
How to Destroy Someone's Life or They called me a child pornographer - georgecmu
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2006/07/18/photos
======
cagey
We had "a run in" with Child Protective Services about 10 years ago. The
charge: "Shaken Baby Syndrome" (symptoms medically caused; a long story). The
"advocates" at CPS had me and my wife (in hospital having just delivered child
#2) tried and convicted immediately. Only, I think, thru my self-advocacy
directly to the head of pediatrics at the county hospital where my child was
being held for examination, resulted in the case being resolved in our favor
within a few days (in contrast, I could have talked to the bureaucrats until I
died w/o making the slightest headway). Due process? What's that? Various
lawyers I consulted advised me to not even hire a lawyer (imagine multiple
lawyers saying _that_!) because the law was so stacked against parents, and so
completely protective of the CPS bureaucrats, that it would be an utter waste
of money with no hope of lawyer-aided "victory".

Miraculously we got our kids back in very short order, however the bureaucrats
wouldn't give us the slightest scrap of documentation that the event had ever
taken place (and this remains true til now). And needless to say, we received
no apology either (at best they were all "just doing their jobs", just like
concentration camp guards).

I have nothing good to say about the arbitrary, condescending, totalitarian
bureaucrats/"advocates", or the (CA) legislators who wrote such one sided laws
("for the children", no doubt) giving these petty tyrants their obscene
powers. I guess many reading this will think "necessary collateral damage by
wonderful, diligent state employees pursuing the greater good"; all well and
good until _you_ are the ones in their crosshairs: then we'll hear what kind
of tune _you_ sing about the glories of the state when you are deprived of due
process among other things.

~~~
Confusion

      (at best they were all "just doing their jobs", just like concentration camp
      guards)
    

Quoted for truth. This is not an invocation of Godwin's law, but the closest
possible analogy, as these bureaucrats make the exact same repugnant decisions
someone like Eichmann made. They fully well _know_ they ruin the lives of many
innocent folks; at least half the cases turn out to have been nothing. The
problem is not 'the government' or 'society'. The problem is our neighbors:
citizens like you and me, not realizing they have to question what they do in
the light of each individual situation, not thinking for themselves or not
having the moral fiber to act according to those thoughts.

These horror stories are not solely an American problem: there are plenty of
similar European stories. However, the American stories are by far more
extreme, as both the punishment and the immediate social consequences are
worse. Not only the bureaucrats are like concentration camp guards: the
teachers that immediately distrust you and the neighbors that won't let their
kid play with yours anymore are equally guilty of 'guilty until proven
innocent'.

~~~
motters
Yes the hysteria in Europe is quite similar. I think that part of this has to
do with the fact that whenever a case of child abuse arises, and it's shown
that the social services did not do enough to protect the child from harm,
there's a huge media circus, legal cases brought against the council, heads of
department sacked and so on. So from the social services point of view false
negatives can be prohibitively costly, whereas false positives rarely if ever
make the headlines.

~~~
jacquesm
Recently a dutch study indicated that the false positives are actually by far
the majority of the cases _and_ on top of that plenty of child abuse goes
unnoticed.

False reports out of revenge (for instance, between divorcees, jealous
neighbours or oither idiots) are also very common, and the damage done to
families because of that is significant.

The cure seems to be much worse than the disease here.

Friends of ours had a 'visit' of the dutch equivalent of the 'service' (I use
the term lightly) who kept on suggesting that there must be something wrong.
When the guy got up to make coffee the woman said 'you can tell me now', as
though she was a victim too. Unbelievable, the way these people push their way
in to peoples lives, guilty by default and if you are very very lucky you
might get to keep your kids at their say-so.

------
DanielBMarkham
Welcome to Child Protective Services, where folks with sociology degrees,
sometimes poor cognitivie abilities, and questionable work ethics who want to
be on a mission to save the world are given powers that would make the local
police chief blush.

I hated to write that. Snarky it was. Of course most of the cases these folks
work are really sad -- I have family that work there.

But it's a blunt instrument, and politicians have decided that anything to do
with kids gets "special" treatment. I know of about a dozen good people who
have had run-ins with these guys. None of them were guilty of anything bad,
yet all of them went through hell. (this list includes me) I also know (from
my family members who work there) of really bad people who keep their kids
through atrocity after atrocity. Very sad.

EDIT: Just guessing, but it's almost like the closer to upper-middle class you
are, the more likely you are to be a victim of CPS-gone-wild. The really poor
crackheads don't give a shit, so CPS charges them and shuffles them through
the system. Nobody has resources for these kids, so they go back to mom and/or
dad. The really rich have a platoon of lawyers descend on CPS (and they have
political connections). It's the poor schmucks who have the energy and
wherewithal to screw around with CPS (probably in a useless attempt to save
their reputation) that get dragged through the dirt.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'm just guessing the following numbers for effect, but I believe them to be
true within an order of magnitude.

We have a thousand political systems that can punish people. Each one has at
least a 1% false-positive rate over our lifetime. That means that each of us
will get screwed over many times by government. Hopefully when we get screwed
over it won't be like this guy.

------
btilly
It saddens me that for every ridiculous story like this, there is someone out
there who really thought that trying to bring the case was a good idea.

Some things have improved in recent years. The incidence of bad therapy
leading to false memory syndrome has been reduced, and with it the rate of
false accusations. (There are also now improved odds for abused kids to be
able to get information on what abuse is actually like, rather than getting
detailed, unrealistic fantasies.) Others are worse. For instance in Miami the
rule that sex offenders have to live at least 2500 feet from any school means
that about the only place they could live was under a particular bridge. (As
of April this year they have been transferred elsewhere, but which elsewhere
that is I'm not sure. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony)
for more.)

I would be the last to trivialize abuse or its very real problems. But there
is a world of difference between 50 year olds going after prepubescent kids
and 19 year olds who dated 16 year olds. And there is little to be gained from
treating them all like lepers. Certainly less than could be gained if we, for
instance, took some of the energy that goes into following up on almost
certainly bogus reports and instead put it into improving the foster care
system.

~~~
danbmil99
> there is someone out there who really thought that trying to bring the case
> was a good idea.

Really? Sounds more like there's some cynical jerk with no sense of ethics or
boundaries who gets their jollies by randomly victimizing normal families with
the excessive powers bestowed upon them by paranoid CYA legislation and an
army of deranged ideologues who see abuse everywhere.

~~~
jrockway
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle: "Someone who really doesn't
understand what his job is does some work in an attempt to get a promotion."

~~~
ubernostrum
Most likely: someone whose continued employment depends on turning a certain
minimum percentage of reports into criminal charges/convictions. Busting
_actual_ child abusers who have experience with the system is likely much
harder than setting up innocent people who don't understand what's going on,
so this would presumably be an easy case.

------
Jun8
America has one of the absurdly strictest set of laws for sex offenses against
minors, _Economist_ had a great cover story about this some weeks ago. Problem
is, since politicians know proposals for stricter laws bring in votes and no
sane politician would ever propose a relaxation in these laws, they get
stricter every year.

On the other hand, the US has one of the most sexualized tweens and teen-agers
I have ever seen, go to the Mall or the local movie house on a Friday and you
would be _shocked_ at how girls dress (and how their parents let them dress
like this). And if that doesn't shock you, watch the movie _Thirteen_.

~~~
jacquesm
I think a good part of that is the fundamentalist Christian ('reborn') element
in the United States which commands a fair portion of the vote.

~~~
gscott
I would suggest these organizations are more liberal thinkers where the child
is better off under Government supervision.

The Bible is pretty clear that the parent should raise the child. The Bible is
really against "Caesar" taking a big part of your life for example 'spare the
rod, spoil the child'.

~~~
timknauf
While verses in Proverbs arguably align with the sentiment, the actual "spare
the rod, spoil the child" construction is from a poem by Samuel Butler.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>While verses in Proverbs arguably align with the sentiment,

Your wording here suggests that the argument for the sentiment is a weak one.
I don't think that is born out. All verses in Proverbs with "rod" in them in
NIV.

# Proverbs 10:13 Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is
for the back of him who lacks judgment.

# Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is
careful to discipline him.

# Proverbs 14:3 A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the
wise protect them.

# Proverbs 22:8 He who sows wickedness reaps trouble, and the rod of his fury
will be destroyed.

# Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of
discipline will drive it far from him.

# Proverbs 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him
with the rod, he will not die.

# Proverbs 23:14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

# Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for
the backs of fools!

# Proverbs 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to
himself disgraces his mother.

------
holdenc
This kind of story is indicting of our culture.

Outside the US nudity is not so taboo. In my daughter's kindergarten (a nice
private school in Southeast Asia) boys and girls share the same bathroom, with
no private stalls, and no door on the entrance. Everyone sees everything --
passers-by included. Meanwhile, in the US, nudity is synonymous with sex, and
good people have to worry about things like this.

~~~
Yaggo
After reading the article, my first thought was "why I can't imagine that
happening outside the US?". When and why did nudity become such a taboo there?
It seems to be much more acceptable to show children violence than nudity,
which I found absurd. I mean, which is more harmful for 13 years old child to
see on TV, a breast or shooting?

~~~
steveklabnik
I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a terrible troll, but when
an entire religious group gets up and sails across an ocean because everyone
back home won't stop telling them that they're crazy... what else would you
expect?

~~~
jdminhbg
This is just a sort of ahistorical folk wisdom explanation. An entire
religious group sailed across the ocean because everyone back home told them
they were crazy and founded Pennsylvania -- is the US noted for its fanatic
devotion to pacifism?

~~~
sp332
Well, not after the Calvinists burned them at the stake.

------
midnightmonster
I'm very close to people who were saved from really horrible situations by
state intervention. But then for them, foster care was hardly any better until
they were adopted.

The state taking my kids is actually my worst parental nightmare--even beyond
all the accidental and criminal bad things that could happen. I'm a very good
parent (you'll have to take my word, I guess), but I'm not conventional. And I
know all it takes sometimes is a little misunderstanding.

~~~
Sukotto
For me it's the #2 nightmare. Leaving the baby in the car in the sun is #1.

~~~
infinite8s
As a new parent, I can't imagine how anyone would ever accidentally leave a
child in their car.

~~~
asmithmd1
I think rear-facing car seats kill more infants than they save. How many
children survive a car crash only because they were facing backwards should be
weighed against the number of children who die each summer because the parents
forgot them.

If the child is front facing, your rear-view mirror will be filled with your
child's face. But imagine the child falls asleep in a rear facing car seat
after you have been up all night with them. It happens every summer to good
parents.

------
siculars
Wait until some enterprising district attorney confiscates your hard drive,
surmises you frequent HN, subpoenas your voting history from pg, finds this
thread and examines which anti-governement/pro-common-sense comments you up
voted.

Everything you say (and/or write) may be used against you.

Have a nice day :)

~~~
jacquesm
They wouldn't have to go through PG either, votes can be lifted from the URL
log that your provider is required to keep.

~~~
Retric
Sadly, my privacy is probably slightly more protected from such things on this
highly monitored Army owned machine running on a secured and monitored
network, than on my home computer. The DoD actually seems to care more about
PII (Personally Identifiable Information) more than most other organizations,
I suspect in large part because the people setting the regulations are also
susceptible to them.

------
megablast
Everyone should read Franz Kafka's The Trial. This story and The Trial depict
the helplessness anyone can feel with our legal system, or any big
bureaucracy.

~~~
billswift
ESR's got a new post up <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122> about what he calls
"Kafkatrapping", making unfalsifiable claims against people as a form of
"moral" bullying.

------
jvdh
On the one hand I completely sympathize with the author. As a parent myself I
would not wish this upon anyone.

On the other hand, the author is a journalist, exactly the people who are the
cause of this type of witch hunt. If you would leave out the prologue of the
story, and make it into a story where the accusations actually were true. Then
noone would have blinked about what happened. If they were treated any other
way, there would have been a public outrage.

Think about the officers handling this case. There is absolutely zero
incentive for them to handle this case differently. If the accused turn out to
be guilty, then they better have handled this case with the utmost
seriousness. Any leniency can possibly lead to a scandal. And media love
childmolesting scandals, so the officers will be part of a nation if not
worldwide scandal. They will be singled out, their mistake will be broadcasted
for the whole world to see, and they effictively lose their job.

If people turn out to be innocent, psyches have been damaged, it's bad but
they'll get over it. More importantly, maybe a complaint will be filed, they
will have done the right thing within the rules, and case is closed.

~~~
Tichy
"a journalist, exactly the people who are the cause of this type of witch
hunt."

And I am a software developer, exactly the kind of people who cause computer
viri, identity theft, spams and scams?

~~~
run4yourlives
How many journalists are in jail for causing which hunts? How many have even
uttered an apology?

That's the difference.

------
kls
I had a similar run in with DCF, not for child pornography but for accusations
of child abuse. I helped out a high school friend who had become a heroin
addict (I had no idea what I was getting into), by letting his family and
himself live with me while he tried to recover. It ended up that this was a
common scam with him and his wife and they use a sob story to get friends to
help them out and once they wear out their welcome they move on to the next
friend. They would exploit their two girls to make you feel bad about putting
two little girls out on the street. This worked very well on me.

Anyways, we finally had had enough and we asked them to leave. I notified his
brother of this an his brother had had enough as well, fearing for his two
nieces the brother called DCF on them and started an investigation in an
attempt to get the girls and provide them some stability (they where in and
out of school, watched their father do drugs, and eventually watched him OD -
more on that latter).

So, after that the crazy wife calls DCF on every family, that had kids, that
they stayed with. So we end up getting cops and a DCF agent knocking on our
door, conveniently at 11PM, a time when any dirt bag would be doing their
nightly supply of drugs and we get this condescending attitude while we are
being read a list of charges being levied against us. My father is there,
because he is helping me install a wood floor in my living room and the DCF
agent gives me a condescending lecture about unsafe environment for children
(I answer well that is why we are doing it while they are in bed). She looked
at me and asked what is going on here like it was some illicit activity.

They make us wake the kids up, and then they make them disrobe to see if they
have any marks and take them on the back porch to ask them questions. Right
before that, I asked if I needed a lawyer and the cop told me they are not
needed in these situations.

Anyway, they told us we had to be at the court house for a urine test at 8AM
the next morning. To which we complied after calling a lawyer once they left
the night before.

In the mean time, I call the brother and tell him and his mother what
happened. He, his sister and their mother calls the agent handling the case of
his brother and tells her that their has been a false report that was used to
victimize another person as a form of retaliation. He pretty much has to
threaten the lady to contact the DCF agency in my town, which she finally
does.

So, pretty open and shut right, nope. I ask our agent if she has been in
contact with the (now network) of agents investigation false reports on
everyone that has ever let these people stay with them and she tells me that
she cannot confirm or deny it due to the fact that she has to protect the
anonymity of the reporter but that our case was in active investigation,
because they found items of concern in our house (If they provided half the
case work diligence that they do to protect the anonymity of a random caller,
we would have never been in this mess).

The items of concern was a pot pipe in the room that the family stayed in. I
did not allow drugs to be used in my house and the brother clearly described
the pot pipe to them as he had seen his brother pipe before, so there was no
doubt that this pipe belonged to a known drug addict that lived in that room.
Still no go, so now we are being investigated not for child abuse, as the
original allegation claimed, but drug abuse, so they go through my medicine
cabinet and catalog every pill bottle I have.

Then the drug test come back, and I come back positive for a controlled
substance, Alazopram, I have had panic attacks since I was about 10 years old
and have been under a doctors care for that long. They know this but feign
like they don't.

They then decide to contact my doctor and volunteer the information that I am
being investigated for drug abuse and then show up on my door to inform me
that I will have to attend mandatory drug classes and enter a rehab facility
or they will bring it before the judge. My lawyer called their bluff because
they knew I had a prescription for the medication because they interviewed my
doctor. Yet when they came to my house they acted like they must have missed
the pill bottle with my name on it and asked to see it again. They looked at
it for all of .2 seconds and then said well since you have a prescription it
is probably best that we go ahead and close the case.

DCF gets brownie points if they can get you entered into some social program
if they cannot build a case to get a conviction. They will do everything in
their power to do so.

In my case they had a blatant case of their system being used to victimize
someone else and instead of upholding justice they saw an opportunity to score
a win due to poor circumstances (me not finding a pipe in the closet when we
cleaned the room). They would have railroaded me if they could have with no
concern as to right and wrong. I feel so bad for those who do not have the
resources to retain a lawyer. Nevertheless like the article states the stain
remains even after the case is closed. I always wonder if my doctor secretly
thinks that I am a drug addict now. I was in a state of fear that my medicine
for panic attacks would not be available to me due to the political risk of
having me as a patient.

I feared having my children taken away and believe that they had pushed me
past the point of breaking. If they had taken my children I believe at that
point I could have hurt myself or others. To be innocent with the truth so
obvious and to have people ignore it makes you feel victimized and it makes
you want to victimize the ones that are doing it to you. I think that is
probably the one time in life that someone or some thing had driven me to the
edge of sanity. I love my children more than anything in my life and I started
to have crazy thought of having to protect my children at all costs. It was
insane and they had no regard for the human wreckage they where leaving in
their wake.

Fortunately, I held it together, my lawyer, just like the one in the article,
constantly reminded me that if I displayed aggression they would use it
against me. If I snapped and went postal they would use it against my wife and
I would no longer be here to help my wife and children navigate that mess. And
if I just killed myself that I would be a coward that left my wife and kids to
fend for themselves. It is hard for a man because he has a natural instinct to
protect his family and to have to quell that instinct in times of extreme
stress when people are truly trying to attack your family is difficult to say
the least.

In the end the case was closed, DCF thought they where going to get out quick
and quite when they where rebuffed with my prescription, but my lawyer had one
last volley with them, in which he insisted that it be noted on our file that
the report be marked as a false report. They tried to resist but he threatened
civil action against the agency and they relented. I requested the file and on
the last line it states subjects request that this be labeled a false report.
To the very end they cannot see the victimization that they did.

Anyway, like the article said it fades into a bad memory but leaves you always
looking over your shoulder. The part that I am most bitter about is that I
asked the agent as she was leaving, are you guys going to bring charges
against them for filing all of these false reports. To which she said well the
agency dose not really do that, with the case load we don't have time to chase
false reports.

The man that we tried to help ended up overdosing 2 months later. The children
where never taken from them because they complied with the mandated social
programs that DCF required them to do so that DCF could get their check mark.
They sent him to a welfare doctor that gave him methadone and klonopin (a
stronger relative of the medicine that I take, which they had no issue with
their doctor prescribing to a known drug addict), he took too much of both one
night and died. His 8yr old and 5y old daughter found him the next day.

EDIT: forgot to mention, wife was pregnant and had baby during the
investigation to which they showed up at the hospital to decide whether we
could take our new born child home or not.

~~~
cookiecaper
DCF is a really problematic thing. I completely understand where you're coming
from and we've had people close to us under false investigation from family
services and it's a pretty bad gig. They act like everything you say is such
an absurd lie and that you're just waiting for them to walk away so that you
can start slamming your children into the floor again. It is really sad that
they can't use common sense.

But at the same time, we've had people close to us exhibit a constant pattern
of abuse with their children, including using and dealing hard drugs with the
children present and leaving things like syringes lying around. We called DCFS
and the investigation, as far as I know, has gone nowhere.

The woman still has her children because every time the agents show she
happens not to have anything particularly incriminating in plain sight. The
woman is a serial liar and manipulator and uses people wherever she can. She
has many medical problems incidental of her drug use and the way she has
treated her body and uses them to her benefit, playing the persecution card.
We believe that she is constantly on the edge of sanity and has issues with
schizophrenia. She is regularly beaten by her partners, and the children see
this. She is always cracked out on legal prescription drugs, which she has a
valid prescription to use, because as above, she has abused her body for years
and now has serious problems as a result.

Her son has a disability that requires special attention. If he gets injured,
he must be administered a booster immediately or he may die. This child is
frequently unsupervised while his mother sleeps until 2pm and he runs around
outside with kids who don't speak English, jumping off of balconies and stuff.
He frequently misses school for a week or so at a time (she makes sure he
appears at least once every 10 days, because the school people don't file a
report until 10 consecutive absences). But apparently DCFS can't do anything
unless they happen to appear at a time when the mother has drugs in reach or
sight of the children, and the story is that heretofore they haven't seen
this.

I sympathize that it sucks to be falsely investigated, but if you consider
that there are people like those described above, who have become expert
manipulators and liars to conceal and feed their habits, and DCFS has to
investigate them too, you can understand some skepticism on the part of the
agents.

Either way, it's a pretty horrible system. I don't really know the answer, but
the current setup obviously doesn't work; this woman still has custody of her
children six months later (the last time we had contact with them, her
boyfriend, who speaks almost no English, called to say that the woman had been
away for two days and asked us to take the children so he could go to work)
and innocent people get harassed for years because of pettiness and
retaliatory reports. Someone should try to fix this, though obviously it's a
pretty intractable problem.

~~~
tptacek
Your school system doesn't "file a report" until TEN CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES?
That's negligent. In ours, a truancy report is filed and the police are
involved after ten cumulative absences _or_ tardies throughout the entire
semester.

(I found this out the 8th time I managed to drop my kids off 1 minute late).

~~~
cookiecaper
Wow, the tardy thing is excessive imo.

My wife informs me that the 10 days thing was because the child was in
kindergarten. My wife had gone down to the school and talked to the teachers
about the matter so she knows more about that than I do. Apparently
kindergarten isn't considered a "real thing" or something. If the guidelines
are stricter for 1st grade, and I hope they are, then hopefully there will be
more involvement once the school year starts back up. The case is still open
and DCF still drops in occasionally afaik, but I hope additional
reports/complaints would cause the process to intensify and/or work faster.
The kids are in danger every minute they are with that woman, so I will be
pleased to see them removed.

~~~
tptacek
The tardy thing is excessive. Getting a social work case opened up because you
get out the door a couple minutes late is nonsense. It would be funny, and not
at all surprising, if people who's kids are missing weeks of school at a time
are having less trouble with the authorities; not giving a shit about anything
is a good innoculation against social services, which is part of the tragedy
of how these programs tend to work out.

------
ErrantX
_Besharov also said that the current law should be amended to grant immunity
to those who in good faith deem a situation not to be child abuse or
pornography. That way, those who report cases of abuse of questionable merit,
simply to err on the side of mandatory reporting laws, might feel less
pressure to do so. In our case, maybe the responding officer, who initially
commented that he didn't find the pictures pornographic, would have dismissed
the case at the drugstore and not reported us to child services._

This is the key takeway - and the thing that really needs to change.

In this case, like some many others, the process really broke down at that
point.

But it is incredibly difficult, I imagine, to make such a call. If it later
turns out you just let a child pornographer go free you will be proverbially
screwed; both by the LE services and the media. We ask completely the wrong
people to make these choices; inexperienced officers with a lot to lose if
they make the wrong call.

~~~
pstuart
I think that such a call should be relatively straightforward. A picture of a
naked child is not pornography unless there is explicit sexual context, i.e.,
touching of genitals, etc. Otherwise, a naked child in a bathtub, pool or such
activity is the picture of innocence itself.

If there was doubt, bring it before a jury of one's peers as opposed to some
back-room morality police.

------
loewenskind
Why wasn't the _Clerk_ investigated for child pornography/molestation?

If you look at a picture of naked kids in non-sexual situations and think
you're seeing something sexual then there is something wrong with you. Full
stop. Either you've been abused, you're an abuser yourself or you've been
horribly brain washed. Any of these possibilities makes you more of a risk
than the person who shot the photos.

Taking this a step further, people need to start filing scary "child
pornography" charges at judges, lawyers and everyone else who participates in
this kind of insanity. If the judge doesn't take one look at the photo,
realize it's nothing and dismiss the case then he might well be a consumer of
child pornography. Otherwise, why didn't he realize it was innocent? If a few
people in power start getting _their_ lives ruined by this nonsense maybe it
would stop.

~~~
ErrantX
That's absurd; there is a distinct difference between seeing something that
concerns you and becoming sexually aroused by said image. To suggest they are
"consumers of child pornography" is just a bit rude...

For the untrained eye such photo's as in this case may have shocked him/her
and prompted the knee-jerk reaction of calling the police. You are right in
part; I think the main problem is that, absurdly, any images of naked children
are starting to worry people. Part of that is founded in fact; you will find
people with thousands of images of different children running around naked on
beaches/parks/camping trips. But, clearly, in this case it is just a family
camping trip and the clerk has either refused or is unable to process that.

I recall that a few years ago I was taking pics at a family wedding and
happened, while taking shots of my cousins running round playing, to take a
shot which included my youngest cousin doing a handstand with her skirt over
her head. It was a completely innocent picture; and if I was ever investigated
for CP it would never be flagged as CP - but my Aunt was absolutely insistent
I should delete the photo.

And that is the sort of society we live in.

~~~
loewenskind
>That's absurd; there is a distinct difference between seeing something that
concerns you and becoming sexually aroused by said image. To suggest they are
"consumers of child pornography" is just a bit rude...

What is absurd is a situations where natural actions (taking photos of your
children) become, randomly, life ruining [1]. You say my suggestion is rude
but this is in fact exactly what happened to the author of the story. If one
of these two people (the author or the clerk) had to have their life ruined
because of the _chance_ that they might be dangerous I would pick the clerk as
he/she is _actually_ exhibiting bizarre behavior.

Further, having an extreme reaction to natural things indicates some kind of
problem. I can't know if the clerk was sexually aroused by the photos, felt
guilty and reacted extremely to fight against those feelings that he/she knew
were wrong. I can only see the extreme action they took. I can't know what
triggered it, but it's definitely a problem and more worthy of looking into
than the random innocent by-stander who triggered this persons episode.

[1] If this were isolated it might not be such a huge issue, but it's
happening quite a lot (relatively). Remember the recent case where photos of a
_17 year old girl_ in a bikini were investigated as child pornography? What
about the guy who was naked in his house making breakfast and was accused of
being an exhibitionist? Couple this with the insane "child abuser register"
the US has and things look pretty alarming.

~~~
ErrantX
_If this were isolated it might not be such a huge issue, but it's happening
quite a lot (relatively)._

No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it
occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot
(comparatively anyway).

People _are_ getting too cagey over child nudity and prudish in general; but I
don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender.

 _I would pick the clerk as he/she is actually exhibiting bizarre behavior._

Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb him/her;
it does not make them a sex offender.

I see what you are saying; but I don't think it comes as a result of people
being abused or secretly being pedophiles; it is more a reflection of a
society where we are slowly becoming terrified of the "bogeyman" pedophile at
every turn.

To put your point another way; if you saw, through a living room window,
someone strangling another person whilst having sex with them would you call
the police? And would it be because you found it sexually arousing? or is
because you were worried about the person? See the difference.

~~~
loewenskind
>No it isn't. You hear about some of these cases because, rightly, it
occasionally hits the media but in general it is not happening a lot
(comparatively anyway).

I put on the relatively tag for a reason. I heard of about 7 cases in one
year, each one of them completely insane. That's a lot relative to where I'm
living in Europe where I've heard of zero such cases. It's also a lot relative
to how many _should_ have happened, also zero.

>but I don't think it is a result of either being a pedophile or sex offender.

No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and dangerously
brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them?

Imagine some less extreme behaviors that people could do and how it would be
greeted. Imagine some intimate situation like a young man proposing to a young
lady in a restaurant. Suddenly some jerk walks up and loudly farts in his
face. How would this be reacted to? I can think of a lot of potential
reactions, all of which would be extreme enough to let the drive by farter
know that this kind of behavior is not acceptable.

Now lets step it up a notch. Someone urinates on the floor in the middle of a
semi-crowded area. Now we're talking jail time, right? Maybe the person grew
up in a culture where this was acceptable or even expected. Doesn't matter,
they did something _more_ extreme than the last example and will be greeted
with a more extreme result.

Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and
reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the
subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at
teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will
not be tolerated.

>Not to my mind. They are reacting irrationally to images that disturb
him/her; it does not make them a sex offender.

Neither did the person taking the photos. Remember, my statement was _if I had
to pick between the two of them_. Would you seriously pick the author in that
situation? Then I have some bad news for you...

>if you saw, through a living room window, someone strangling another person
whilst having sex with them would you call the police?

Bad example. Enough people are into such behavior that I absolutely would not
call the police. Further, if I did I would fully expect to find myself on the
business end of a peeping Tom case.

But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled then
I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I would
not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference?

~~~
ErrantX
_That's a lot relative to where I'm living in Europe where I've heard of zero
such cases._

There are similar cases over here (in Europe), you just don't hear about them
(for reasons I've never got to the bottom of). 7 cases may seem a lot, and you
are right it _should_ be 0. But relative to the number of successful child
abusers caught it's a pretty good statistic.

 _No, most people behave this way because they've been horribly and
dangerously brain washed into behaving this way. So how do you "fix" them?_

Agreed; this didn't seem to be what you were saying before. But now I see you
were less suggesting they _were_ sex offenders but that they should face the
consequences too & this would limit their desire for prosecutions.

I disagree with this being the right approach. Where this process failed was
the first officer who thought the images were fine but still escalated it;
that officer should be someone experienced, qualified and serious enough to
have said "no, this is not a concern" - perhaps after quickly talking to the
parents.

 _Now back to our clerk. This person looked at some normal family photos and
reacted by ruining someone's life. I think this person finding themselves the
subject of such an investigation would be appropriate and effective at
teaching people that this kind of bizarre behavior is not acceptable and will
not be tolerated._

 _This_ is a completely different point to one you were originally making - at
least how it reads anyway. And I agree; there should be consequences if you
deliberately ruin someones life. But if the clerk is acting in good faith (in
a way that doesn't sync with the examples you highlighted) so I'd argue a
serious word/caution is sufficient to show him/her that they made a mistake
and to take more care in the future.

 _Would you seriously pick the author in that situation? Then I have some bad
news for you..._

I'd pick neither. end of.

 _But if we changed your example to me just seeing someone being strangled
then I would call the police. Because I saw something extreme happening. I
would not call the police if I saw two people hugging. See the difference?_

Yes. Sadly it is not a comparable example - because two people hugging is not
associated with anything sexual or inappropriate. I was trying to highlight
the idea that you might see something that others found sexually enticing but
that simply concerned you - in such a case you are not a sexually excited by
the event, just concerned. This is the mentality of the clerk; and you are
right it is a result of a messed up society.

What _should_ have happened (assuming the clerk is still concerned enough in
this perfect situation to have called the police) is the police man should
have called the parents, chatted informally to assure himself that it was as
he suspected and then left it at that.

The failure here appears to be societies attitude to child nudity followed
quickly by maddening bureaucracy.

~~~
loewenskind
>Agreed; this didn't seem to be what you were saying before. But now I see you
were less suggesting they were sex offenders but that they should face the
consequences too & this would limit their desire for prosecutions.

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear enough. If it came out a bit ambiguous that's
because it is for me. I suspect that in most cases none of the people involved
are abusers but I maintain that there _is_ something wrong with some of them
(especially the officials seeking convictions where a normal person would
realize the material in question is innocent).

>But if the clerk is acting in good faith

This a case where I'm ambiguous on. On the one hand the Clerk was probably
just trying to stay out of trouble so it was it was the fault of the Cop for
not dropping it or other officials who continued to peruse it further.

On the other hand "just doing my job" is no excuse. Further I would punish
blind "job doers" much more aggressively than anyone else. They are the
enablers of atrocities. No one would have ever heard of everyone's favorite
Godwin subject were it not for (literally) armies of "just doing my job"s.
Imagine what would have happened in Iraq if the US enlisted soldiers had
simply refused to go there. Most any (if not all) atrocity one could name were
enabled by people who more often than not didn't like what they were doing but
ultimately did as they were told.

>I'd pick neither. end of.

Then your statement doesn't apply to what I said. I said that if I _had to_
(e.g. gun is pointed at me, etc.) pick one of those two I would pick the
Clerk.

>because two people hugging is not associated with anything sexual or
inappropriate.

Nor were the photos in question.

>I was trying to highlight the idea that you might see something that others
found sexually enticing but that simply concerned you - in such a case you are
not a sexually excited by the event, just concerned.

I get what you were trying to do but I still maintain that if a person sees
something _normal_ and is disturbed by it then they have a disconnect.
Something has to highlight this clearly for them so they realize _they_ have
the issue and can fix it. We should not cater to such eccentricity as this
causes it to get even more extreme.

>What should have happened (assuming the clerk is still concerned enough in
this perfect situation to have called the police) is the police man should
have called the parents, chatted informally to assure himself that it was as
he suspected and then left it at that.

That would have been a better result to be sure.

------
georgecmu
"If we get down to the bottom line, there is no clear-cut definition," said
Dean Tong, who wrote "Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely
Accused," after being jailed and then spending 10 years and $150,000 to clear
himself of abusing his young daughter. Now a forensic consultant in thousands
of false-accusation cases across the country, Tong told me that even most
police officers are not well enough trained to interpret the law, let alone
photo lab employees. Tong said that when facing the slightest doubt, law
enforcement officers "err on the side of the child," noting the potential
results: "I see families stripped and ripped apart in the middle of the
night."

------
Dove
It makes a mockery of the life, liberty and property clause that family can be
threatened so lightly.

In my opinion, it is a fundamental right to raise your children according to
your standards. Parents should be in control of the risks, ideas, and
experiences their children are exposed to. Minority views on what is
appropriate should be protected as rigorously as minority political or
religious views.

I would like to see limits on state intervention in families. I'd like to see
CPS investigations require probable cause, warrants, and time limits. I'd like
to see a clear standard for circumstances under which the state can take
action. Personally, I think the standard for _any_ enforced separation should
be clear and convincing evidence before a jury of gross neglect (lack of life
necessities, repeated serious reckless injury, serious risk of death) or
malicious, repetitive physical abuse. And even in those cases, I'd prefer the
first conviction to result in parole, not immediate action.

Child abuse is serious business, but separating families is serious business
too.

~~~
chc
First of all, there's no such thing as the "life, liberty and property clause"
in American law.

Second, what if my standards for raising children are similar to Josef
Fritzl's? Is that a fundamental right? You'd probably say no, but now the
black-and-white rule is turning gray, and we're heading back toward the
maddening uncertainty that our society has developed.

~~~
Dove
Well, I was thinking of the piece of the 5th amendment that says "No person
shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law". I don't know what you call that clause, but there is definitely such a
thing.

In my opinion, it's intended to protect against government oppression in the
form of taking away things you value. But if you were to include "access to
family" on that list, I'd put it about where I'd put "avoidance of bodily
injury". Here: "Life, family, liberty, property".

That government institutions can so casually disrupt family bonds, either
temporarily, permanently, or during a long investigation? It makes a mockery
of the protection against government we are supposed to have. They can't
search your car without a warrant, but keep your head down or someone might
call the CPS and they might arbitrarily decide to TAKE YOU FROM YOUR PARENTS.

(And it's silly to bring up a seriously abusive case like Josef Fritzl. The
right to exercise your parenting philosophy is like the right to exercise your
religion. I want to defend it against busybodies. I even want to defend your
ability to hurt people, up to a degree. But there's a limit; we don't tolerate
sexual assault in the context of cults, and we shouldn't tolerate it in the
context of parenting either.

With that said, would I want to limit the state's ability to ACT IMMEDIATELY
to separate kids and parents in a seriously and clearly abusive case, in order
to offer normal people the protection of due process? Yes, I think I would
make that tradeoff. Abuse is rare, and the kid who's lived with the problem
for years can manage another six hours while you get your expedited, emergency
warrant.)

------
Twisol
I've read just over 30 pages of the comments on Salon to this story, and
undoubtedly I'll read many more. My main observation is that most of the
commenters seem to be sensible people who do understand what parenting is
like, and how kids really act. Thank _God_. But some of the other comments
just make me facepalm terrifically.

Legally, I'm going to be an adult within the month. I'm certainly not a
parent, but I am a kid, and I haven't been so brainwashed as to lose sight of
what pre-adolescence is like. I could go on and on about the funny, stupid,
and downright embarrassing things I did, particularly before I turned "double-
digits".

Side-point: Giving these decidedly private photos to a public agency to
develop was an absolutely stupid thing to do, but by no stretch of the
imagination can I blame everything on him because of it. That's a lesson
learned, for sure, but the idea that anything else he did was "wrong" just
blows my mind. I'd like to say to some of the salon commenters... don't impose
your personal morals on everyone else, please. I know there's a fantastic one-
word term for people who do that, but it escapes me.

~~~
dhimes
_Giving these decidedly private photos to a public agency to develop was an
absolutely stupid thing to do_

But that's the way we used to live. Before digital, very few of us could
develop our own film. Just like most of us buy our beer at a store rather than
making it- and therefore some agency could get a handle on how much we
consume. In the future this may look like a stupid thing to do, but now it's
all we really have and nobody thinks about it twice. My parents had no
alternative to developing the pictures of me at a store.

------
reader5000
This guy's anger is justified and I think his lawyer failed him.

~~~
kls
_I think his lawyer failed him_

No he did not, this is not court, you have no right to due process. Your
rights are considered secondary to the rights of the children given that you
are in question you can not by nature be the child advocate. The DCF (whoever
your states agency is) takes that role. So they get to decide if a lawyer is
present or not for child questioning, etc.

All you really can get from a lawyer in this situation is advice and legal
counsel if they decide to bring charges as well as a agent to act on your (not
your children) behalf.

It is a nightmare where they have you and your lawyer over a barrel until you
can catch them up and get them to relent.

~~~
reader5000
I have no idea if this is settled law or not, but in this instance where the
DCF is causing irreparable harm to both the children and the parents it seems
a court's intervention could at least be asked for, i.e. file an injunction on
the investigation or something to that effect. I'm not a lawyer but I don't
think I would feel right just sitting back and being a passive message-passer
for the DCF while they destroy my client's lives.

~~~
kls
It is complicated and I don't remember all the in's and outs, you can try to
get in front of a judge and have him rule that you can provide funding for an
independent 3rd party lawyer. He cannot be the same as your defense. But you
have to show cause which I remember my lawyer saying that it was hard to do.
My lawyer in the end was right you just have to show them that you are not
easy to pick on and they will move on. They need to make their numbers and if
they spend too much time on you, they miss other opportunities. It is a war of
attrition in which you have a severe psychological disadvantage.

------
dan00
Sometimes I'm pretty scared of the missing of common sense and disgusted by
the people who are "just" doing their job, without compunction what this might
imply for other people.

It's a confession of failure for a society, if the determinant of acting is
fear.

------
danbmil99
Thank god for digital cameras. I've avoided film since that Robin Williams
movie about the crazy at the 1-hour place.

~~~
robryan
Not saying this applies to you but a lot of possibly questionable material
that is bypassing the eyes of processing at a drug store is now being made
available to many more than a couple of people online.

------
noonespecial
I half expect these stories to end with:

"He loved Big Brother."

We use "Orwellian" a little too loosely but for the victims of this, it seems
almost that bad.

------
waterhouse
Story in comic form:
[http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF215-Kitty_Photographer...](http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg)

------
impeachgod
I tend to hold the Thoreauvian point that one ought to resist unfair laws. As
I noticed, Child Protective Services are state agencies. If someone was
falsely accused of child abuse/child porn, with no hope of winning the case
whatsoever, how effective would it be to run away with the family?

~~~
cookiecaper
IANAL, but in general, I think meritless cases like this one eventually get
dismissed, though it's a lot of hassle and waste in the meantime. Even if your
case doesn't get dismissed and your children are about to get taken away,
running away with the children could only vastly, vastly aggravate the matter,
as far as I am aware. In many cases you'll be able to get the children back.
If you flee, that is much less likely. You'd be a fugitive and you'd be in
serious, serious trouble, I think, even if the state's case was baseless to
start out.

I think the best option is to do as the person in the article did and deal
with it in a cooperative and respectful manner, as much as we may resent it.

~~~
lftl
I think it depends on what phase you're in with regards to leaving. If at the
very beginning of the investigation, after the first visit from DFS, they had
left for France I imagine this case would have simply been forgotten. They
hadn't been charged with any crime, so they're not legal fugitives in any
sense. They may never want to return to that particular state on the off
chance someone from DFS who remembers the case notices them, but I imagine
even that to be a very slim possibility. Even later in the case though, I'm
troubled to think of a law they're breaking by simply moving to another state.

If I'm ever in a situation similar to this, I will heavily weigh moving, or at
least sending my wife and kids out of state, before entrusting my family to a
random bureaucrat.

------
Debugreality
I don't think the fact that false leads are investigated is really the
problem. But that investigation should be resolved much more quickly and much
more transparently.

Really the harm seems to be in they way people are being treated not in trying
to prevent child abuse etc...

------
cromulent
The spectrum of human sexuality that is accepted by society is narrower than
the human biological spectrum of sexuality. Rightfully, we reject behaviour
that can damage children.

Wrongfully, many modern societies (until recently) fiercely rejected
homosexuality, with often tragic results.

The current methods of dealing with pedophilia - by suspecting everyone, every
man in a park taking photos of his children - are a blight.

At some point, society will have to stop trying to drive pedophilia into the
ocean and find a different way to deal with it. Nobody chooses to be a
pedophile, they can just choose to repress their behaviour. We should find
them and help them instead of victimizing the innocent.

~~~
derefr
What can we really do to "help" pedophiles, though? Chemically castrate them,
like we did to homosexuals (e.g. Alan Turing)? Teach them how to go through
life having desires but not acting on them (which is what 99% of them already
do successfully)?

~~~
cromulent
I don't know, but I think we need to accept that they do exist, now and in the
future, and find a way to deal with it.

This is not the way.

------
elbrodeur
This is tremendously disturbing, but according to the article pretty common.
It's a tough line.

On the one hand, nobody wants children to suffer. If at all possible, every
child should be protected from abuse. I think the key, as the author
elaborates on, is education. Knowing the difference between a crazy hippy
family and pedophiles seems like common sense -- but if you, as an uneducated
clerk at a crappy CVS in the middle of nowhere, saw something that offended
your sensibilities and seemed perverse... Without education things like this
will happen again and again. Once something like this gets into the
bureaucratic pipeline it becomes an unfortunate problem of due diligence.

~~~
sgt
In practice it just doesn't work very well sometimes. I think it's better to
risk letting more child abusers off the hook, than potentially ruining the
lives of decent parents like these.

~~~
sliverstorm
If it's hurt adults or let children be hurt, I don't know if I can agree with
you. Children are much more powerless than most adults, and the strong should
always stick up for the weak.

~~~
hga
You're ignoring how this directly hurts the children, and indirectly by
messing up their parents and the latter's relationship with their children.

It really comes down to a simple question: who owns your children, you or the
state? As of late, it's the latter.

------
jgoewert
I remember reading this when it first came out and reminded me of my own run
in with DFS right around the same time. Stopping real child abuse is
important, but the system is so lopsided that merely being accused makes you
the criminal. People spread the rumor of you being investigated by DFS, they
don't spread the rumor of you being cleared.

My run-in was no where near as large of scale, but aggrivating, humiliating,
time wasting, and ridiculous. I'm no hippy journalist letting my kids run
free, basically just your run of the mill suburbanite developer 8-to-5 schmoe
and my wife is a Special Ed teacher . One day, we come home from work to find
that DFS had tried to visit and that we must call back with a time we can be
interviewed. At the time, we had a six year old and a less than 1 year old.
Someone had reported us for child abuse. It was like a record scratch. What? I
don't hit my kids. My oldest went to a private school. I spent plenty of time
with them. Our #1 fear is leaving them somewhere so my wife watches them like
a hawk. It made no sense.

We called back and an agent came by the next day. We tried to leave our oldest
at school because at that age, he would babble about what was happening and
other parents would find out and the stigma would be set. But she demanded to
see him, so my wife went and got him while I got the 5th degree. We were
accused of some stuff that seemed hilariously lame.

* We made our son pee in a dollhouse toilet and just left it there full. --- Uh, yeah, one day we found it in the back of his room behind the shelf. We think he did it and hid it. Kids do weird things. * We let our oldest run around screaming and being reckless and has untreated ADHD. -- Yeah, he has ADHD, he's took Ritalin since he was 5 and is now on Adderall. * Our home is unsafe with rotten food all over. -- Yes, my wife is messy, but not to the level of fire hazard or health violation. Rotten food? You mean like having cans from last night's dinner still next to the stove? * And numerous other things like this...

After being checked out, she said that it was most likely a false report and
that it would most likely be dropped, but the file stays around permanently
and that we can't find out who made the report.

Of course, our son blabbed about the experience, and now even 5 years later,
none of his school friend's parents let their kids come over to our house
because the original rumor. No one makes false claims, right?

I figured out who made the report through the neighborhood network. Some old
guy across the street who was mad that I left the trashcans out on the front
of my home instead of the side and one time when I had let our grass grow too
long because every night that I got home from work and all weekend for 3 weeks
it had rained a crap-ton. I still catch him taking pictures of our house to
call the Neighborhood Preservation office with when I let the slightest thing
go wrong. (ie, a storm gutter fell off over the night and I didn't notice
until I got home from work that evening)

The worst part is, there is little you can do. Everything is "anonymous". You
can't hire a lawyer to go and tell this guy to piss off. Retaliation would be
stupid. You are just "stuck".

~~~
slantyyz
Neighbors can be the worst people.

You think you bought your dream house, and someone moves in next door who is a
total nightmare and makes you feel completely trapped and miserable.

~~~
cagey
And if they're there only because of "Section 8" funding you get to revel in
the knowledge that it's _your tax dollars_ "at work" subsidizing the mayhem
next door! [BTDT] Hey, another bureaucracy at work!

~~~
jbooth
Most likely, nosey NIMBY douchebags like the person described at very
unequivocally _not_ section 8.

------
known
Changing your name may help.

------
sdh
Sickening.

It seems like the best way to handle something like this is to bring public
scrutiny to bear on the insanity. Make a politician answer for it and the case
will probably disappear.

------
VladRussian
The DCFS/CPS employees are your wives, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers,
uncles, ..., basically they are _you_. So stop whining and just think for a
second whose life you're going to make miserable today.

------
davidmurphy
Yikes!

------
hga
Recently I've noticed a ... crystallization of a meme about America's ruling
class and this is the most trenchant essay on the subject ... and one that
just happens to explain a whole lot of what's going on here at the broad
level. Highly recommended: [http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-
ruling-cla...](http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-
and-the/print)

------
dotBen
I read this story, and it's very sad. But I just feel the need to ask... why
is this on Hacker News? Surely this is Reddit type content?

I read loads of really interesting and eye-opening posts about all sorts of
non-tech subjects... but I don't feel they should be on Hacker News to the
detriment of other tech stories that could be on the front page.

~~~
JeffL
Because it's very interesting and very high quality. Also, from the guidelines
of this site: _Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is
inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag
it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will
see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't
also comment that you did._

------
troubledwine
"I took a few of my youngest daughter, Eliza, then age 3, skinny-dipping in
the lake, and my son, Noah, then age 8, swimming in the lake in his underwear,
and another of Noah naked, hamming it up while using a long stick to hold his
underwear over the fire to dry. Finally, I took a photo of everyone, as was
our camping tradition, peeing on the ashes of the fire to put it out for the
last time."

------
mkramlich
Horrible story, and I totally empathize with their situation. yes, the US is
practically insane sometimes in how they deal with sexuality and minors, and
yes there's a history of witch hunts in this area. all horrible.

That said, they did make 2 very big mistakes, and if they hadn't done either
or both of them, none of the rest would have happened. first, they took
pictures of the kids naked. two, they let those pictures get into the hands of
strangers, ones who can then misinterpret and/or be legally obliged to do
certain actions which could start a witch hunt. These people knew they were
innocent, that's fine, but the problem is that from a stranger's POV, what
they see is that two adult men went into the forest with some some kids, some
of the kids got naked, they took photos of it. Connect the dots. It paints a
bad picture. They were incredibly naive to have not realized this ahead of
time.

But yes, we have a horrible system, and we need to find some way to make it
better so we can protect children while at the same time not persecuting
innocent adults. I'm not quite sure how we can do that.

~~~
logic
My parents had childhood pictures of me, developed through the local grocery
store, completely naked aside from a few layers of mud and a huge grin on my
face. My teenage self might not have appreciated the opportunity to grandstand
in such a manner quite as much. (I honestly thought I'd found and destroyed
all of the copies. My parents were much sneakier than I gave them credit for.)
My adult self thinks it's all rather funny.

Almost every other child I grew up with had "nekkid pictures" of them, taken
by their parents: bathing, having done something foolish or amusing, or just
generally running around the house like kids do.

Your post paints you as a reasonable person, and that actually terrifies me: a
reasonable person _shouldn't_ see an error in judgement here. These were
parents doing what parents do, taking pictures of their kids doing what kids
do. Proud parents, possibly thinking, "we'll embarrass the hell out of them
when they're 16". (I may be projecting a bit of my father here.)

We're shaping a society that's cynical and distrustful, and it starts with
reasonable people associating behavior like this with phrases like "they
should have known better".

~~~
mkramlich
I didn't say we want to live in a world like this. I'm saying this is the
world we live in. A reasonable, non-naive person would think twice about
taking pictures of a kid naked, if they had any knowledge of the current state
of society & laws in the US. This position should not terrify you. If there's
no upside to it, but a pretty significant downside, then don't do it. Exercise
willpower.

To put it another way, it's like running across a highway at rush hour. Why do
it? Upside is a brief thrill (if you survive). Downside is you die horribly.
Conclusion: don't do it.

~~~
caf
It _is_ deeply terrifying that we should not just self-censor completely
innocent acts, but that you think it should be second nature to any
"reasonable, non-naive person".

Avoiding completely normal behaviour because of a fear of constant
surveillance and being turned in by those around you? This does not strike you
as completely f*cked up?

~~~
mkramlich
What is "normal" is subjective and varies by person and society. Would you
agree with that?

Some people don't think it's normal to want to photograph children naked.
Others do. Some may not think it's abnormal, but on the other hand think it is
not wise. Clearly, you think it's okay to do. Or you just think it is not
unwise, or should not be banned. Those are each distinct nuanced states of
mind on the matter. That's fine.

I don't see where all this "being terrified" angle is coming from actually. I
guess I have a different understanding of the word terror and terrifying.

Having an awareness of the state of one's society is a useful thing. To be
aware of possibilities, and make choices accordingly I'd argue is a smart
thing. It's not being fucked up, it's being wise and pragmatic. As was shown
in the OA, in theory everybody is innocent until proven guilty. But in
practice, especially regarding this particular issue, it's effectively the
opposite. Clearly we want to change that. But the world is not like that at
the moment. Should we try to make it better? Yes. Can we make it better?
Possibly not. Should we do the wisest thing in the meantime? You'll probably
have a happier life if you do, but it is up to you whether the tradeoff is
worth it. From my perspective, there's almost no upside and therefore no
tradeoff to consider. YMMV. But do not be "terrified" of my position. Be
terrified of a giant flying shark in the night or something. But not something
like this. :P

~~~
nagrom
It's terrifying because your position is that one shouldn't do something that
is entirely harmless and innocent, for fear that you will be branded for life
as something evil. It's even more terrifying because your position appears to
be tacit acceptance of that situation.

Some things should not have to be worked around. Some things are wrong, and
should be decried. A situation where parents are scared to photograph and
document the growth of their families is exactly wrong, and should exactly be
decried.

~~~
sliverstorm
You can crack jokes in the airport about bombing planes, and carry bundles of
wire in your luggage, and fight the system. Jokes are harmless and innocent,
and you should be allowed to make them. Stand up against the injustice.

Or, you could simply not do those things and get on your flight and on with
your life.

~~~
Retric
I believe it's important to pick at least one fight with the establishment on
principle in your life. The largest check on government power is when
responsible citizens stand up for what's right. The government can bring a lot
of leverage vs. a single person, but spread the issue around and things break
down. A great example would be traffic tickets from a traffic camera; with a
little effort you can cost the government more to prosecute the case than they
collect from it.

PS: I would hate to be the (edit: completely innocent) person that tries to
stand up to CPS, but create a blog, document everything. Hell, insist on a
warrant, it's a constitutionally protected right etc.

------
mattmaroon
Taking pictures of naked 8 year old boys and groups peeing on a fire is really
weird. If I were the random drug store employee processing that film (for
$8/hr) I'd report that without hesitation. If I worked for the government
agency tasked with such things, I'd investigate it too.

I know this won't be a popular sentiment here because there's so much loathing
of government in general. It's hard to make a judgment about how well the
situation was handled from one side of the story, but that he was investigated
seems about right.

------
jrockway
Sounds like the system worked. She was accused of a crime, an investigation
was performed, the state realized they had no case and that nothing was wrong,
and the charges were dropped.

I guess it's kind of a pain to be the target of an investigation, but nobody's
life was ruined.

~~~
philk
That is entirely false:

a) If the system worked, the initial photos would have been checked and then
the complaint would have been disregarded.

b) If the system worked, innocent parents who provided a loving and safe home
for their children would not have been treated like criminals.

c) If the system worked, the state would not have kept pushing in the hope of
getting some sort of conviction in a case where it was manifestly clear that
nothing had happened.

d) If the system worked, the children in the case would not have been
subjected to invasive and personal questioning by government functionaries.

Accusations of pedophilia do ruin lives, and no one should ever have to go
through the hell of proving their innocence in a case as flimsy as this.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>b) If the system worked, innocent parents who provided a loving and safe home
for their children would not have been treated like criminals.

Your statements (a) and (c) seem sound to me. (b) and possibly (d) is a
necessary part of the system. If guilt can not be ascertained without
investigation then practically some innocent people will be treated like
criminals by being investigated. (d) may be a necessary part of such
investigation depending on the allegations.

That said in the OP's case I don't think (d) should have happened and I'm
concerned that the investigators could have effectively opened the door to
improper sexual activity by asking the children questions like "did an adult
touch you between your legs" or something that would lead the child to see
this as a forbidden fruit that they had previously not regarded but now
desired to explore.

