Ian, I have worked in this field.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
The idea that "it is few statistically" is simply false.
I don't understand on what basis it could be argued that "even fewer ... use photography"
The point being that abuse within families is a significant and horrible problem that has remained untroubled by public attention; most attention is given to the (truly) few (statistically speaking) "strangers" who abuse children, which allows the rest of the population to maintain the fiction that "this doesn't happen in families".
Fortunately, this is changing, albeit slowly. One effect of that change is situations occur like that of the OP, where someone's judgment rather failed them.
However, if inconvenience and unpleasantness for someone like the OP is all that has to be suffered, that's fine by me. It proves that people have had their eyes opened.
I think you miss most points, the issue really is what's normal and what's deviant, my take is I have tfriends whom have been abused and photography isn't/wasn't an issue.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
Just to be fair to the photo lab, are lab required by law to report naked kid photos to authorities?
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
It proves that we are living in a world in which a fear of the unknown dictates our every move. The photograph was destroyed for fear of what might happen. Yes, our eyes have been opened a great deal since 9/11 and the result is that we want to predict every one in a million threat to our comfortable lives, but we can't.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
At the top of the food chain, with as much material comfort and convenience as our species will ever have, I think we have to make up threats in order that we don't just fall asleep. I think pedophilia has only increased in proportion with the population.
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde
Originally Posted by photopriscilla
sorry to hear your troubles
but unfortunately the passport office
has specific rules for passport photographs.
i don't think your image was rejected because it was a topless photograph,
but because the head was too small ...
the head has to be a certain size in the image
no glasses, &c.
i used to take them once in a while at a portrait studio ( portrait mill )
and there was a drawing inside the eyepiece that showed where the head
was supposed to be ..
for a RA / green card it is even more strict, specific profile ears uncovered and prominently
displayed in the small 1x1" image ...
bon voyage !
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It's all part of the new Zero-tolerance policies that have been enacted in recent years; it enables authorities to NOT have to think through their decisions or pass judgments. And you can thank litigation-mad attorneys and a public who views the justice system as lottery.
I don't know about the environment in Australia. Here in the US, I would say the photolab employee could have been guarding himself against the political correctness environment we have. "Zero tolerance" is an expression that blithers from the lips of the political class. Humorously, the following short clip may very well illustrate the best policy:
Originally Posted by jumbosilverette
Ultimately, this is where digital has always been the winner. Privacy. The photo lab, nobody, sees any images we don't wish to share. Nobody ever wanted a middleman, especially not a prying middlemen, but somebody had to do the dirty work of developing and printing.
Makes ya wonder though. With middlemen (of all sorts, from photo labs to schoolteachers to bus drivers) "blowing the whistle" on everything they see or hear (or rather think they saw, or heard) how does any child abuse ever happen? I think too often it happens spontaneously, in anger, and there was no warning. All these prying eyes and well meaning folk never see any signs. When they DO see "signs" they go all gaga and say YES WE GOT ONE and of course it turns out to be nothing of the sort. Just some wasted policeman's time and salary. I'd REALLY REALLY like to know how many times REAL abusers are caught by these practices. If it's 1 out of a hundred, great, but I'm betting one would be hard to find.
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.
Sorry, I cannot agree with some of the posts above. It is not political correctness, it is the result of horrendous behavior by many individuals.
There are people out there with libraries of pictures of naked children who also engage in horrible physical and sexual abuse of children.
The "zero tolerance" rules are there to take the discretion out of the hands of people like store clerks and lab employees.
The discretion and judgment is quite rightly transferred to people who are knowledgeable about the scourge of child abuse.
The problem with the OP's situation isn't with the lab, it is with the police, who followed up, determined that there was no problem, but confiscated the entirely innocent slide anyways.
The police may have been forced to confiscate the slide, due to the rules they are required to enforce. If so, those rules need reviewing.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Originally Posted by MattKing
There was a case here in Minnesota (US) where a father had taken a cell phone video of his kids running around naked. It was his employer provided phone and, when he brought it in for some technical reason, the video was found and police involved. He was charged and only after a while were charges dropped. He was certainly guilty of very poor judgement, but nothing else. None the less, those who found the video and notified police did the right thing.
"Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer