Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,557   Posts: 1,646,477   Online: 683
      
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 145
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    ... the problem here is the police officer's reaction. Having decided that no crime had been committed and told you as much, the failure to return the image is an improper confiscation of goods. The police aren't allowed to just take shit off you because someone else had a moral panic, and you know that.
    I wonder if perhaps the police officer, by keeping the 'problem' image, was in effect saying, "No problem this time, but if we receive future calls about similar images of yours, it can be used to establish a pattern of 'improper behavior'".

  2. #72
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,649
    No need for keeping it though. Aside of acting very symbolic.

  3. #73
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,718
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    Almost everything in life is context.

    And some people aren't capable of discerning it.

    We are surrounded by stupidity, and must always adapt to the most unevolved the group.
    thanks for being the voice of reason !

  4. #74
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,449
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    I can't sell you a hot dog without taking a course on food safety and undergoing health inspections. I have to have licenses and pay fees for all of this.

    But, who trained the employees of that business in pornography detection?
    We have mandatory-reporting training in Australia and many professions must attend it and be appropriately certified, just like with food safety. I'd not be surprised if lab operators were included. It's not porn-detection, but fine-tuning one's suspicion of abuse in all forms. You may not see the need for it, but it is there.

    For example, I used to be an adjudicator for schools debating and as such was regularly in the same room with schoolkids so I had to do the training. Doctors, psychologists, anyone with assumed regular contact with children or authority-figure status as part of their profession, must do the training and be up-to-date.

    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    How were these employees informed that they were responsible for detecting and reporting pornography? Did some government official send them a letter? Did they get a visit from the police? Did they just read about it in the newspaper? Who told them to interpret photographs in order to report them?
    The mandatory-reporting training is generally an item in their contract of employment. And it's not "detecting pornography", it's "detecting mistreatment".

    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    Who taught them the legal standards for judging photographs as pornography? Don't give me the, "I know it when I see it," argument. This is different. A man's liberty and property are at stake. It's not just a case of freedom of speech.
    No, it's pretty well-defined. The issue is not the image, the issue is what the image documents as occurring. Obviously people report things all the time that amount to nothing, and it is expected that those accepting the reports will filter accordingly. Most people making reports have only very partial information and it is expected that multiple reports will be gathered before any action occurs. Having the police confiscate the photo and the customer even notified of the report is highly unusual.

    Yes, it's very big-brother, which is a whole other political argument not to have here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    Which employees took a seminar in pornography detection? Are they lawyers? Are they criminal psychologists? Where are their degrees? Where are their certificates? Who paid the fees and secured the licenses? How can untrained, unlicensed and uneducated store employees be expected to know the law and act correctly? We're talking about the possibility of sending a man to jail, here!
    Not on the basis of a report, no. Reports are not charges, let alone convictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    I don't care if this happened in Adelaide or Albuquerque. If I owned a photo lab, I would instruct my employees to NOT report any photographs to the police unless it was absolutely, crystal clear that something illegal was taking place in the pictures.

    I don't think the business owner was right, in any sense of the word, to do what he did.
    You do that in Australia and you are opening yourself to criminal charges: "mandatory reporting" is exactly what it says on the tin. Again, the report is not a conviction, the report is merely information which in this case probably should've been ignored but was probably handled by the wrong police officers.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,140
    polyglot,

    Your message #80 pretty well explains things - and I hope it 'ties the ribbon' on this thread.

  6. #76
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,449
    Images
    12
    Thanks. Some more info on the legislation here: Mandatory Reporting.

    I don't know what state Lowly is in though, and I don't see photo-lab operators in any of those lists except for Northern Territory (note that the lists are professionals who will be serious hot water for failing to report; anyone at all can make a report if they perceive an issue). It's possible that the lab operator had had training from some other context, or that they were just a damn busybody and called the wrong peoples.

    Anyway, none of that excuses police destruction of private and personal property (with significant emotional meaning, not to mention emotional impact on the new victim!) without a crime being previously committed.

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    I just got the film back from the shopfront - much happier now my pictures are mine again.

    I don't have any issue with the police - the constables didn't know much about the laws and were sent to just do the paperwork. From what they said, because "a member of the public" had complained, and because it involved child nudity, it automatically got classified at the lowest level and had to be destroyed. The picture destroyed can be debated by others, but my main issue is with the lab. Remember, this picture was not in a display in a public space, it was not digital where I had a chance to review it, it was not developed film that had been seen. It was only because of a complaint from a member of the public that there was an incident. 3 rolls of family snaps in that batch - 108 pictures (minus some that had some sort of light leak problem). This is where it solely comes down to the judgement of the lab.

    People can say it's not the fault of the lab, and those people can continue to support them if they want to. But when the innocent act of recording your family growing up is interfered with, when every time you press the shutter you have in the back of your head "is some person in a photolab going to call the police on a whim?" - well that is not a thought I want in my head when taking pictures of spontaneous moments. I'll never ever have any film processor develop my film again.
    Last edited by Lowly; 06-17-2013 at 11:47 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling

  8. #78
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,449
    Images
    12
    Completely agree with how you feel about the lab, and I wouldn't hold back on letting them know that. The "had to be destroyed" line is bullshit though, that's just made-up on the spot. Random members of the public cannot cause your property to be destroyed.

    If you need any help with getting your own process going, we will of course help. Are you in South Australia by any chance?

  9. #79
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowly View Post
    I just got the film back from the shopfront - much happier now my pictures are mine again.

    I don't have any issue with the police - they constables didn't know much about the laws and were sent to just do the paperwork. From what they said, because "a member of the public" had complained, and because it involved child nudity, it automatically got classified at the lowest level and had to be destroyed.

    That's crazy. If a museum has a valuable original Wynn Bullock print of his nude daughter in a forest, are they going to confiscate it and destroy it if someone objects? And what is this "member of the public" business? Since when do random people get to pass judgment on your stuff and the police will enforce it? Don't you have even a minimum of due process there? I find it hard to believe that you don't have a right to have a magistrate review this case before anything is destroyed. If the cops can summarily destroy your property based on a complaint from a member of the public, then you have no property rights. Sounds like bureaucratic BS from some cops that are making it up as they go along.

    Your wife was right to want to fight it, on principle alone. Stop being so meek and gullible. Stop siding with the cops. They were jerks to you and violated your property rights.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    Polyglot - pm'd.

    I'll leave the fight for the films destruction to other people (there have already been cases involving artists and photographs of children in Australia which were won by the artists). It was just a happy snap - I can easily take another picture of my child's bottom

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin