies) should also be subject to civil suits. Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck. It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free.
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?
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: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: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't think holding inept police department officia
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: (Score:2)
Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy.
Except for the brain tumor and intensive radiation treatment. Yeah, that's a fucking idyllic and easy walk in the park there.
Did you bother to read past the first paragraph?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Perhaps, but if it were my daughter I'd spend every penny I had suing anyone who posted those pictures into bankruptcy. As I (barely) recall CA law they have some pretty strong "right to publicity" laws to protect the use of people's images. While that is designed to allow heirs to control the use of famous, no dead, relatives and profit from their fame; perhaps it could be used in such a situation.
Just because you can do better things doesn't mean you have to let assholes continue to be assholes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the people in the other car she hit?
Has poor Mr. Catsouras got anything to say about that?
cyber-harassment? (Score:4, Insightful)
gross. I don't want to see it either. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want to see these photos, and the parents and family shouldn't ever have to see them either.
The officers and department should probably be punished in some way to avoid this sort of behavior again. I am almost certain there is a policy against releasing accident photos in such a casual way.
As for stopping the spread on the internet, it's too late. It's probably already in the wayback machine and google images cache. At this point the best we can do is make a firefox plug-in that detects the image and censors it. Then install the plug-in on the family's computers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. Forgetting all the exact details for a second, let's say she died because some guy side swiped her off the road and into a tree instead and was not her fault....
Now can you see how unsympathetic it would be to release the death photos from the crash scene? You could almost construe the release of the photos as harassment to the family.
And, on another note, the photo's taken at scenes or wrecks/crimes taken by the police dept.'s camera, and indeed the PD's property and NOT the officer's who took th
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: (Score:2)
Obviously censoring the Internet isn't going to help. Firing the two bozos who leaked the photos would be the first step, just to keep it from happening again. As far as the assholes plaguing the family with photos, the family should change their email addresses.
That being said, do not belittle the loss of a child, especially one in their teens. This alone can devastate a parent's life -- unable to work, to laugh, to do anything other than stare at the wall wishing their child was back. That someone wou
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Let's not go out of our way to rub it into the family's face. 10 years from now these images will still be popping up. Where as in a war zone you'll have hopefully buried/cremated the bodies by then. Just because some have to see it, doesn't mean it's is something we should readily accept due to the carelessness and unprofessionalism of CHP officers.
I don't have to go to Iraq to see dead mutilated bodies, the American streets have this every night when the bars close. I think you're being overly dramatic ab
Re: (Score:2)
Paraphrased: A woman came to the Buddha filled with grief over the death of her child [and fear of someone who kept anonymously leaving paintings on her doorstep depicting the brutal death of her child, reopening those wounds] . 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) [and has been harassed afterward as a result] ." 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 [and the family harassed] , everyone [grew incensed at the injustice done to her because such harassment is not normal] . She went throughout the whole village and [eventually found someone who knew the perpetrators. The village jailed them and the woman found peace, knowing that the evil people would not harm anyone else
Life spares no one of suffering [even criminals]
Is the family over reacting? Also yes.
No. What kind of unfeeling psycho/sociopath are you? They didn't see their daughter's picture in an ad campaign for safe driving, on TV, or in a newspaper. People are deliberately doing harm to the family's emotional and mental stability. "Woohoo Daddy! Hey daddy, I'm still alive." is not a normal caption for a picture like that.
Step 1: They should set their email clients to plain-text
Step 2: They should hire a secretary to filter work email since the job requires that they look at unsolicited imag
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution may be to prevent such
Re: (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, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine had to work crash sites when he was in the Air Force years ago. He was very careful to see that nothing like this ever happened to any of the photos he took. As he put it, "According to the First Amendment, the public has a right to know, but in these cases, they have no need to know." If those two stupid fools had realized this simple fact, none of this would be happening.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Likely to backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The 2 responsible should be fired (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just the start.
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.
How is it possible?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Everyone certainly is not fascinated with such images. I don't know where you get "facts" like that from.
Re: (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 i
*sigh* (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the back story but seriously, this is /. not 4chan. You can curse here and please use paragraphs.
Thanks.
Seems like karma to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems like karma to me. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about karma, but I don't have much sympathy for the kid. She knew the risks of cocaine when she decided to use it. Unfortunately, only her family has to live with the consequences.
Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If it's not a crime, it should be. (Score:2)
We give members of the police, fire department, IRS, etc. authority over us, and grant them special access to our personal affairs to allow them to do their jobs.
When these people abuse their authority, or misuse this special access, they're not just betraying their organization, they're betraying all of society. As such, this shouldn't be just an internal disciplinary matter: it should be a crime.
IANAL: is there in fact a criminal charge that can be laid on these guys, something specific to their role as
Re: (Score:2)
The photographs were collected as part of a police investigation. As such, they are a matter of public record, and can be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The only "crime" committed here is that two officers did not follow internal policy, which is hardly a federal offense.
From what I understand, the officers in question were disciplined for not following the proper procedure.
Or, are you suggesting that pictures taken by the police are not subject to disclosure? Be careful what you wi
Re: (Score:2)
All Griefers Go To Hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe (Score:5, Funny)
Long live Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!
Is it not a little ironic that they are all long dead?
Re: (Score:2)
... and I'm not feeling too good either!