This article from next month’s Popular Photography describes the murky legal ground about photographs getting developed and reported to the authorities because it may depict some sort of crime according to the judgment of the person who developed them. Most of the article is about the dire consequences parents can face if they take pictures of their own children naked. Even if they don’t ever intend to publish them the authorities claim “that we all have to view innocent photos through the eyes of a pedophile, for the good of the children.” They base this on the fact that there were several cases when the developer kept copies of photos like this. Therefore the biggest stores (Costco, CVS, Rite-Aid, and Wal-Mart) have now a “better-safe-than-sorry” policy that compels them to notify the police about any criminal activity they see in customers’ photos.
I personally think this is rather twisted logic. Because of a few bad clerks now everybody has to self-sensor her/himself. From my perspective it would be simpler and more conducive for intellectual freedom if these companies would have better background check on their employees and would do everything in their power to prevent employees steeling customers’ pictures.
The article suggests that “the question of whether you surrender privacy rights when you hand over a computer full of personal information to a repair shop is still open.” I would think you don’t surrender your privacy rights. Just like when you borrow a book only you should know what you got. In an ideal situation not even your librarian has to be aware of your reading habits, unless you volunteer some information about it yourself (such as asking for a reference.)
At the same time I agree with the idea that the police (and other agencies) has to crack down on child pornography. They have to do it when and where it really happens. Trying to prevent is a noble cause to but proving the intent of a crime can play out as thought-police-work. That I do not support.
The article cited other examples when photographers were reported, not just child pornography, like shots of marijuana plants and even “a classroom civics assignment to photographically illustrate the Bill of Rights, he’d cut out a magazine photo of President George W. Bush, tacked it to a wall with a red thumbtack through the head, made a thumb’s down sign next to it, and snapped a picture.” But the piece ended on the grandmother, an acclaimed photographer, who got busted for the pictures of her grandchildren. She wrote a book about the experience. This is how she perceives now the limitation on her freedom: “They took away my innocence, constricted my vision, brainwashed me into seeing things differently. They definitely changed my pictures of children.”
This entry is part of my Intellectual Freedom series.
