Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chickentribs
The thing that disturbs me at all about this is the fact that a drugstore employee decided his moral duty was to turn the whole lot in, and he somehow was granted the legal authority for a search and seizure of this family's property. Unless there was something obviously illegal going on (remember that this was in a private residence where people can still walk around naked if they want to) I would go at this thing with both barrels blazing. Just because you are developing my pictures it does not give you the right to become an agent of the government to look behind my closed door. I know there were other "minors" at the house that were corrupted as well, but ask yourself what if this peckerhead saw pictures of your wife or husband clowning around with you and he deemed that worthy of a call to the police? He or she decided that the drugstore had a right to look in your windows.
The whole thing reeks of invasion of privacy and moral bullying.
|
Granted, it does. But the clerk may not have had a choice in the matter.
Both in Arkansas and Oklahoma, seeing a picture of a partially-unclad woman with a "Happy 16th" banner in the background is sufficient grounds to REQUIRE the reporting of possible child abuse to the authorities; failure to do so is itself a felony.
Why would the clerk be looking at the pictures in the first place? Store-required quality control procedures require the viewing of EVERY picture to make sure the pictures are saleable; Walgreen's, CVS/Eckerd, and Wal-Mart all have these, and probably all the others too. I promise you that no photo tech gives a rat's ass what you put in the pix, but if you put something in it that he's required to report he's gonna report it.