FBI's New Tactic May Wrongly Label You as a Sex Offender

By Marsha Raasch, published May 18, 2007
Published Content: 176  Total Views: 398,856  Favorited By: 17 CPs
Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites
Rating: 4.6 of 5
 
Font
 
Font
Are you a parent or grandparent? Do you take pictures of your children or grandchildren? Chances are really good if you answered yes to the first question, you answered yes to the second as well. I don't know too many people who don't enjoy taking pictures of the beautiful, enchanting, frustrating, annoying, cute and messy little people they share their lives with.

But the FBI has issued blankets requests to computer repair shops and photo processing labs to report any "suspicious" pictures of kids, even if the person making the call isn't sure if an activity is illegal or not. The national chains: Costco, Rite-Aid, Wal-Mart, and CVS, also have put in place company policies that require them to notify the authorities about any compromising activity they see in customers' photos in the lab.

This, of course, makes the line between criminal activity and innocent child portraiture a blurry one, since leaving it up to individual interpretation involves culture, community standards, personal opinion, and even whether or not the viewer has kids. The final determination of what is criminal and what is merely family fun is up to law enforcement officials, but just the investigation is tragic for many families. The proponents of this plan say that we should view innocent photos through the eyes of a pedophile for the safety of the children.

Citing the safety of children is a pretty sure bet to get anything done. Even child pornography experts say that even innocent pictures can be used improperly, similar to a teenage boy using the Sears' catalog as pornographic material. Think back over the pictures you've taken of your children: the obligatory lying naked on a rug or blanket as a baby; the obligatory bathtub shots as a toddler; running through the sprinklers with little or no clothing as a preschooler; mooning you or each other as a funny act of rebellion; and many, many other instances that in the wrong hands could label you as a sex offender.

 
Share
 
Save For Later
 
Publish Yours
 
Print
More by Marsha Raasch
View all »

Even innocent seeming pictures of the children you love can look criminal in the wrong hands.

Credit: Justyna Furmanczyk

Copyright: Justyna Furmanczyk

You may also like...
Other topics: 
Takeaways
  • Computer repair shops are required to report anything "suspicious" in nature.
  • Employees of photo processing labs are trained to look for possible child exploitation.
  • What looks criminal and suspicious is often a matter of opinion by untrained people.
Resources
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 40
Next >>
 
Wow! I did not know they were doing this. I am so glad I know how to fix my own computer and use only a digital camera. I have two toddlers and my husband is getting deployed shortly so pictures are big around our house. I could never imagine someone accusing anyone of being a "perv" just for taking pictures of their kids. Excellent article.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/29/2007 at 12:05:00 PM

 
I was unaware that they had cameras in the 18th century, lol. But seriously, pictures like that could have gone either way and the source of the photographs should have been taken into consideration. Was it a single dude with pictures of naked kids dancing? If so, yeah, he's a perv. If it's their grandma, that needs to be noted and considered before charges are brought up. There's a lack of common sense these days that's nothing short of disturbing.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/21/2007 at 10:05:00 PM

 
great article! This is just going to be a waste of taxpayers money and misery for those who go under investigations. What if you do get accused, your life is thrown in a blender because some clerk at WalMart thought that kids trying to dunk Daddy in the pool seemed obscene. Another stupid idea from the government.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 5:05:00 PM

 
My biggest problem with this isn't the potential FBI abuses; it is the fact that serious pervs will just take digital pictures and learn to fix their own computers, which means that the FBI will be focusing a great deal of attention on a focus that will net them very few big criminals.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 3:05:00 PM

 
That's why I was always careful during the bathtub shots to make sure all I got was her face hiding behind the tub with bubbles in her hair, or wearing a diaper. I never did the types of photos that my mom did, the naked on the floor next to a beer bottle. Some times the pictures are so innocent and it shows but other times you just don't know. You have to be careful what types of pictures you take now a days.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 1:05:00 PM

 
Well even before this situation, I have always avoided taking any type of nude pictures of my kids and my youngest son is 6 and there have been the funniest things that happened when they were babies but now a days anything can wind up on the internet. My husband wanted pictures of me in the natural and i have said no. I would freak if in the upload process some hacker would get thier hands on them.My mom use to take the famous naked baby picture that gets shown to your husband when your older but now a days its just a risk. These sex offenders are everywhere. So if you are a mom and do plan on taking that one embarrising picture to show when thier older remember thier is still poloroids.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 11:05:00 AM

 
The problem lies in the idea that one has to go into debt in order to get innocence proved, yet the media is quick to brand people with nasty headlines because it sells paper. There should be a legal remedy that is free.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 10:05:00 AM

 
I've got 7 children who get themselves into countless funny situations like the grandma's bed photo. This is scary and is an example of government overstepping and getting involved in peoples lives where it shouldn't. I would like to see statistics of how many "grandma's" have been apprehended, as opposed to real pedophiles.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 9:05:00 AM

 
What happens if you take nude pictures of your girlfriend but she does not look 18 say she has baby face, small features, and looks 15-16....what is going to be the remedy in that situation? Boyfriend gets dragged into court, accused of being a pedophile...?? A lame ass apology..because this scenario can happen? People who develop photos for a living have not the capability and years of training nor can they ever have to differentiate between innocent photos and pedophiles..they are not profilers...they just work at CVS for 8 bucks an hour is that, and I'm to trust my innocence to this person? This makes A MOCKERY OF LAW AND PROCEDURE.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 9:05:00 AM

 
Sounds like no more film, get a digital camera and never fix your computer just buy another one.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 9:05:00 AM

 
The authorities always say it's best to "err on the side of caution". That's probably true but it can be overdone. For me, I'm just glad I have my digital camera and don't need to go to a photo developer. All they would say of mine anyway is "oooh and ahhh" because my granddaughter is a toddler and cute as a bug. I'm all in favor of stomping out pedophiles, but it's overkill when innocent people are dragged into a court situation.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 9:05:00 AM

 
What sort of training does the 17 year old clerk at Eckerd or WalMart photo processing have to discern what is and is not obscene? A mother breastfeeding a 1 year old? A 3 yo naked in a sprinkler? A father cosleeping with his toddler and baby? If law enforcement is going to require such reporting, then there must be extensive, mandatory TRAINING for all front-line photo processing employees. Otherwise this is a violation of citizen rights and a HUGE drain on federal funds and a waste of taxpayer money.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 8:05:00 AM

 
Over-agressive, illegal FBI harassing citizens, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations: They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon. They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina. They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps. They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus. They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing. They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't. Support indy media. Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 7:05:00 AM

 
And what if, instead of granny taking the pictures of the girls dancing naked on the bed, it was some slathering dude with sweaty palms. Things like that, I'm sorry to say, have to be reported. Not because kids jumping around au natural is perverted, but because its impossible to know if it was or not unless someone checks it out.

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 7:05:00 AM

 
Good report. These criminals should be exposed by whatever means possible. I don't think that means we have to stop taking pictures of our babys' butts while laying on the bed or playing with rubber ducky in the bath. As for computers, if there is criminal activity - it should be reported - no different than if you had cocaine in your car while stopped for speeding. It's the only way we can find these people and lock 'em up!

Add a Comment

Posted on 05/20/2007 at 7:05:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 40
Next >>
Most Commented On
 
Apply Now »