California Family Fights For Privacy, Relief From Cyber-Harassment

theodp writes "Just days after his daughter Nikki's death in a devastating car crash, real-estate agent Christos Catsouras clicked open an e-mail that appeared to be a property listing. Onto his screen popped his daughter's bloodied face, captioned with the words 'Woohoo Daddy! Hey daddy, I'm still alive.' Now he and his wife are attempting to stop strangers from displaying the grisly images of their daughter — an effort that has transformed Nikki's death into a case about privacy, cyber-harassment and image control. The images of Nikki, including one of her nearly-decapitated head drooping out the shattered car window, were taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response and went viral after being leaked by two CHP dispatchers. 'Putting these photos on the Internet,' says the family's attorney, 'was akin to placing them in every mailbox in the world.'"

Comments

You Can't Fight the Internet

[eldavojohn]

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

The family filed a formal complaint about the photos' release, and three months later, they received a letter of apology from the California Highway Patrol. An investigation had revealed that the images, taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response, had been leaked by two CHP dispatchers: Thomas O'Donnell, 39, and Aaron Reich, 30. O'Donnell, a 19-year CHP veteran, had been suspended for 25 days without pay. Reich quit soon after -- for unrelated reasons, says his lawyer. Both men declined requests for comment, but Jon Schlueter, Reich's attorney, says his client sent the images to relatives and friends to warn them of the dangers of the road. "It was a cautionary tale," Schlueter says. "Any young person that sees these photos and is goaded into driving more cautiously or less recklessly -- that's a public service."

If that does not satisfy you, I'm not sure what will. Sue your police department for large sums of money but it won't take the pictures off the internet.

Today the entire family is in therapy, and they've taken out a second mortgage to cover the costs of their legal battle.

Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy. Apparently this has been a very rude wake up call. Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.

If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

...but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

That is correct, sir, and here are the pics you were looking for.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[karnal]

I have to add to this; I admittedly searched for her name after reading the article and the top google search is someone who registered her name.net. I'm not going to link; I'm sure others are going to have the same idea as I did to get an idea of the repulsiveness of the photos.

What a horrible horrible set of pictures. I've seen other death photos on the 'net (haven't we all) but this hits their family with what I would think an unbearable amount of sorrow and anger. No one should see their child that way....

I feel very sorrowful for the loss of the life there, whether it was a reckless act on her part or not. However, it is purely a dick move to send an e-mail as stated in the summary. Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[blind biker]

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

That.

The only thing that will give some sense to the death of their daughter is if it deters other young men and women from doing the same mistake.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

"Think of it as evolution in action" -- Niven and Pournelle

It was a spoilt cocained out of control girl trading hard on the privileges her "loving parents" gave her without regard to common sense, and when she ran out of them and ended up a splattered mess, they are now blaming the world.

Yup, use your money for good. Suing other people because you're disgusting excuses for horrible parents who let their coked-out daughter continue her life "Oh yeah we were going to take her to a beverly hills therapist on monday" and have access to a $90K sportscar -- well guess what. You failed as parents. You failed as human beings.

If you want to know whom to blame, mommy and daddy, go take your wads of orange county cash and stand in front of a mirror. If that looks greek to you, well, that's because responsibility and raising kids go hand in hand, and you didn't get it and still don't get it.

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.

Which is difficult if someone sends you shocking photos of your dying daughter...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[hhallahh]

It's a shame because this is essentially a good post, but the bitter undertone of "your daughter may have died, but you're still living a comfortable upper-class lifestyle" is pretty disgusting (and according to the article, not uncommon.) The family's score is with the OCPD *and* with the nebulous force of internet users (or, to avoid lumping them all together, some specific users.) The main point, though, is that there's only hope for a satisfactory legal resolution with the former group

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[shentino]

The trouble is random assholes exploit the same things that political dissidents require for their freedom.

It's also why spammers prosper so well, because they abuse people's need for email.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[DMCBOSTON]

Bullshit, period. The CHP workers were just plain wrong to release the photos unless they go through their public information office. Ya, once out they are in the wild, but they shouldn't BE in the wild. The boss has control, the pics are CHP property. Suing the CHP will probably be worthwhile to the family ($$$, hey I pass no judgment on that) but it will Definitely tighten up any loose cannons at the CHP. The workers that did this should be held strictly accountable for any pain and suffering by the family through their negligence and the CHP must be made to enforce that on the rest of them. Oh, BTW I am in that line of work and it would never occur to me to pull such a stupid stunt. DMC

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyber-Harassment is the problem, not censorship.

If someone robs a bank, the answer isn't just to put bigger locks on the bank. The answer is to catch and stop bank robbers.

If someone kills someone with a knife, then the answer isn't to just block knifes with bullet proof vests. The answer is to catch and stop people who kill other people.

Censorship avoids facing the real issue. Its the extremely twisted behaviours that censorship is asked for, that are the real problem. Shutting out and hiding away isn't the answer. They need to caught so others will not suffer.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it is purely a dick move to send an e-mail as stated in the summary. Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

Well, you can sue anyone for anything but you won't necessarily win. In this particular case, you'd have a good chance of winning a civil case against the sender of the email and you might even win a criminal case - harassment is illegal. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't win against people who were merely discussing your daughter's death - even if the discussion involved photos.

Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, not every family would be opposed to a public discussion of their daughter/sister's death - some families might even feel that there were important lesson's to be learned and wish to share those lessons in order to spare others the same fate.

So, why is this particular family opposed to a public discussion? First, that original email may have set them down a path of feeling persecuted. If, instead, some reputable organization had approached them about stepping up and becoming community leaders helping others avoid the same fate, then the outcome might be different. Second, there is a lot of anger toward people who made money in the real estate bubble. Much of the criticism of the daughter may actually reflect anger about the real estate bubble. Finally, it may be that this family (or at least the parents) believe that the purpose of life is to be superficially successful (expensive house, sit-down dinner, etc.). In this sense, their anger may be more a reflection of their own values than anything else.

In the final analysis, their anger is probably due to a combination of factors. The one thing can control, though, is themselves. The best path to inner peace may be for them to reassess their own values and world view.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[The Mgt]

It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

Why? You know where the link goes. If you don't want to see it then obviously you don't follow the link.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[RiotingPacifist]

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

How so? The problem is not the pictures being out there its sick fucks from anonymous and 4chan emailing them to the family with captions. The police snafu, helps increase awareness that taking cocaine then driving can lead to horrible consequences, but anonymous harassing the family of a dead girl just offends.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Bysshe]

I tend to agree with the poster. Its posts like yours that make me thankful for freedom of speech.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Saxerman]

They did sue the police department:

In March 2008, it was dismissed by a superior-court judge, who ruled that while the dispatchers' conduct was "utterly reprehensible," it hadn't violated the law. "No duty exists between the surviving family and defendant," the opinion reads, because privacy rights don't extend to the dead. "It's an unfortunate situation, and our heart goes out to the family," says R. Rex Parris, the attorney representing O'Donnell. "But this is America, and there's a freedom of information."

There is still an appeal pending, but really, what would you want to see happen? As we blaze forward into the future it's going to becoming increasingly likely that some technology will capture some event most of us would rather not remember. Yet trying to lock up ownership of the past would be even worse than the ridiculous problems copyright laws are causing here in the digital age. You've already acknowledged that once the images have escaped it's basically impossible to put them back in the bottle. Trying to target the original source of their escape seems just as quixotic to me as going after any of the subsequent copies. Certainly, from a legal standpoint it might be easier to discourage and prosecute the source of a 'leak', but towards what end? A sanitized world in which we can all happily only view those events we all agree should be remembered?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[fastest fascist]

Don't know what this should be modded, but I think "insightful" would be pretty a pretty close match. If all the blame truly lies on whoever originally leaked the photos, then posting that link above (assuming it actually contains photos of the incident in question) would be perfectly all right. I don't think many people would take a view quite that extreme. The family receiving this abuse is well justified in feeling wronged by their harrassers. Whether anything can be done about it is a different matter, but just because you're protected by law or practicality doesn't make being an asshat OK.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Bodhammer]

Wish I had a mod point - well said!

These same freedoms are the ones terrorists exploit for their causes.

These outrages cannot be legislated away in a free society but will still be used for political gain and propaganda by our so called representatives.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal options are not the only options. Legally, once the information is public, the public can probably do what they want with it (not including harassment). That does NOT mean that our only recourse is judicial. The described behavior is unacceptable, and as a society, we should express our outrage at it. Not through the courts, but socially.

This means that if someone you know forwards you an email with this picture, let them know that their actions are unacceptable and threaten your relationship with them due to its absolute callousness and offensiveness. If someone shows it to you in the office, let HR know about their completely unprofessional behavior. If you learn of web sites with this picture, rather than visit them and provide them with advertising revenue, page hits, and general validation, ignore or block the web site. If you know of news sites that publish the picture, avoid or boycott them.

We have power beyond just the law to curb intolerable behavior in our society. We can exclude people who do things that are legal but still wrong from the social groups that we all depend on. Don't let the parent poster fool you into thinking you are powerless.

There are probably people that think this is as hilarious as tubgirl or goatse. Remind them that there are people in this world that care about human suffering. That there is a difference between what someone intentionally does to or for themselves and the terrible result of an accident, however caused. Remind people of suffering, and teach them to respect it, not enjoy it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[bagofbeans]

Two cents:
1c. OCPD response seems surprisingly disinterested and callous
2c. If the pics had been taken by a 3rd party, such as press photog, then the anger could hardley be focussed on the release, 'cos that's what photographers do

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ojintoad]

I entirely disagree with your opinion. I think it is very heroic for them to sue the police department and hold accountable the two buffoons that created a more distressing situation for them. It gives me hope that I myself will not have to deal with a situation in the future because police departments will adopt policies to more strictly protect evidence and prevent these exposures from happening.

[do] something less destructive with it in her name.

You don't think holding inept police department officials accountable is constructive? I think the tone of the article shows they realized fighting the internet is a losing battle and have given up. While those on Slashdot might know it's a losing battle, a family in a tragic situation unfamiliar with the internet might not be so wise. And who can blame them? Acting on emotions is human. But the article leaves things with this thought:

"In a perfect world, I would push a button and delete every one of the images," says Lesli. In the real world, she finds some comfort in working to change the laws, so that photos of some future family's dead child might stay locked away, leaving only smiling, lively images to remember.

Thank you Catsouras family.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[russotto]

So the cops have no duty to keep the images private, but every random person on the Internet does?

No, wait, the article admits they have no legal basis to do so, yet they are sending C&Ds anyway. Screw them and especially screw their attorneys, who are knowingly sending baseless C&Ds.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ultranova]

How so? The problem is not the pictures being out there its sick fucks from anonymous and 4chan emailing them to the family with captions.

No, the problem is the pictures shouldn't be out there in the first place. The Internet is such a large place that it has plenty of sick fucks who'll do this kind of shit; the police should know this and act accordingly.

The police snafu, helps increase awareness that taking cocaine then driving can lead to horrible consequences, but anonymous harassing the family of a dead girl just offends.

Everyone is already perfectly aware of the consequences, it's simply that some people refuse to acknowledge that it might happen to them. I've never quite understood why; I have no problem understanding that if I have trouble walking then driving might not be such a good idea, but apparently some people do.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest being very careful with making statements such of this. I will not speculate on what has occurred to you in your life because that would be very rude and hypocritical to the reason why I choose to write this post, but those of us (myself is included in this category) who have not "walked a mile" in this families shoes have no right to comment. Until you open your inbox, after losing a loved one, and find a picture of her decapitated head in your email, I would refrain from passing any sort of judgment on these people and they choices that they have made. Frankly, I would be insulted if I received a letter from the CHP three weeks later telling me that they were "Sorry".

If that was my child? My child is not some public service announcement for the CHP nor will I accept that callous response from the lawyer. It's disgusting.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Retard-

This wasn't a photo from a graveyard. It was a grizzly scene in broad daylight on a road that sees tens of thousands of cars every day... myself included. The "victim" was not an innocent bystander to the events- She caused them.

There are too many kids with $100,000+ cars in this end of the OC... 2 minutes from Coto de Caza (Real Housewives). I'm with the cop. If one kid thought to slow down after seeing those pictures, it was worth it. I'm betting the poster above does not live in an area where it's not uncommon to see a 17 year old in dad's Lamborghinni. The poor kids have to make do with a Benz...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

...Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately...

no, but if that father found and killed the sicko who sent that email, put me on the jury. I'll send him home.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[cowboy76Spain]

What a tasteless post. The issues at hand here are:

• agents of law distribute photos from an accident scene. Given that they are agents of law, the minor answer should be: fire them. The reasons why they did that do not matter, and, IMHO, the explanation that "we did that to prevent other accidents" does not sound good. If they wanted a campaign against car accidents, they could have passed the idea to higher-ups, or used non-identifiable photographies. To me, it just sounds like "we got caught, we need to make up a good excuse".
• The anonymity of internet helps to get issue #1 out of control. That should be the real issue here, but it has been previously discussed a lot here. The only thing that could make this -barely-interesting here is that in this case, most of the people should be expected to side with the family that wants the information restrained, while usually the slashdot crowd -me too- sides with the part that puts the information online. Either way, the general result is that it is not possible, at least right now.

Instead, you pass these points and begin moralizing about the circunstances of the accident. What does it matter that the girl whose photos were -unlawfully- distributed was DUI? It makes it more ok than if the girl was sober and the accident was someone other's fault?. It has no relation at all. Also, it is disturbing to find that you do not know nothing about her family except what you read in the article/s, and yet you are able to judge their actions just from your prejudices.
IMHO the family has all of the right to complain about the mishandling of the pictures and the very light disciplinary action taken. And suing the PD is a sensible action to take, given that it is it that should have ensured, in the first place, that procedures, sanctions and information to the agents are enough to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea that's what happens when you crash... suck it up... That site has an .exe to install. Surely malware.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Joe U]

Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy.

Except for the brain tumor and intensive radiation treatment. Yeah, that's a fucking idyllic and easy walk in the park there.

Did you bother to read past the first paragraph?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun, they're dead. They don't give a shit, nor do I.

I'm sorry for anyone who has to come into contact with you.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mangu]

It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

No, it's not.

What this whole situation shows is that "intellectual property" is still a good idea, if legislators hadn't completely distorted it. The pictures exploit the public image of Nikki Catsouras, they should be the property of her family. Aside from use in police investigations, the CHP has no right in delivering those photographs to anyone.

I think the two investigators who leaked those photos should be permanently removed from any police work, they have shown they do not have the moral preparation for such work.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mjeffers]

This is not either/or. The cops did wrong, should be fired and subject to punishment for any laws they may have broken as well as civil lawsuits. The 4chan kiddies (or more likely, their mommies and daddies) should also be subject to civil suits. Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck. It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Blue Stone]

> It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

Respectfully, I don't agree. The photos show a truth: a truth about what happens when we speed at 100mph on cocaine and fly off the road. They show a truth about how incredibly fragile we are. That we are mortal.

I don't need reality sanitised for me by censorship. I don't need or want polite euphemisms covering up the gory realities of life. The only thing that censorship can result in is ignorance, and ignorance leads to an inaccurate view of reality (delusion) which leads to bad decisions.

Unless you work in emergency services or the army, it's unlikely that you'll ever see such a brutal example of our own fragility and mortality. Why should we be shielded from the truth about our own nature? How can this lead to anything good?

When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some asshole hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some assholes with bombs hadn't killed the child. I saw the ugly reality of war in a way that I couldn't have unless I'd been there.

It's important to know the truth, and an ugly truth is ALWAYS more beautiful than a pleasing lie.

I'll qualify that by saying that the (real) asshole in this story - the person who sent the image to the family (not the people who took the images in the first place) did them no favours at all and deserve to be prosecuted and punished (in the UK, I imagine it would be an easy case of 'causing alarm or distress'). What they did was an act of singular cruelty, and what I have said should not be misconstrued as a defence of them or their actions.

  For the rest of us, there's no good reason not to know that travelling at high speeds whith out proper control of our vehicle will result in such a thing - and to see it. Reading a few words describing the gore does not leave the same impression. If anything, I think it would do all teenage drivers a favour to know exactly what can happen to them, their freinds and their families if they don't exercise proper control of their vehicle.

Surely a good reason to oppose censorship.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Klaus_1250]

You can question whether or not other people have the right to see images like that. Personally, I consider pictures of someones death and/or mutilated body are more personal/private than ones genitals.

The images of Nikki, including one of her nearly-decapitated head drooping out the shattered car window, were taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response and went viral after being leaked by two CHP dispatchers.

So what is the penalty of leaking images like this? I take it they will lose their jobs and face a civil lawsuit from the parents, but will they be fined or face jail-time?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Registered Coward v2]

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

Perhaps, but if it were my daughter I'd spend every penny I had suing anyone who posted those pictures into bankruptcy. As I (barely) recall CA law they have some pretty strong "right to publicity" laws to protect the use of people's images. While that is designed to allow heirs to control the use of famous, no dead, relatives and profit from their fame; perhaps it could be used in such a situation.

Just because you can do better things doesn't mean you have to let assholes continue to be assholes.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[schon]

The only thing that will give some sense to the death of their daughter is if it deters other young men and women from doing the same mistake.

The problem is that it won't.

These shock campaigns do *zero* to prevent young people from repeating the mistakes. Most youth believe they are invincible, and act accordingly. Showing them stuff like this just makes them say "oh, gross" as they repeat the mistakes, believing that it will never happen to them.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[donny77]

I believe it has been standard practice that images taken in a public place are the property of the photographer. They didn't break into a morgue and take the photos. These were taken on a public highway. They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive. In that context, does the good of these images outweigh the family's "right to privacy" on a public road? I understand the pain these images could cause, but they should be able to avoid seeing them. The people e-mailing these photos to them should get prosecuted though.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautifully stated. Where's my mod points when I need them?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Tuoqui]

It'd be easier to sue the police department make some mad $$$ and use all the mad $$$ to do the same thing.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Baseless or not, C&Ds are an effective tool to scare people into removing information. I've received one myself, and promptly told the lawyer and the client he represented to go fuck themselves. My reaction let them know I wasn't going down without a fight, but a fight wasn't going to be worth it to them in the long run.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. You know full well what the pictures are and even if you took a peek, although distasteful, you won't certainly die from it. But even if your righteous indignation trumps your queasy stomach, no one forces anyone to click on the link. So why exactly do you want a state employee to decide what things you may or may not be exposed to?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

So the cops have no duty to keep the images private, but every random person on the Internet does?

No, wait, the article admits they have no legal basis to do so, yet they are sending C&Ds anyway. Screw them and especially screw their attorneys, who are knowingly sending baseless C&Ds.

The photos would presumably be copyrighted by the CHP, and so posting them online could a violation of copyright. This would be sufficient grounds for a C&D. (IANAL.)

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[good soldier svejk]

I think this may be a teen trend. It happened to someone I know, albeit over the telephone (fake message from his recently deceased daughter).

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[multisync]

What a horrible horrible set of pictures. I've seen other death photos on the 'net (haven't we all) but this hits their family with what I would think an unbearable amount of sorrow and anger. No one should see their child that way....

Think about another parent who maybe saw their innocent child "in that way" because of the actions of an impaired, drug-addicted teenager driving a stolen car recklessly through a residential neighborhood. It's not like the girl was only putting herself in danger. She clipped another car then slammed in to a toll booth. She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

I understand she had suffered a brain injury early in life and there were other circumstances that contributed to her addiction, and I'm not judging her for any of that. But her actions could have been devastating to another family as well.

I have no idea who is taunting this family, and agree sending the photos to the family simply to taunt them is a dick move. But they are displaying classic Streisand Effect tactics: telling the rest of us we should give up our freedom and anonymity rather than them accepting that their daughter's actions may ultimately result in them seeing some horrific photos of the way her corpse looked after she killed herself.

The article states that they are all getting counseling and I think that is a good thing. My family suffered the loss of a child, and it is a life-altering experience for everyone left behind. I think they need to deal with accepting her loss, the guilt they may be feeling for actions/inactions on their part that all of us feel "when it's too late," and they need to come to terms with the fact that these photos are out there.

Keeping the other kids off the social network sites is probably a good idea for the time being, but they all need to prepare themselves for the possibility that they may encounter them one day.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto, assuming you're the one who said that you were going to dig up my parents and send me pictures of them.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[SanityInAnarchy]

When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some asshole hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some assholes with bombs hadn't killed the child.

Well said.

In this case, we shouldn't wish that the pictures hadn't been posted. We should wish that the girl hadn't taken cocaine, hadn't driven at 100 mph on that road, hadn't lost control, and hadn't died.

in the UK, I imagine it would be an easy case of 'causing alarm or distress'

Here, I disagree. One person's "alarm or distress" is another person's "freedom of speech." We can generally agree in this case, but where do we draw the line? It isn't very far from this to "don't depict Mohammed in a cartoon."

At the end of the day, you can always filter your own mail, and grow a stronger skin. However, once we start censoring, you cannot express certain things, even when they are appropriate.

What they did was an act of singular cruelty, and what I have said should not be misconstrued as a defence of them or their actions.

According to the family, so was publishing the photos at all.

I would not defend their actions, but I would defend their right to take such action. And I find it especially ironic that you close with:

Surely a good reason to oppose censorship.

...except the censoring of sufficiently alarming or distressing things?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Joce640k]

If you can't set a good example, at least be a horrible warning.

With pics.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Joce640k]

What about the people in the other car she hit?

Has poor Mr. Catsouras got anything to say about that?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Z00L00K]

Spreading the pictures was a bad thing if that wasn't sanctioned by the parents, but the "I'm alive" message was completely uncalled for and extremely rude. That poster sure only deserves contempt and should get a big public fledgling because that's one of the things that you shouldn't do.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[rgmoore]

I've never quite understood why; I have no problem understanding that if I have trouble walking then driving might not be such a good idea, but apparently some people do.

The problem is that alcohol impairs your judgment. It's the biggest danger of drinking. Alcohol impairs all of a person's mental functions, including the ability to recognize just how badly their abilities are impaired. The same drunkenness that makes a driver unsafe can also make that driver incapable of recognizing just how unsafe they are. That's why you're supposed to ask people for their keys while they're still sober. By the time they're drunk enough to be really dangerous, they're much less likely to give them to you.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

No, I think he's let slip that he's actually psychopathic: It is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths.

His comment is telling.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jhon]

I don't need reality sanitised for me by censorship.

It's not "censorship". To call it this is silly. The parents arguably have a case about their consitutional right to privacy being violated. You cannot have "privacy" without this thing that you and the GP are calling "censorship".

You do not have a right to say, or do what ever you want and then cry "censorship" when someone tries to stop you.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Interesting comments about people you know nothing about. Just because they're well off does not mean their motivations are any different to yours: happiness, family, safety, achievements, fulfilment, etc.

I'm always amazed by the comments of people who consider themselves less well off. Your comments are a thinly veiled attack on them because they have more money than you. Sad.

Believe it or not, being successful does not make you an asshole, it just makes you successful.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

This accident happened on PUBLIC PROPERTY, that WE, the TAXPAYERS (well, I pay taxes, maybe you don't) pay for.

This girl STOLE A CAR and was DRUNK.

Thank G-d she didn't KILL ANYONE. There were no innocent victims here.

If you kill yourself in a public place, while endangering others, your right to privacy goes out the window (along with your head!)

I agree the cops who leaked the photos should be fired. But it needs to end there. The photos do, after all, belong to the public because the "on purpose" (I can't call it an accident) happened in a public place.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Nursie]

And you know what?

They're right, for the most part. The reason these things are so shocking is that they are outliers. The behaviours are out oof the ordinary (most people that do drugs are not stupid enough to drive on them) and the consequences are out of the ordinary too, most people that take these really stupid risks will get away with it. Most, not all by a long shot, but most.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ultranova]

Alcohol impairs all of a person's mental functions, including the ability to recognize just how badly their abilities are impaired. The same drunkenness that makes a driver unsafe can also make that driver incapable of recognizing just how unsafe they are.

That's why I made the decision to never drive when I've had any alcohol within 12 hours, no matter how little, while sober. I remember and trust my sober judgement even while drunk (as I am right now, for example). That's why I I'm not particularly sympathetic to drunk drivers: they know they are drunk, but choose to drive nonetheless. Alcohol doesn't remove your intelligence, it simply loosens your inhibitions. It's not an excuse for taking stupid risks, and especially not for risking others.

That's why you're supposed to ask people for their keys while they're still sober. By the time they're drunk enough to be really dangerous, they're much less likely to give them to you.

I'm not giving my keys to anyone, ever, drunk or sober.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Respectfully, I don't agree. The photos show a truth: a truth about what happens when we speed at 100mph on cocaine and fly off the road. They show a truth about how incredibly fragile we are. That we are mortal.

What you say is true. Its a shame that who ever decided to write that harassing email, never had the decency to take into account "how incredibly fragile we are".

I'm not one for censorship, and if the picture is public... its too late unfortunately for this father. My heart goes out to him and his family.

I dont know if the email was intended to be aimed at him in some sick cruel joke by some heartless teenager, or if it was something general that was circulating and he just happened to be related. Either way... I can imagine how horrible it felt seeing that.

Sometimes i wish people would think about someone else for a second and realize "how incredible fragile we are"

I love the worst of the most offensive types of humor on the planet. Funny is funny... Even as sick as it is, this email is funny... but not when it reaches the father.

Its ok to laugh at the guy slipping on the banana peal. Its funny but if hes seriously hurt, it's not. Thats really what the situation is here. Its a heartless cruel joke that reached the wrong audience. Its as tasteless as tasteless gets and it can be funny amung people who have no real connection to the event. It may sound disgusting and tasteless but its harmless if it's enjoyed by mature people that intend no malice. It happens, and its a shame. I dont want to censor anyone... but i do ask that people think about the audience and who might be in it.

This should have NEVER made it into this gentleman's email. Whoever did this is disgusting and cruel. I hope they never have to live through what this family had to.

 

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[evilkasper]

I agree with you and If I had points I would gladly mod you up. There is a difference between censorship and privacy, apparently some of you are not aware of that. These pictures were never supposed to be public, to protect the privacy of the family. The fact that they were leaked by persons within the Police department is a bit concerning. These people are supposed to know better, no different than if a person who works at a hospital accesses a persons medical records out of curiosity. We have a reasonable right to expect privacy with certain things, this was one of them. That said it's out there now nothing can undo that.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[__aarzwb9394]

(Who the hell modded the above post insightful?) AC hasn't thought this through. The reason that we have locks on doors is that we know some people will steal stuff. Those police officers who delberately (or perhaps through negligence) released the pics into are responsible for their actions. The AC has not thought this through first or is hopelessly naive. We have rules for pics like this because we know that some people are ghoulish, and some of those ghoulish people are extremely cruel. We will never stop "harassment", so we need to keep pictures like this out of the public domain.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ChangelingJane]

She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

No, that's the definition of an idiot. A sociopath is a far more complicated animal. Sociopaths may not deserve much sympathy, but everybody is an idiot now and then.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I agree with this as well. While i'm not sure if such materials become public record because of police involvement, I would expect such material to be private.

If such materials are not public record, then the California Highway Patrol should be held responsible to the greatest extent under the law. Those involved should lose their job for violating the law.

Again thats if these materials arent considered public record once the police are involved. I'm not sure of that legality.

Either way its tasteless of the police to do this. We all know the police employ their share of society's assholes who neither wear the badge respectfully, or represent humanity's best. They ruin it for the few good cops who do so proudly.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[techno-vampire]

That judge should be recalled for that. (And yes, here on the Left Coast you can recall a judge that proves themselves unfit for the position.) The reason I say this is because this is a civil suit, not a criminal case. No law needs to have been broken for it to proceed. As an example, in the USA, you can say whatever you want about whoever you want and not go to jail for it. Of course, if you knowingly spread falsehoods about somebody, you may be sued for slander, but again, that's a civil case, not a criminal one.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Wolvenhaven]

They are public. During Drivers Education in my state(GA) we were shown a video of fatal car crashes involving teenagers in which their bodies were mutilated. At the end of the credits there were no legal statements saying "the family's have released the use of these photos" To show these photos in a video they would have either had to be public or get the family's release of them. You're right.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Well said.

I think the family is doing the right thing as well. I'm not sure of the police's legal right to give those pictures to the public. If they have no right, they should lose their jobs and suffer whatever else is coming their way as a result of breaking the law. I hope that includes never being allowed to police again anywhere.

The police department has a responsibility to the public. I'm not sure if such photos become public record or not, but i think the family is doing what is right.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[tinkerghost]

The 4chan kiddies (or more likely, their mommies and daddies) should also be subject to civil suits. Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck.

Here Here!. The anonymity of the internet creates a barrier between you and the consequences of your actions but it doesn't absolve you of those consequences. Personally, I think the person who sent the first Email should beaten with a baseball bat until their DNA is too scrambled to be processed. You have got to be a complete sociopath to think that that kind of behavior is acceptable under any circumstances.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the parents need a firefox extension that will identify the image algorithmically and censor it. Such an extension might be useful to block other shock-images as well. If there was an anti-goatse firefox plugin, I would install it.

Perhaps some machine-learning expert will read this post and implement it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[BoberFett]

It's too bad 5 is the limit for moderation. Intelligent AND eloquent.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear.

Not everything that is possible on the Internet is acceptable. Not everything that is possible on the Internet should be legal. Not everything that is possible on the Internet IS legal.

Curiously enough, most people wouldn't even think twice about agreeing with the above if it referred to things happening off the Internet, in meatspace - they'd accept it right away, as it'd be OBVIOUSLY true. Why does that change when/because you tack on an "on the Internet"?

Even if it's legal, that doesn't mean it should be done. The first rule of ethics is "don't be a dick", and some people really need to learn that being dicks just for the sake of it doesn't make them anything other than, well, dicks.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[wisnoskij]

I am not saying he should not have had the right to post that or the emailer to email the picture to the family, but they simply should not have. Sure i can avoid it, but people should really not get enjoyment out of peoples suffering.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[thetoadwarrior]

Don't lose your head over the situation.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[thetoadwarrior]

Which is no reason to ruin everyone's freedom of speech. By mailing those pictures to the father that person is harassing him. There are already laws against that. You go after that person and punish them for harassment.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Law" != "Morally Correct"

So few people seem to understand that these days, one has to do with the cultural memes and the other has to do with "The correct thing to do".

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[wisnoskij]

I completely agree. I just though it was posted more in a, "look at this, lol" sort of way, which seemed especially annoying because the news story was about how the father was mailed a picture of his dead daughter with a similarly themed caption. I do not care how much it was her fault, the family did not deserve that. I would never wish for censorship, but i can kindof understand why some want it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Pig Hogger]

She clipped another car then slammed in to a toll booth. She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

The environment where a father works as a real-estate agent, whose work is to artificially inflate the price of houses (and we have seen the worldwide economic collapse this has caused) and brings-in enormous amount of money is also very conductive to nurture sociopaths.

May his house plummet to 1/10th of it's value, and his mortgage rate raised 10% (and I'm generous! 25 years ago, my parents struggled with a 22% mortgage!!! Not a pretty sight.)

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they're well off does not mean their motivations are any different to yours: happiness, family, safety, achievements, fulfilment, etc.

Leaving aside the question of whether they're well off, different lifestyles do actually reflect different motivations.

Your comments are a thinly veiled attack on them because they have more money than you.

Getting back to the question of whether they're well off, the article mentions that they've taken out a second mortgage on their house. Depending when they took out their mortgage relative to the housing downturn, they may actually have a negative net worth (owe more than their assets). Given that I have positive net worth, I may actually have more money than they do. On the other hand, they are almost certainly spending/consuming at a much greater rate than me.

Believe it or not, being successful does not make you an asshole, it just makes you successful.

They lived in a bubble where everyone around them either believed that (e.g. their neighbors) or pretended to believe that (e.g. their hair stylist). The internet popped that bubble. The family was exposed to the fact that a lot of people don't respect, and even dislike, rich people.

Now, you're probably going to claim that there is no reason not to admire and respect rich people. My view is that the situation is complex and nuanced and can be argued either way

First, there is a fundamental question of whether the purpose of life is to do as much as you can for yourself or to do as much as you can for others. But the situation is more complicated. Some people would argue that doing as much as you can for yourself is equivalent to doing as much as you can for others because people are compensated according to how much they contribute to the economy. That is, rich people deserve to be rich and, furthermore, rich people should be admired and respected because they have contributed the most to society.

Of course, there are obvious counter-examples to this. Inherited wealth is one example. The financial company CEO's who walked away with hundreds of millions after bankrupting the world financial system are another recent example. Basically, these CEO's exploited flaws in the system to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

If one were given to generalization, one could find numerous examples of people whose wealth or earnings is clearly disproportionate to their contribution to society. One could then make the argument that rich people are people who exploited flaws in the system which allowed them take more than their share: that rich people deserve to be detested and reviled.

So, what's the truth? At the risk of a middle ground fallacy, I'd say that the truth is a little bit of both. Some rich people have made above average contributions to society and some haven't: some rich people deserve to be admired and some rich people deserve to be detested.

So, what about real estate - the profession of the family in question. Well, land isn't generally created or destroyed. In a certain sense, real estate is a zero sum game: for every winner there's a loser. Not only that, but when a person is born into the world, all the land is already allocated out. Some people who were born earlier came along and said "this is mine" - but they didn't produce the land: it was just there. That's not to say that there isn't a legitimate need for a system to decide who gets (exclusive) use of a parcel of land or that real estate agents provide absolutely nothing of value. On the hand, much of real estate is a zero sum game with people trying to take advantage of each other while not actually producing anything of real value.

So you could argue either way: that this family was scum or that they weren't. The reality is that there are people who feel strongly both ways. The internet exposed this family to opinions they don't like (that the family was scum) - but that's the internet for you

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Your analogy doesn't really work but let's give it a try anyhow. If a teller starts giving away bank property to people who shouldn't have it then the teller should be fired. I'm with the GP - the authorities responsible allowed the picture out and they and the employees involved should be held responsible for the results no matter what.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

It is you who has not thought it through. Saying "we will never stop harassment" isn't a reason to stop trying to stop harassment.

The behavior behind anyone who intentionally inflicts harassment is something we as a society have to deal with and stamp out. The people intentionally inflicting suffering on others need to be stopped.

Some people like for example the case of the woman bullying a girl who ended up committing suicide demonstrate there are a minority of people in this world who are deeply evil in their intentions to inflicts harassment and suffering on others. Censoring these people isn't the answer.

Like it or not, the Internet is effectively a window into the way people think. That means the whole of society is getting ever more exposed to the thoughts and intentions of others. This is forcing society to have to face up to the horrors of a minority who intentionally inflict suffering on others. Sooner or later that pressure is going to force society to deal with them once and for all. To stamp them out of society once and for all. To no longer have to accept the minority who intentionally inflict suffering on others and show so little empathy to others.

Ultimately the minority who intentionally inflict suffering on others are yet again another example of cluster B personality disorders. Most people don't realize how this minority of people think, yet everyone at some point in their lives sooner or later has to face them and ends up suffering for it. But that is changing. Large numbers of people are starting to understand how they think because now we as a society are having to ever more face up to how they behave on the Internet and the reasons that drive them to behave the way they do.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[misexistentialist]

You don't need the "right" to be a sick fuck to be one. The question is whether the government has the right to punish sick fucks that doesn't also give it the power to punish anyone for anything. Censoring pictures is not a valid government power.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[644bd346996]

Are you saying that intellectual property protection should apply to pictures of celebrities, but not their works?

The US constitution states that the purpose of intellectual property protection is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and that it should apply to inventions and writings (and by extension, their modern analogues). A person's likeness, being a natural trait and not the design of any human, doesn't meet the requirement.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[yerktoader]

Actually, under the law the dispatchers did not do wrong. That's why the case was dismissed. Other states DO recognize privacy for the dead, while CA does not.

Ethically? Sure, the dispatchers shouldn't have spread those photos, even if it was as a warning to teenagers they knew. But while it might have been a 4chan kiddie who sent the images to the family, your comment is still to broad a stroke. Those who sent the images should be sued for harassment, if and only if they can be positively identified.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[yerktoader]

The police snafu, helps increase awareness that taking cocaine then driving can lead to horrible consequences

If she had taken cocaine and sped off, yes. She took the cocaine the night before. Do you really not see the difference, or, alternatively, know the effective length of inebriation from a typical dose of cocaine?

She'd have to be Rick Fuckin James to still be high the next day. This comes down to her previous brain injury/tumor, for which the family was going to bring her to a brain injury specialist psychologist the next day....But, of course, that was in the article.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mjeffers]

Which is why the correct response to this isn't putting them in jail or passing new laws, its bankrupting them in a civil lawsuit.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

sick fucks from anonymous and 4chan emailing them to the family with captions

Hey, I resent that, I'm anonymous and I didn't know about this until I read this /.

Sincerely yours,

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Exactly. This isn't really a copyright issue, although that may be how the family tries to cope with it. This is about the behaviour of a government organization. The agents of that organization did something with official property and it was something that they were not entitled to do. What they did with it had foreseeable repercussions which included the family being psychologically harmed (psychological shock is what is required I think but ianal). It seems to have all the elements of a classic tort. If the organization took no steps to prevent this sort of behavior, which might have simply been a "don't do this" in the rules, then they may be liable for negligence. If the action they take after the fact essentially makes light of the action of their employee (not saying it does) then they are compounding the problem and their liability. These are official people entrusted with information gained in an official capacity - there is an expected standard of care involved.

Any time you take an action which could foreseeably harm another and you do so anyhow then you are opening up yourself up to a lawsuit.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy. Apparently this has been a very rude wake up call. Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.

If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

Your opinion is worthless because it only shows how little worth you have for yourself.

Your +5 Insight is to make this about money?

I guess your warped view is that the parents of daughters who die in cheap cars don't deserve the loss while the parents of daughters who die in expensive cars do deserve their daughters death.

Because we all know know cheap cars don't go fast or kill and less wealthy kids don't do drugs.

How nice it must be for you to sit in your ivory tower and cast judgment upon this family's "idyllic" life as though that too warrants their daughter's grizzly death spread all over the internet, not to mention their horrific loss of a loved one.

FYI a "Rude wake up call" is not the police showing up at your door to ask you to identify the mangled remains of your daughter.

A sight NO ONE deserves to see and which will undoubtedly be remembered for the rest of their life even without the pictures.

Kudos to /. for scoring you a 5 for your obvious self hatred. I would have given you a 10.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[peragrin]

if your dumb enough to do drugs, then your dumb enough to drive too. just look at drunk drivers. The real reason those who do drugs don't drive is because they have already lost or never had a license, and don't feel the need to drive. They generally don't have a car either as they are poor from doing drugs.

hence why the only people one hears about driving under the influence of drugs are the rich.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Stray7Xi]

What this whole situation shows is that "intellectual property" is still a good idea, if legislators hadn't completely distorted it. The pictures exploit the public image of Nikki Catsouras, they should be the property of her family. Aside from use in police investigations, the CHP has no right in delivering those photographs to anyone.

They exploit the public image of a corpse. Why does that need protection? No the court got this right. This is within the CHP's right to release. What about all the damage she caused. The public has a right to the information through FOIA. When you do stupid shit, don't expect to censor it from public view. Had she lived, then privacy would be deserved until she could go to a fair trial...

Now the dispatchers should be disciplined, while the CHP has the right, the employees shouldn't act above their authority.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

These shock campaigns do *zero* to prevent young people from repeating the mistakes.

[citation needed]

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[blind biker]

Who said anything about shock campaigns? I haven't, the GP hasn't, either.

It's in your head, I presume.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[CTalkobt]

In addition, presumably if her family didn't have control of the picture's the girl's estate would and, lo and behold - I would imagine her family would control her estate (not many teens have wills).

The Judge needs to get remajegutated on interpretive law (The practice of interpreting laws to fit your desired outcomes).

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The behavior of this and other similar parents are what will bring about the elimination of the white race by 2012.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Achromatic1978]

"California law and vehicle code" states that "images taken at a crime scene as part of an investigation"...

The photos weren't taken by a member of the public, but either a) a police photographer, who you can be sure is covered both under the above, and also a stipulation in their employment contract that all images they create for and on behalf of the CHP are the property of CHP, or b) by a CHP officer, also subject to the above.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[LordLimecat]

One would almost think youve never made mistakes in your life. Must be nice.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Dega704]

This is not either/or. The cops did wrong, should be fired and subject to punishment for any laws they may have broken as well as civil lawsuits. The 4chan kiddies (or more likely, their mommies and daddies) should also be subject to civil suits. Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck. It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free.

I agree. It's rather difficult to get over the death of your daughter when a bunch of feces-throwing monkeys on the internet think it's funny to send that crap. Why in the heck does anyone want to even see those pictures? And sending them to the family with captions taunting them? Are these people insane? Have they been watching anime porn for so long that it's messed them up in the head to the point that they have no sense of decency? It makes me want to puke.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

> One would almost think youve[sic] never made mistakes...

You don't see my daughter in the news, now do you.

> Must be nice.

Yes, it is.

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Achromatic1978]

And then to make matters worse, the original judge ruled that after one officer had been suspended, and the other quit "for other reasons" CHP no longer had any responsibility for the problem that had been created by their employees, and dismissed the case. How in the name of hell did he work with that "logic"?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[stfvon007]

A person's likeness, being a natural trait and not the design of any human, doesn't meet the requirement.

 
What about people that have had plastic surgery?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[nickspoon]

I don't see what could be gained by the public from these photographs - and isn't that what freedom of information is all about? Sure, you could make some tenuous claim that it will enhance road safety, but if you're going to run a campaign like using that image it is only right that the family give permission.

There is no reason behind this leak and the subsequent distribution except sick harassment of a grief-stricken family. And to those of you calling the leak a wake-up call, consider that perhaps the death of your daughter would be a more significant spur than the irresponsibility shown by the dispatchers along with the infantile and extremely disrespectful actions of some anonymous teenager.

There is perhaps no criminal case here but the simple fact is that society should see that the actions of the dispatchers and the people who distributed this image were inappropriate, and a misuse of the guise of freedom of information.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas O'Donnell and Aaron Reich if this were my daughter I wouldn't be sending lawyers after you, I would be hunting you down myself with a big fucking axe.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[LordLimecat]

Yea, youre right. Someone should have sent him pictures of THEM. That totally would have been the proper thing to do.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[troll8901]

A well written post. It will be nice if you can explain some of your finer points, since I don't seem to be capable of comprehending TFA, your post, and further googling.

---

It was a spoilt cocained out of control girl trading hard on the privileges her "loving parents" gave her without regard to common sense ...

I fail to connect between your point and TFA. Where do they fit together?

"In third grade, Nikki was diagnosed with a brain tumor ... 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday -- perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control.

---

... have access to a $90K sportscar ...

Once again I failed to understand what you mean, as I'm confused by TFA again:

a car she was never allowed to drive

Where and how do they fit?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

> Believe it or not, being successful does not make you an asshole, it just makes you successful.

Letting your 18 year old coked out daughter take the keys and your $90,000 Porsche isn't successful.

This family shouldn't be suing anyone other than themselves for failing to be good parents.

They're not "successful." They're stupid assholes who let their daughter run her life down a long downhill slope that ended up in her death.

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[1u3hr]

What a horrible idea. Thank god it isn't the law in any sane country. If it were, no one could take a photograph, anywhere, without getting releases from everyone in it. Newspapers and TV news could just shut up business. And remember, SHE IS DEAD. Dead people don't have many rights, and specifically, no right to privacy. Again, this is good.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Hognoxious]

Sure I can change your oil and filters, but I'll have to break a window.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Toonol]

Hmm. You're correct that the officers should not have distributed the photos. What if I had happened across the accident right after it happened, and took photos? (Not that I would have. Yuck.) Or, to make it more palatable, a photojournalist or documentarian? The accident was on a public area, in full view. No expectation of privacy, and you could argue that there is significant public value to publishing the pictures. It might keep other young people from being as self-destructively foolish as Nikki was.

Sending a taunting email to the father was cruel, and I wouldn't condone that. However, a photograph of an accident site in a public area is a FACT, public information, and I'm not sure intellectual property rights would be relevant.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jbain]

Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck.

Well said.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

Take note in the article as to what are facts and what are allegations. The parents "claim" the "she might be impulsive because she got treated ten years ago"(para). No doctor says that.

The reality of it is she was an out of control 18-year old girl using cocaine and taking a vehicle she wasn't able to drive safely.

Did she use cocaine? yes.
Did she have easy access to the Porsche and keys? yes.
Was she in any way punished or grounded or restricted for use of drugs and stuff? No.
Who is to blame: the parents
Why should we blame the parents: The function of parents is to protect their children. These parents didn't protect her from drugs; they didn't protect her from thinking she had no rules. Clearly they used their privilege of wealth to let her do what she wanted... and so she did.

They should sue themselves.

E P.S. Lest anything I say be construed as some sort of gladness... let me be clear... I'm not "happy" this young lady is dead, nor do I take any special "joy" from pointing a finger at the responsible parties... the adults... the parents... I'm just joining in the discussion to say they have nobody to sue but themselves. If I could wish that girl alive I would.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[darthflo]

Here, I disagree. One person's "alarm or distress" is another person's "freedom of speech." We can generally agree in this case, but where do we draw the line? It isn't very far from this to "don't depict Mohammed in a cartoon."

We can probably isolate three people doing potentially wrong things here.
Firstly, whomever leaked the image to the public. Without knowing the motivation, we can't say much about that. You can argue in their favor and say this was done as a wakeup call to the public about the dangers of reckless behaviour or you could look at it as pointless shocker imagery. I, for one, would go with the free speech argument.
Then, there's the person captioning the image as described in TFS. Freedom of Speech and satire on one hand, impiousness and causing alarm or distress on the other. Again, I'd argue in favor of FoS, as long as this isn't presented in a deceptive, shocker site fashion.
Lastly, there's sick bastards attempting to deceive people into viewing this under the pretense of legitimate content, like property listings. I'm not quite sure how one could possibly argue in favor of that. To me, this seems very fucking sick and absolutely unnecessary. This is where people should, in my opinion, be prosecuted.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I once saw an accident, I Was first one there, the guy in mustang was pretty much split in half from hitting posted sign or something. I saw his eyeball, and half a body. I called the police. If I took the picture in the public, and released it on the net like under awful website...do I have a right? I think I do- it was in public.

  What the police did is wrong -- but the question, if it happen in the public, should not information be free?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Moar like a 4chan trend.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[blagger99]

Gotta agree with that. I was moved.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[WCguru42]

This is within the CHP's right to release. What about all the damage she caused. The public has a right to the information through FOIA.

Judging by the action taken by the CHP (suspending the two officers involved) they didn't have the right to release the images in the manner that they did. CHP my have a legal right to release the photos, but it probably doesn't involve leaks to internet websites, it probably involves more formal public channels.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

Right because teenagers never act without consideration of the consequences of their actions. Clearly she's an abnormal sociopath and therefore her and everyone she knew deserves whatever punishment we can stomach.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Craevenwulfe]

No, it just shows what absolute cunts people can be.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ukyoCE]

A private citizen recording images or pictures, sure. But you're basically suggesting that every image and video recorded by the police, doctors, hospitals, and so on is "destined" to be public domain. Same for corporate documents, non-disclosure agreements, and every private document in existence.

That's an absurd approach. If someone violates the law or the rules of their job, they should be held accountable for it.

Sanitizing the world has nothing to do with it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The domain is apparently registered to a PO box in Ukrain and runs on Russian hosting. Whoever this sick fuck that put up the domain to spread his virus - needs to be fucking DDoSed at the very least.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[l00sr]

Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

It may not have been a crime, but I don't see why a lawsuit would not be warranted. In fact, I would hope that they sue the jerk who sent them the pictures, if they find out who did it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[NIckGorton]

Judging by the action taken by the CHP (suspending the two officers involved) they didn't have the right to release the images in the manner that they did.

How do you figure that? Just because something is distasteful or stupid that doesn't mean its not within your rights. See: Westboro Baptist Church.

Similarly, as an ER physician if I call a drunk douchebag who takes a swing at me... well... a drunk douchebag I may suffer disciplinary repercussions even though it was within my rights. So just because they were disciplined by CHP that doesn't imply they broke a law or did something they did not have a right to do.

That said, IANAL. So it may well be illegal, but that isn't demonstrated by CHP's internal disciplinary decisions.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Saxerman]

But you're basically suggesting that every image and video recorded by the police, doctors, hospitals, and so on is "destined" to be public domain.

Yeah, that whole 'for a limited time' in the copyright clause in the Constitution seems kinda freaky, doesn't it?

Is this really where we're headed as a society? Idea ownership is normal and ideas being open and free for anyone to use is strange?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Nursie]

"if your dumb enough to do drugs, then your dumb enough to drive too. just look at drunk drivers."

Yes, everyone that ever drank a beer has driven drunk, crashed and died. I forgot about that.

The real reason those who do drugs don't drive is because they have already lost or never had a license, and don't feel the need to drive.

Yes, that too is an indisputable fact, that everyone that's ever smoked weed is a lazy good for nothing that never got a license. Just like all those politicians. That must be why they need chauffeurs!

Your logic is astounding and undeniable sir!

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Mnemennth]

I am at once both mortified and nauseated by this event... but in the end, I must agree with you. It is a horrifying thing that has happened to this family, and if I could undo it all I would, but... you can't hold back the tide with a broom; this is a fact of life in any world with public media of any kind. The internet by it's nature simply makes it easier to be in the way when this kind of stuff happens.

As for the CHPs involved... I actually feel bad for them, if what they say is true about their motivations - and it just goes to prove how even the best of intentions can be twisted by some perverted b@stard hiding under the cloak of anonymity.

As you say - love her, mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but move on. No good can come of what this family are doing...

mnem

namaste.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[NIckGorton]

It's not "censorship". To call it this is silly. The parents arguably have a case about their consitutional right to privacy being violated.

So any time someone injures themselves in public, their right to privacy means no one can take and share pictures of it? Well FailBlog will be decimated then. And for that matter, written description of similar incidents should also be censored to ensure people's privacy. Why stop at just a picture? So the Darwin Awards has go to go by your reasoning.

And by the way, its spelled 'constitutional'. But you made my day by arguing a constitutional basis for unconstitutional censorship while misspelling the name of the document you are misrepresenting. Call me a moran, and you will complete the trifecta.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[jhfry]

Surely a good reason to oppose censorship.

...except the censoring of sufficiently alarming or distressing things?

I don't think it's a matter of censorship. There is a huge difference between censorship and punishing those who use information to harm another person. For example, much of my personal information is publicly available if you know where to look... that doesn't give you a right to make a phone call and remind me of all of the painful events in my life.

No one wants censorship... but I believe that an attack on someone's emotions can be every bit as brutal as a physical attack and there needs to be a method to punish those who commit non-physical attacks.

Had the ass in all of this sent that email to a ton of his friends, a mailing list, or whatever it could be considered social commentary and be protected by free speech. He sent it to her family with the intent to do emotional harm... that is, or at least should be, a crime.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[edward2020]

Go back to your hobbit hole.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[edward2020]

res judicata

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Trailwalker]

...never happen to them.

Keeps me and a lot of people employed and well paid.

From personal experience: Parents who have lost a child are devastated emotionally and often act irrationally.

Whatever the behavior of the child, they have suffered a horrible loss. Again, from personal observation, wealth does not alleviate this. It merely allows recourse to the legal system in their search for a non existent balm for their pain.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[NIckGorton]

Just because they're well off does not mean their motivations are any different to yours: happiness, family, safety, achievements, fulfilment, etc.

Its not that they are well off that irks people. Its what they choose to do with that wealth.

I'm a physician and make about $250-300k a year. With this I pay off the debt I accrued in medical school (I put myself through undergrad and med school because I am from a very poor background. Poor as in welfare, foodstamps, and housing projects.) I also pay the mortgage on two adjacent (although modest) homes for myself and my partner's elderly parents. My partner and I share a 6 year old civic (hybrid) although he has 2 used motorcycles as well. We donate about 10% of our income, and I volunteer 2 days a week at a free clinic.

If I had ten times the money I wouldn't buy a porche. I also wouldn't spend my money on a quixotic quest for retribution through the legal system.

That said, the parents of this girl have every right to do so. And we have every right to say that their quest, while understandable, is dangerous in that it threatens the freedoms of speech rights of an entire country. And that statement is not from a place of class rivalry, but from an understanding of free speech and the necessity of defending even repulsive free speech.

You can't just say that censorship is OK when applied to douchebags. Arguably the people who post these pictures and link to them are supreme douchebags. However, I also think that Bobby Jindal, Karl Rove, and the entire membership of the KKK are also arguably supreme douchebags. However others would disagree with me. So we can't use douchebaggery as a bar for censorship. In fact its the very speech that repulses us most that we must defend because that's where freedom of speech is most easily chipped away. See Virginia v. Black et al. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=14776

In order for speech to be free, even the most repulsive speech must also be protected.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this pavron looser down already, or do slashdot really support no-clue haters like this for real?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking disgusting self-righteous cunt!

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Kell Bengal]

I believe that their struggle is entirely with the CHP, as it should be - the police fucked up and they should be held accountable. Although they would change things if they could, from TFA it sounds like they are realistic about their ability to change the world - they merely want to set a precedent of deterrence for these kinds of leaks.

That said, I think your suggestion that they use their efforts to raise awareness in the girl's name is also well founded. If they win the case and get a payout I think it would be an excellent use of it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Kell Bengal]

So what you're saying is that it's actually copyright infringement?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Antique Geekmeister]

No about the sociopathy. One's mental state while under drugs is not the same as one's normal mental condition, and this sounds like the flying-high, stupid behavior of a teenager on cocaine. And her family didn't give her access to the car: she stole it from them. I'm really sorry for them: they were apparently starting the long, hard process of dealing with a cocaine user in the family. She doesn't deserve that insult: she might well seriously regret her behavior, when off the cocaine, that she engaged in. But she won't get the chance.

The article doesn't say how much cocaine was found in her system at the time of the accident. But it doesn't take being rich or privileged for a live-at-home teenager in trouble to steal a family car and get in a dangerous or even fatal accident. I'm remembering some of the crack users of my younger days, when crack became popular. It was devastating.) Mind you, it takes some wealth to afford cocaine rather than crack. And being pretty and young (not blonde, she had brown hair) can contribute to its availability. And I remember some parties I attended when younger: she'd have found it quite available: I don't think that's changed.

Now, all that said: we all need a sense of scale. A pretty white girl wiped out in a drug-related car accident is a family tragedy. But given the scale of other abuses in the world (such as genocide in places where we've created the local genocides, or wholesale rape as a day-to-day occurence in US prisons, or children starving to death worldwide), we need to look outside our privileged enclaves and go do some people some good. So get over this and go contribute some blood, or help with a Big Brother program for kids who really need a lot more help to avoid even worse fates.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[multisync]

No, that's the definition of an idiot. A sociopath is a far more complicated animal

There are lot's of links on the net. Here's another one, at the very same site you linked to, which tells us:

Sociopath: One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Stop being a pedant.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[troll8901]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I understand better now.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[pentalive]

The letter was *sent* to the father, disguised as a house listing. Something that he as a Realtor would open and read. It was not accidental, and it was not random spam.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, you pass these points and begin moralizing about the circunstances of the accident.

Here's an idea: Don't publish your story in Newsweek if you don't want people talking about it.

Just throwing that out there.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[EvilStein]

Although, it's Orange County. High priced cars are the norm, and socialite white folks like to indulge in a little coke every now n' then.

With all of the pro-marijuana activities going on, people are getting mixed signals about drugs. (Not just pot... all of them)

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[SanityInAnarchy]

For example, much of my personal information is publicly available if you know where to look... that doesn't give you a right to make a phone call and remind me of all of the painful events in my life.

I would say it does. If you don't want that to happen, hang up on me, and don't post those details in the first place.

He sent it to her family with the intent to do emotional harm... that is, or at least should be, a crime.

So, when a bully teases me on the playground, should I sue?

Sorry, but "intent to do emotional harm" is not a crime, and should not be. When I say "fuck you" right now, I should not go to jail for doing so. And yes, fuck you -- I like my civil liberties.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That was one of the best, most insigthfull posts I've ever read on ./ .

--- LongtimeLurker

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

That is correct, sir, and here are the pics you were looking for.

A dead body. You know, I really admire the emergency services who have the compassion and the courage to attend these sorts of scenes.

It's pretty gruesome, but it was obviously very quick and she didn't suffer, and luckily no one else was hurt.

What a tragic waste of a young life, but it happens every day, all around the world.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[EvilStein]

Although, in emergency services we can actually use such photos to help us learn how to better handle such situations. Look at the placement of the vehicle. it was against a bridge pillar and there was a slope. Had there been a viable patient in the vehicle, there would have been a lengthy extrication. Being able to see different situations helps us prepare for the inevitable 'next time.'

Some people can even benefit from it. Others say that the shock stuff doesn't work at all, but I don't think that's true in every case.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Dhalka226]

Take note in the article as to what are facts and what are allegations. The parents "claim" the "she might be impulsive because she got treated ten years ago"(para). No doctor says that.

"In third grade, Nikki was diagnosed with a brain tumor that doctors didn't think she'd survive. It turned out to be benign, but 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday--perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control."

If this article is to be our source, that seems pretty conclusive to me: Doctors told the parents it might affect her brain in that way. The only part that is "allegation" is that it had something to do with the cocaine use or the activities that night. If you simply want to call people liars without any particular reason to believe it is so, well, I can't stop you. But it's not a compelling argument by any stretch.

Did she have easy access to the Porsche and keys? yes.

They're bad parents because they have a car key somewhere and trusted their daughter not to steal a car? It truly astounds me how much slashdotters who obviously aren't parents think they know about parenting.

I obviously don't know their particular situation, but in my house we have four people (parents, my brother and myself), all of driving age (actually all adults, if that makes any difference). There were keys to just about every car lying around the house, because our driveway is long and we have a garage, but not enough room to put all of the cars in a position that they can leave without having to move any other cars. We can't park on the street overnight due to local legal restrictions, so it's important to us to be able to leave at whatever time we want without having to wake people up and rummage through their purse or pockets. I suppose my parents are bad parents if this leads to me stealing their car without their permission, speeding down the highway and wrecking into a tollbooth?

Was she in any way punished or grounded or restricted for use of drugs and stuff? No.

Erm, how the hell do you know? And what does "and stuff" mean?

Maybe she wasn't punished for drugs. We'll assume you're right, even though you're obviously just making shit up to fit your theory. Time and again here we belittle law enforcement for punishing drug users. Clearly, we say, what these people need is help to beat their addictions. Suddenly when it's a parent instead, trying to get help is an inappropriate response? You really believe a good grounding would set a drug addict straight? She was going to a therapist; maybe that was a bad choice and a drug addiction center would have been better. Maybe that choice and those 12 hours were the worst decision they've ever made in their lives -- but it doesn't make them bad parents, particularly if this girl's last brush with cocaine ended up with a cocaine-induced psychosis.

he responsible parties... the adults... the parents..

Aside from the fact that I obviously disagree about their responsibility, it's worth noting that this girl was 18 years old herself. If we're compelled to assign responsibility for somebody's actions, I think the adult person whose actions we're talking about is a much more appropriate place to start--particularly if all we have against the parents is "they didn't ground her!" and "they let her steal their car by having a key!" Both of which are frankly ridiculous.

Judging by your previous post... yes, you're just one of those asshats who hate "spoilt" people because they have money you don't; who tries to rationalize their ugly glee at other peoples' misfortunes by whatever means they think might stick to the wall. Give me your parent's email address. I want to let them know what a shitty job they did with you. Fair's fair you know.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the repercussions of speech. If what is said causes harm, then it is entirely valid and correct to punish the offender. That's why we have fraud, libel, harassment and other similar laws.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[pHus10n]

I don't really get why people modded this Funny. Would you really like someone to make jokes about something tragic that happened to your daughter? Your wife? Your mom?
This isn't 4Chan.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

Sorry, but radiation therapy doesn't lead to "loss of impulse control" -- that's just something the parents say. Here's the search for you. http://www.google.com/search?q=radiation+therapy+impulse+control&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Second, if you DO have a coked-up daughter with "impulse control loss" you don't leave keys around whether or not you "...have a long driveway." You "impulse-control proof" your house.

Look this isn't personal but clearly the parents didn't "child-proof" their $90,000 Porsche based on their "impulse control less" daughter or whatever their story is. Clearly they didn't prevent her from getting coked up, and clearly they didn't prevent her from going out.

You can spin it any way you like. They didn't do THEIR JOB to protect THEIR DAUGHTER from herself and from causing harm to others. If you want to make it about me disliking privileged kids you're way offbase. I dislike privileged parents who don't live up to the responsibilities that come with those privileges. Rich or poor, many kids or one, $90K Porsche or $1,500 pickup truck -- that girl had issues and her parents failed her.

Best regards,

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[multisync]

No about the sociopathy. One's mental state while under drugs is not the same as one's normal mental condition, and this sounds like the flying-high, stupid behavior of a teenager on cocaine.

You're right that it would be unfair to label her a "sociopath" based on the scant information in the NewSpeak article. I don't think I did that. I intended to draw a parallel. The cocaine may have been the stimulus that lead to the behaviour, however the result is the same.

Take a look at this video. The chap featured in it has since turned his life around and is lecturing school kids in an effort to stop them from following the path he took. And that is commendable, but the fact is if he had killed someone while on his meth-fueled joyride - say, for example, his gun hadn't failed to fire or he simply lost control of the vehicle he was driving at 140 KM/H down a residential street - I think you would be hard pressed to convince the family of his victims that he hadn't demonstrated indifference to the well being of other members of society.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not condoning harassing this family, but I don't know the motives of the person doing this. Life experience tells me that things are rarely as cut and dried as they appear on the surface. As hard as it is for the girl's family to have their noses rubbed in the circumstances of her death, it's very possible that someone out there feels justified in doing so.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[paazin]

Don't lose your head over the situation.

I've got karma to burn so fuck it - that's way over the line and you should be ashamed.

You're a tool for making a joke like that at someone's grievous loss, and looks like some mods are even more assholes for promoting this as 'Funny'

What the fuck has happened to this place?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to say where I found this since some images shouldn't be seen and the glimpse I got nearly made me puke, if you do go looking don't scroll down the page, the phrase "nearly decapitated" does not prepare you for those images and I only caught a glimpse probably made worse by the pictures google show of a pretty girl if you search for her family surname. To be honest somethings shouldnt come up on the first page of a google search.

Anyway to answer your questions about the other people involved with this accident

"
Nicole Catsouras, 18, lost control of a Porsche 911 at over 100 mph. Gory pictures showing her crossing the median and crashing into the northbound toll booth, the south side of the Eastern (241) Toll Road in Lake Forest on Tuesday.

Nicole Catsouras, 18, lost control of a black Porsche 911 Carrera while attempting to pass another vehicle at more than 100 mph, California Highway Patrol officials said.

The Porsche crossed the center median, traveled across north lanes and the Alton Parkway southbound on-ramp, before colliding into a toll booth building.

Nicole Catsouras was pronounced dead at the scene from head trauma.

Police said she was attempting to pass a gray Honda Civic traveling about 70 mph in the far left lane, when the Porsche clipped the Honda and lost control.

The Honda then veered to the left and hit the center median.

The driver of the Honda, a 20-year-old man from Rancho Santa Margarita, was taken by ambulance to Mission Hospital with minor to moderate injuries. Both drivers were wearing seatbelts.

Police found open alcoholic beverage containers inside of the Honda but alcohol is not suspected as a cause of the collision, CHP officials said.

A toll booth operator was believed to be in the structure at the time of the accident. There were no additional injuries, CHP officials said."

My synpathies can only go out to the parents and the poor buggers who had to attend to the scene. I'm feeling kind of numb, theres something wrong with the world when google will bring up images like this, and it's also bloody wrong that this should be brought up on slashdot

Mr Malda I think you should close this story and delete the posts. It really doesnt belong here, as fodder for bored geeks.

It's just wrong. If anyone knows of any way to get Google and other search engines to delist those sick pages please do so, we don't need to be entertained by this.
or disturbed by this either.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

And with the CHP being a public agency, I'm going to assume that those photos would be immediately available on submission of a FOIA request. That said, IA also NAL.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

If a teller starts giving away bank property to people who shouldn't have it then the teller should be fired.

The teller can't do his job without access to bank property. When the teller abuses that trust, he is disciplined. You might limit the bank property to which the teller has access, but you then introduce inefficiencies into the operation of the bank.

You can't stop police from having access to police photographs. You might limit the access of which police have access to which photographs, but analogous to the bank teller, you might reduce the police efficiency. If a member of the police does something that he shouldn't, then like the bank teller, he should be disciplined.

One cop was disciplined. You might argue that the discipline was insufficient. Without knowing further details of the cop and his record, I am not willing to speculate whether 25 days without pay is appropriate. The other cop escaped discipline by quitting.

The employees were held responsible.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ChangelingJane]

Rar! I am angry for to the information!

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Wrath0fb0b]

You would be wrong. http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.htm. This guy meets the major criterion, it's outrageous and specifically intended to cause emotional distress with no possible other motivation.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Omniscientist]

Respectfully, I don't agree. The photos show a truth: a truth about what happens when we speed at 100mph on cocaine and fly off the road. They show a truth about how incredibly fragile we are. That we are mortal.

Unfortunately, driving 100mph on cocaine and flying off the road doesn't particularly scream "WE ARE FRAGILE".

Rather, a better example of that is perhaps dying in a collision while going to work on a neighborhood road at 25mph. The only thing that dying from a collision caused by driving 100mph on cocaine tells us is that there is no such thing as God Mode.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ScottCooperDotNet]

There was a case of a teenage girl and her friends drinking alcohol before a local concert. One of the girls crashed the car they were in, killing herself and injuring the others. The parents, rather than take some portion of responsibility, are now lobbying the State to limit tailgating at concerts. This shortsighted view is going to lead to many more people drinking elsewhere first and then driving there, which is the exact opposite of what these guilt-ridden parents are trying to accomplish.

Sadly, when these folks spoke before the Legislature, no one questioned the need for additional laws. Four were already broken by these girls, but I'm sure MADD and the other pressure groups will pigpile on the issue.

I can't imagine what new laws the parents in the article will come out in favor of.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Mr. Slippery]

Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

Sure you can. In sufficient degree, "being a dick" is "harassment".

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[PDAllen]

So what you're saying is, if you lose your daughter (even if it was mainly due to her being an idiot) the first thing you should do is reset your mail filter in case someone sends you gory pictures of her dead body? And along the way you should massively improve our current ability to perform image recognition (given the description, the image wasn't named anything obvious)?

In terms of censorship, you cannot just legislate and expect rules to cover everything. You have to accept that many, or even most, cases will have to be decided on their own. To give examples, there are some things that clearly should not be public knowledge - so someone who tries to publish a list of (illegally acquired) account and PIN numbers should find they are censored (and prosecuted). There are some things that should clearly not be censored - like Rushdie's works, whether or not you think they lack much literary merit.

In this case, there is no public interest - it's an email sent to one person. This is nothing more than some jackass trying to cause hurt, and the jackass in question deserves to receive a legal kicking. Of course, it may well be impossible to find the jackass, and it's not sensible to try to sue the internet...

With the Danish cartoons (or Entropa, or a whole host of such things) you have to ask whether the creator is solely intending to cause offence or not - and even if you decide the aim is just to cause offence, possibly you might still decide that publication is in the public good. As an example, if the jackass who sent the email had posted these images to some website with a caption like 'darwin strikes again' or something of that nature, then I'd say that is fine.

Short version: if you send a private message to one person, you should try to make sure it doesn't cause pain, and you should expect not to receive any benefit of doubt about your motives. If you publish something to the whole world (and you're not being deceptive, for example you don't link a shock image as 'cute lambs in a field') then you should receive every possible benefit of the doubt.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[he-sk]

Personal property has nothing to do with it. The personality right of the victims dictate that pictures of their dead body are not displayed in public. As far as the ownership of the pictures is concerned, I think the public should own but they should be put in an evidence box and be done with it. The photographer who took him as part of his work should most definitely not own them.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[he-sk]

Dude, have you no respect for human dignity? I bet her last wish wasn't for her picture to be displayed as part of a "Shit happens to stupid people" story.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Achromatic1978]

I think you'll find that the parents are suing the CHP for breaches of privacy laws, and breaches of duty of care in that regard in ensuring that such images would not be disseminated in breach of the CHP employee statutes, regulations, and applicable laws.

In theory, CHP could sue the employees for cost recovery and damages as a result of the infringement, but in reality (a) you don't sue your employees for that kind of thing, and (b) the police union would go apeshit, etc, etc.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Mr. Slippery]

The one thing can control, though, is themselves. The best path to inner peace may be for them to reassess their own values and world view.

So very, very interesting that you post that as an AC, putting yourself in a situation where no one can harass you the way that these people were harassed.

There are two issues here. One is what is the best thing, in terms of psychological health, for this couple to do; the other is, shall we permit people who engage in this sort of harassment to wander about on their own, or shall we place them under the supervision of the criminal justice system?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[PDAllen]

Intent to punch someone in the face isn't a crime, either. Actually doing it (deliberately) is a crime, and a jury will decide whether you were deliberately punched (or not) before sending the guy who punched you to jail (or not).

Saying 'fuck you' to Joe Random on the internet won't meet any reasonable person's idea of causing emotional harm, so no jury will be convinced that your post is something that means you should be sent to jail, so no problem. But that doesn't mean that emotional harm is impossible, or not a crime. That's what slander and libel laws are for, in part. As to your half-baked idea that you 'like your civil liberties', the idea that you can say anything you like and get away with it is not and has never been part of any civil code. Go and read the 1st amendment to the US constitution (guessing that you're thinking of that) and you'll find it does not say what you assume.

By the way, your ex left you because they were bored with you.

If you didn't like that, why did you read it? Your fault, not my problem - at least that's what you seem to think.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

your reasoning is flawed.
if there is no need for censorship then you might as well post links to child porn links over slashdot as well. By your arguement that'd be ok because like censorship is bad dude.

When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some asshole hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some assholes with bombs hadn't killed the child. I saw the ugly reality of war in a way that I couldn't have unless I'd been there.

Utter bollox unless your saying you don't comprehend what explosives can do to the human body without seeing it in graphic detail, nah your just a voyeur same as the rest of us, you really didn't need to see that, you didn't need it etching in to your brain, so that it comes into your mind at the slightest provocation, guess what you pretentious fuck you'll still be seeing it in twenty years time.

You really are a muppet ain't you, You'd have never thought that smacking into something solid at 100mph would seriously fuck you up.
why don't you go to the kitchen stick a knife in your eye to see if it really does hurt and cause blindness? btw I would recommend you don't do this because its blatently fuckin obvious that it would.

Just what the hell are we doing here guys, this isn't news for nerds, this isn't even fuckin digg let alone a site like rotten or other wonderful sites like that. If we want to go view sites like that we can, it doesn't belong on the front page of slashdot. It doesn't belong on the front page of anywhere really. Just why is it here? Do Slashdots Advertisers want to advertise on a story like this?

Soulskill perhaps you should be paid with bloodsoaked dollars this week just to remind you of how you made the money. This should have stayed in the firehose.

Maybe even the great google should decide to knock the page rank down some on these gore sites. maybe we all should shut the fuckup about this and positively avoid sites which are profiting from misery. Even sympathetic reporting is just as bad as the exploit sites, cashing in on a young girls gruesome death.

We are not all kids on here some of us have children too, some of us will be thinking of what if that happened to our kids. I'm posting anonymous because i wouldnt want to get any karma bonus if someone modded this up.

I've been reading slashdot for years and this is the first time i've considered not reading slashdot. I know editorial control is a bit lax but this story should not be here. it wants taking down and deleting. not because its legal or illegal but because most of us are fairly decent human beings and we know its fuckin wrong.

The Streisand effect is a joke, Scientology is a joke this is just not funny and its on the wrong site.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[cbhacking]

I would not defend their actions, but I would defend their right to take such action.

I find two things terribly wrong with this statement. One of them is that freedom of speech does not, and never has, been intended to allow an attack on private individuals. That's why we have laws covering things from harassment (which this would seem to certainly qualify as) to slander and libel (these don't apply here, but they help illustrate the point where freedom of speech crosses the line). You are free to speak out against a government or other public institution, although you must be able to back up what you say. You are unlikely to wind up in court for privately attacking somebody verbally, although it can happen. In a case like this, though, the sender of those emails ought to face consequences - their actions had no purpose except to harm, you'd be crazy to say that they were not harmful, and there was no form of justification.

Second, regardless of whether the pictures got distributed, the *names* should NEVER have been without express consent. This is more about the cops who released the photos than it is about the assholes who sent the emails, but in any case there is no reason why anybody outside the police department and other organizations directly associated with the event would need to know who this girl was, who her father was, or any other information that could lead somebody to the family's email address. Anonymously distributing the pictures (without consent) as "an example of what a really bad crash can do" still seems a slightly grey area, morally, but there is no reason that they should be distributed without anonymity.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it, you're upset that you fail at capitalism and will never provide your child a 90k car and will never have the kind of house these people have. Most reckless car accidents are not caused by the uber-rich. Class has nothing to do with this.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Too soon?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

not the same thing at all.

If you took photo's of every person who died in your ER Room and posted that on the net, you probably wouldn't be surprised to get fired.

At the very least its unprofessional behavior.

Does the law need to specify everything you do so you can be a decent human being?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[db32]

The unfortunate thing here is that more and more the laws are protecting the asshats. Child A bullies Child B, Child B punches Child A, Child B is now the one in trouble. All of the normal means that society has ever used to deter asshat behavior is being stopped. We are all just told to grow a thicker skin, ignore them, or whatever. How many school shootings were there in the days where fistfights didn't end in lawsuits? Not that I am really interested in going back to frontier justice, but back when you could be convicted and sentenced just for being an asshole rather than tapdancing out of court with a shit eating grin due to a high priced lawyer...well...getting your rocks off by being an asshole actually involved some personal risk.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual Property isn't just Patents and Copyrights. Look up the right to publicity sometime.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That is, rich people deserve to be rich and, furthermore, rich people should be admired and respected because they have contributed the most to society.

Prosperity Gospel - people are rich because Jesus wants them to be rich.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[UncleTogie]

if your dumb enough to do drugs, then your dumb enough to drive too.

Says you. It's the line between responsible USE and abuse. Don't try to paint all drinkers and potheads with the same brush. I used to work for a band, and if I was over the limit, no matter HOW much you pleaded, I wouldn't drive. I made it a point to drill into my head that no matter WHAT, driving impaired could kill someone... and regardless of how snonkered I was, I never forgot.

One of the biggest problems I see with America is that personal responsibility has never been stressed, and so we have a generation {or two} of people that will always try to justify why it wasn't their fault.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[BasharTeg]

Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck. It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free.

You're right, the internet doesn't give people the right to be sick fucks, and it doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free. It's our freedom, our free society that gives people the right to be a sick fuck and that makes being a sick fuck consequence free. And that's a natural part of society, the fact that the "undesirables" will roam freely and do things, many of which aren't things that you can regulate or punish them for. Things which most people find distasteful or vulgar.

Once you start setting standards for what is appropriate and what is not, outside of the realm of the rights of others (and there's no right to not be offended, since only you have the power to control what offends you), you will find that your free society isn't a free society any longer. It may sound like a free society, and to you, it may appear to be a free society because people are certainly free... to behave in the way that YOU feel is appropriate. For those who don't agree with the perspective you would have codified, they wouldn't be free at all. They would be subject to the tyranny of your standards. And perhaps those sick fucks are enough of a minority that they could never do anything about it. But the reality that many of yester-year's socially conservative types are discovering is, that kind of pseudo-freedom is a *bitch* when the people making those kinds of societal value judgements aren't the people who agree with you anymore.

The point is, it's better to live in as truly free of a society as you can pragmatically have, even if it means some feelings are hurt and some people are offended. The /b/tards and their assholia are the natural result of free and open lines of mass communication and a fairly free society in which to use those lines of communication. You can either give up the technology that gives you mass communication, or you can accept that it can be employed by assholes in a free society. What you can't do is have your mass communication medium, have your free societies, and make sure that none of the assholes offend anyone with it.

This is the dream of so many people: to have a "nice" Internet. It's sad because it simply isn't physically possible. Ever.

PS. Regarding your desire for civil suits, perhaps they should also sue Porche for making awesome cars, or sue the paramedics for not being able to put her back together, or sue the drug dealers who sold her the cocaine, or sue the camera company for making cameras to take the pictures, or maybe they could just appeal to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering everyone in the United States to be nicer people. We don't need any more stupid lawsuits. Trying to sue 4chan retards for spreading pictures that they got ahold of lawfully and for being dicks is just about the biggest waste of our court's business hours I can think of. Their suit against the CHP is already costing a significant number of my tax dollars, when the remedy to that suit should simply be to terminate both of the idiots who leaked the photos, not to have a rich Orange County family seize a bunch of tax payer dollars to make themselves feel better.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar Nazi note:

gladness = glee

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[saiha]

And its the truth when its spammed to the parents? Sorry but no matter how you pretty this up, this is harassment, and it was started by very insensitive people.

Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean we have to tolerate people who abuse it. You can own a gun, but it doesn't mean you can shoot it off wherever you want. You have freedom of speech but it doesn't mean you can yell in my face with no repercussions.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

SHE made a mistake that cost her her life. That doesn't mean her Family deserves this kind of harassment. She paid for her mistake and the danger she put other people in in the harshest way possible. If you're looking to punish her more, you're out of luck.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[EastCoastSurfer]

Well MADD is really just a cover for modern day prohibitionists. They'll find any injury related to alcohol and attempt to make the laws stricter because of it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[dogmatixpsych]

"When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some[one] hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some[one] with bombs hadn't killed the child. I saw the ugly reality of war in a way that I couldn't have unless I'd been there."

You can understand the ugly realities of war without viewing pictures like that. Besides why do you get upset at those who dropped the bombs? Was it their fault? Was it their fault that their targets hide in schools or neighborhoods just so when a bomb or missile or gunfire accidentally kills children those images can be spread online in order to serve as propaganda against the coalition? Why don't you also get upset at those who oppressed their people, killing and maiming them, which actions led to the coalition being there fighting in the first place? You may disagree with the war - and all wars for that matter - but you're being awfully one-sided in your comment. Besides, using your logic you could also argue for the necessity of everyone (or at least some people) experiencing war so that we learn to understand the brutality and ugliness of it. That's not true, we don't need war. We don't need to view the atrocities of war to learn to hate war.

"It's important to know the truth, and an ugly truth is ALWAYS more beautiful than a pleasing lie."

Again, I disagree. I think that the truth should be told but sometimes people do not need to hear the truth. Do you think it's right for people to go around as say, "You know Sarah, you really are ugly" or "You're fat Bob. And stupid and lazy to boot"? Or should a husband tell his wife, "You know what? That dress actually does make you look fat"? People don't want to know all the ugly truth. No, it is not always better or more beautiful than a pleasing lie. Sometimes knowing nothing but the pleasing lie is what allows people to continue living.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Toonol]

I doubt any stupid person that had shit happen to them DOES want it known. That's one of the reasons you shouldn't do stupid shit. Dying, of course, is another reason.

My respect for human dignity would preclude me from passing these photos around, and certainly would stop me from ever sending taunting emails to the family. That's sick. I confess, though, if I had a teenaged child who had been driving irresponsibly/dabbling in drugs, I might show her these photos.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mattwarden]

> These shock campaigns do *zero* to prevent young people from repeating
> the mistakes. Most youth believe they are invincible, and act accordingly.
> Showing them stuff like this just makes them say "oh, gross" as they
> repeat the mistakes, believing that it will never happen to them.

The other way to look at it is that these consequences that you're fearmongering are statistically unlikely and children are therefore reacting to them rationally. The "young people think they're invincible" is a silly oversimplification, because there are hundreds of things you CAN explain to them that have a higher risk of injury that children will then avoid.

Estimate and compare these two ratios:
instances of unsafe sex / likelihood of contracting an STD
instances of driving over 100mph / likelihood of crashing

If you have estimated two values that are similar, then you've found my point.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Its NOTt about censorship. The police should have had to have the parents permission to release (or show) these pictures to ANYONE. It IS foolish for the family to think that there is any way to rid the internet of these pictures. However, the people who released the pictures onto the internrt should have been fired, and very heavily fined.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you are looking for is "grisly." A grizzly scene would have bears in it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mattwarden]

You are completely right, but that does not justify the police department leaking those photos. For as much as we whine about privacy and justice here, we should be urging this family to sue the fucking pants off of the department. What they did was wrong and inhumane. That doesn't change just because we're pissed off that they have more money than us. My tax dollars do not go to taking photos of dead daughters and sending them to the grieving parents. Fucking ridiculous.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[644bd346996]

Right of Publicity is a common law doctrine, and has not been (and cannot be) codified at the federal level, and has only been legislated in some states. In all cases, however, it applies only to commercial use. Thus, it is neither applicable to the case at hand, nor is it part of the intellectual property rights discussed above as having been "completely distorted" by legislators.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess that it IS copyright infringement - the problem is that the parents don't own the copyright, and therefore can't take any legal action regarding the copyright (DCMA notice, lawsuit, etc). Assuming that the images are covered under copyright and owned by the CHP, the CHP could take those legal steps if they wanted to. However, it's also possible that the images are considered public property (since they were taken by a public servant as part of his duties) and/or covered by the Freedom of Information Act or something similar, in which case that would be pointless. IANAL and I don't have any knowledge of any California-specific laws that would apply.
 
The cat is out of the bag now. In any case the family is stupid for going into debt trying to get these images erased. Now that it's been on Slashdot I'm sure other major geek-news websites have picked it up and the Streisand effect will be in full swing. If these images aren't on rotten.com and a dozen similar gore-porn sites by now I'll be very surprised. The more they try to suppress it the more the images will spread. If the family wants to follow legal action they should be taking action against the cops who released the photos inappropriately. Even if the cops consider it a public service there's no need to associate the photos with the family. For the purposes of driver's ed, "an 18 year old girl" is more than enough identification.
 
To the GP, good luck prosecuting the email senders. I suspect that the asshat trolls sending those emails to the family are using throwaway Hotmail addresses that can't easily be tracked back to them.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright 2009, Joe's Plastic Surgery. Family photos are now a copyright violation.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[myyrk]

And by the way, its spelled 'constitutional'. But you made my day by arguing a constitutional basis for unconstitutional censorship while misspelling the name of the document you are misrepresenting. Call me a moran, and you will complete the trifecta.

And by the way, its spelled "it's" and "moron".

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[BlueNoteMKVI]

It's well known that you can take pictures of (just about) anything you want that's visible from a public place and then publish the photos without any copyright issues. However, no respectable photojournalist would take such gory pictures, and if he did no respectable news outlet would purchase them or even consider publishing them. Pictures of the smashed car, maybe. Pictures of the smashed head, no.

By "significant public value" I assume you mean educational value - "look what happens when you act stupid." That's certainly arguable, but doesn't require personal identification of the girl behind the wheel to be effective.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mabhatter654]

but those pictures are "owned" by your employer, just like computer source code is owned by programming companies. There is policy in place not to release images, the policy was knowingly broken.

The CHP should be sued, and should settle generously. Then they turn around and sue their employees to get the damages back for breaking policy. Yes, it will RUIN the families of the leakers... but that's what happens when you LEAK stuff. Although it's quite the rage to break confidentiality agreements and NDAs on the internet, it does REAL damage to people... That's what happened here because somebody wanted to brag to their friends.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Machtyn]

I don't know why, but I was thinking about this type of situation earlier today. My thoughts went thus:

me: I want to see the pictures of my wife's accident.
Officer in charge: I'm sorry, they are very gruesome and I can't let you do that.
me: I don't care. I want to see them, so that if I find them floating out on the Internet, I can recognize them and know exactly who to come for.

Very strange that. I doubt my wife will be in an accident any time soon... she's currently in the hospital on strict bed rest (crazy pregnancy).

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I disagree with your generalisation (all generalisations are incorrect, right?). I have seen many pictures of road accidents and I have to say that it does make me drive more carefully. I don't want some poor guy to have to pick bits of my brains off the road because I was being an idiot.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

It's public information. The cops erred in not entering the pictures into the record. The pictures themselves of a public scene are public. I'm sorry it's grisly and I'm glad my family isn't in such pictures... but if it's in plain view of the public... (and it was) it's public.

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Runaway1956]

No mod points - you deserve some. I will say "Thank you, Sir" for your post.

I'm a parent. Yes, I've been called in the middle of the night. Yes, I looked at my son with only half his face, lying on a hospital bed. It's a shock, no matter how stable you are. This despite the fact that I have witnessed worse, in real life. (Worst one ever, as a first responder, I found a car with 5 kids in it. It took over an hour to find the last child, wedged into the back of the trunk UNDER the transmission - the only one still breathing - and Daddy's princess wasn't anything you wanted to look at.)

To the parents in the article, I say, "Get over it!" Stuff happens. Life is not idyllic. Kids screw up. Mine, yours, everyone's kids screw up, and often times die because of it. Life sucks.

Don't try to alter the law, just because you are hurt. Some kids actually learn from images like this. To few, but some. The shocking images of your daughter MAY just save some other idiot kid from doing the same thing. Censorship is far more obscene than the images of any casualty of the highway.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, you can bet he's giggling at your outrage. 4chan has devoured the internet...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mattwarden]

Oh really? So I would have been allowed to photograph the scene?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

Allowed? In southern California? You can't be legaly prevented from taking pictures of public scenes.

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the two CHP dispatchers should have been fired on the spot warn them of the dangers of the Sending crime sceen photos for any reason. "It it would be a cautionary tale,"

How can they be trusted to do their jobs. Oooh look at this one I can sell it to the tabloids. A get 4 weeks off.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[MrKaos]

In fact its the very speech that repulses us most that we must defend because that's where freedom of speech is most easily chipped away.

If freedom is a right for all then you have to accept the few risks that come with free society. If freedom is a privilege for a few then all must risk tyranny. A society is judged by how it treats the worst among us as much as the worst among us are judged by society.

Most of all, you have no right to wrong someone as much as two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Christ, yes her parents were the ones at fault. But does that mean they shouldn't pursue legal action against people who are harassing them in a sick and twisted way?

Even if you put 100% of the blame on the parents, they are still in the right for trying to stop this.

If they were trying to sue the government for not protecting her against drugs, or school for not stopping the drug problem, or the Government for not having the right infrastructure on the roads to protect a crash...ie, trying to put her death on someone else's shoulders, then yes, I'd agree that they should be 'sueing themselves' instead.

But they're not. They're trying to attack those that would use her death as a source for snuff humour and harassment against themselves...two completely different things.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[NIckGorton]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the repercussions of speech.

Absolutely, but the repercussions by definition should be limited. If you say gay marriage is an abomination. I can call you a homophobic twat. I can even make an awesome video showing precisely how much of a homophobic twat people who believe that are. I can also boycott your business (taking a page from the fundie handbook.) But I can't sue you for a million dollars because I am butthurt about your statement.

If what is said causes harm, then it is entirely valid and correct to punish the offender. That's why we have fraud, libel, harassment and other similar laws.

Fraud, libel, and harassment laws are inappropriate here. For fraud or libel to be operative, the speech must be untrue. If I say Ted Haggard had sex with a drug dealing gay prostitute, that's libel. If I say you did, it is (unless you have.)

Similarly for harassment to be operative, there has to be intended harm to the individual claiming harassment. If you take the report at face value, the idiots who released this were not harassing the family. Others may have taken those pictures and harassed them, but the original leakers and the vast majority of people who posted them have no intent to specifically harass the family.

You are right that there are limits on free speech. However the limits this family would like are not allowable ones.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[MrKaos]

The workers that did this should be held strictly accountable for any pain and suffering by the family through their negligence and the CHP must be made to enforce that on the rest of them.

That and not cite her case in road safety courses any more. The Net changes everything, that department has to lift it's game.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mattwarden]

You're being disingenuous. The police would certainly not allow the general public to photograph the crime scene.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I had ten times the money I wouldn't buy a porche."

If you made $25 million a year, you wouldn't buy a Porsche? That's nice, I guess you are a Ferrari person.

That's you. I like nice things if I work for them, doesn't mean I don't do other things, just as you sacrificing a little bit doesn't mean you owning a crappy hybrid makes you better.

I am left wondering how someone who makes 3x what I make every year, year in year out has less than I do in the same general business and medical training otherwise and I went through 2 degree programs without scholarship at the 2nd most expensive med school in the US. The only way I can figure is you like to shop, buy expensive clothes and shoes, eat out at expensive restaurants, and live in an area with outrageous real estate prices. And that's just based on your income, not including your spouses.

Either that, you are lying, or your money management skills SUCK.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[gavron]

"Disingenuous?" No. Honest? Yes. You can take pictures. No, you can't get out of your car on the side of the freeway, set up a tripod, take shots, ask the cops to pose. However, take pictures of something you can see from your car driving by the scene? Yes.

Do you like my opinion? I don't know.

Am I rude or a prick or saying things that the family wouldn't like? Maybe.

Am I disingenous, dishonest, or in any way representing other than my true opinion (wrong or right)... no I'm not.

Best regards,

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[twostix]

"The 4chan kiddies (or more likely, their mommies and daddies) should also be subject to civil suits. Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck. It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free."

It's funny (in a holy shit that's disturbing) kind of way. There's lots of people here blaming an 18 year olds parents for not locking her in a closet - the only realistic way to stop a 90% grown adult from taking any particular course of action.

But nobody is talking about the parents who have raised the abominiations that are the individuals that frequent 4chan et-al and perpetrate and get pleasure from this kind of sick behaviour.

This girl unfortunately made two *serious* errors of judgement and payed the ultimate cost. Something tragic, and stupid but not unexpected from an 18 year old, upper OR lower class. It's *hardly* a new phenomena.

But these 4chan 'kiddies' (creepily enough most of whom are in their early twentys and are actually grown men), what twisted upbringing did they have? What UTTER FAILURES were *their* parents who raised such mentally sick & twisted individuals.

Everyone wants to heap blame on the girls parents for not locking her up, but where's the fire and brimstone when it comes to the perverse actions of the Man/Children who get *pleasure* out of this sort of disgusting behaviour and to *their* so called parents who "raised" them to think that that sort of shit is ok?

A little to close to home on this site I imagine.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Dan541]

If it can be abused it will be abused.

We see this with the internet, phone networks even the postal service. What you have to ask is "What is the value of Freedom" personally I cannot attach a pricetag to freedom, so the occasional abuse is a very small price to pay.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Dan541]

Don't click the link!
Problem solved.

I wish I hadn't but that's my own fault for requesting the image.
I've seen plenty of stuff like that before but it seems worse when there's a name to go with it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Dan541]

I believe it has been standard practice that images taken in a public place are the property of the photographer. They didn't break into a morgue and take the photos. These were taken on a public highway. They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive. In that context, does the good of these images outweigh the family's "right to privacy" on a public road? I understand the pain these images could cause, but they should be able to avoid seeing them. The people e-mailing these photos to them should get prosecuted though.

Yes, the issue here is not the existence of the photos but the person who emailed them to the farther. One has to question their mentality.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Dan541]

I think people should have the right not to see those photo's if they wish.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[FictionPimp]

Of course that jackasses sending him pictures of his dead daughter saying "Look I'm still alive" really deserve a good ass kicking. For some reason I'm still amazed that such people even exist. You would think I would learn by now...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[sjames]

I feel very sorrowful for the loss of the life there, whether it was a reckless act on her part or not. However, it is purely a dick move to send an e-mail as stated in the summary. Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. While it is too frequently the subject of frivolous lawsuits, I think that sending grizzly photos of her death to her father would meet the standard of being beyond the bounds of civilized society. The caption that went with it was way over the top. No person could possibly think sending that to her father wouldn't cause him harm.

Of course, that's not who they're suing...

I also think they should try to put this all behind them for their own well being.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that sending grizzly photos of her death to her father would meet the standard of being beyond the bounds of civilized society.

You can't blame this on bears.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mpe]

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

Or even the two people concerned...

Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.

None of this young woman's stupidity in any way excuses that of what are (or at least should be) highly trained professionals.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[ElAsturiano]

nono... the girl had been DYING in front of them for many months. doing cocaine and throwing her life away. the pictures are from a mound of meat and bent german steel. the girl was dead before the chunks of car had stopped rolling.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Mr2001]

What this whole situation shows is that "intellectual property" is still a good idea, if legislators hadn't completely distorted it. The pictures exploit the public image of Nikki Catsouras, they should be the property of her family.

No, "intellectual property" has no place here.

Assume for the sake of argument that we want to make it illegal to share grisly pictures of dead kids: we still don't need copyright or any other form of "intellectual property" in order to achieve that. We can just outlaw the act we want to outlaw. We don't need a general framework that allows people to own pictures, numbers, etc. like copyright does.

As an analogy, think about the slander and libel laws. We don't say "you own every harmful lie that someone might want to say about you"; we just make it illegal to say those things, and sidestep the question of whether they can be owned at all.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I can say anything that hasn't already been said, but Eldav... You've hit it right on the head. The only thing they can do is get over it and put her name on something that's positive. It may sound harsh and cold, but it's something that must be done. My condolences with you, Catsouras family.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mattwarden]

The point of the comment is that a crime scene is not a public area and the police can take photos that the general public cannot. Saying that if the area is in the open and you can see it from 200 yards away then it's a public place... that's not really relevant. We're talking about the photos that the police are taking, which are substantially different than the photos the general public can take.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The bank has the buyer's credit report and default risk models made by their own specialists. The agent has a rolodex. How is the agent supposed to know whether the bank's loan decisions are good or bad? Why should anyone even believe them? That's like me asking my barista whether my code has a bug.

If you want someone to blame, it's the appraisers of the mortgage-backed securities who let the banks get away with writing stupid loans and defraud everyone who bought them afterward. And the rocket scientists who decided they were safe because they bought unregulated pseudo-insurance with no reserves held by the issuers.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[mpe]

Lest anything I say be construed as some sort of gladness... let me be clear... I'm not "happy" this young lady is dead, nor do I take any special "joy" from pointing a finger at the responsible parties... the adults... the parents... I'm just joining in the discussion to say they have nobody to sue but themselves. If I could wish that girl alive I would.

Are 18 year olds not "adults" in California?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[SanityInAnarchy]

Saying 'fuck you' to Joe Random on the internet won't meet any reasonable person's idea of causing emotional harm,

Since you mention exes, what if it's to my significant other? Those of us in relationships will know, by now, enough to be able to hit our loved ones hard, where it hurts. Look at any divorce, for example -- or even any healthy marriage, there's bound to be the occasional fight.

At what point do we get to sue because you make me touch your hands for stupid reasons?

This is normal emotional shit that everyone has to go through. And just as we shouldn't run crying to our mommies every time a bully calls us a name, we also shouldn't run crying to our lawyers every time someone on the Internet does something we don't like.

This case was extreme, yes. But where do we draw the line? When is something actually "emotionally distressing", and when is it just someone overreacting? It sounds like the closest you're going to get is the pornography argument -- that is, "I know it when I see it" -- but that's a cop-out, when emotional harm is by definition subjective.

Want proof? Go listen to that dramatic reading I linked to. (Yes, there is audio.) Did you laugh? I did. I laughed hysterically. But to the person who wrote that letter, I'm sure that "dramatic reading" could cause a bit of emotional trauma.

And that's the heart of the matter: Is it trolling, or entertainment? Lighthearted satire, or inflammatory propaganda? Answer: Quite possibly all of these. The point of freedom of speech is so we can leave it up to the individual how to interpret things.

Go and read the 1st amendment to the US constitution (guessing that you're thinking of that) and you'll find it does not say what you assume.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...."

Yeah, it pretty much does. Unless you mean to say a law isn't needed?

If you didn't like that, why did you read it? Your fault, not my problem - at least that's what you seem to think.

Not my fault for reading it, the first time. If I don't want to see things like that from you, I can certainly censor you as far as my own perception goes -- either by avoiding your name, or using technological measures (marking you "foe" and tweaking some Slashdot settings; a Firefox extension / Greasemonkey script, etc.)

However, also not your problem, legally.

Ethically, it probably makes you a dick, and I would not defend you from any direct consequences of that -- like someone else saying, "You're a dick." But there is no law that states "Don't be a dick."

Of course, we're all speaking in hypotheticals. In reality, you have no idea how many exes I have, or who left whom. You're playing a numbers game -- most people would find that offensive.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I cannot feel any sympathy for someone who gets drugged up and speeds around endangering other people. She died for it and you know what? She deserved it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. you outta warn people that picture is disturbing and graphic.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Runaway1956]

NO! This is not copyright infringement, which is a civil offense, but something akin to "misappropriation of government property", or maybe "theft of property". Contrary to the rules and regulations in place, a cop took images that belonged to the state, and used them for his own gratification. This is a criminal act, unlike copyright infringement.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"Child porn" seems to be a keyword that turns off reasoning abilities in many people.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

You, Sir, are an idiot and a child.
It is not the parents fault some asshole on the internet sends them taunting messages attached to pictures of their dead daughter.
Fuck you.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[temcat]

sometimes people do not need to hear the truth

So what? They do not need it, that OK with me, but they don't have a right to NOT hear the truth.

Not that I support the sick dickheads who sent these pics to the poor parents disguising them to look as something else. I'm just against censorship.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[qc_dk]

So because you don't see it on the first page of a google search it doesn't exist?

Do you have any evidence that the doctors did not say it?

Now common sense dictates that when you use a particle cannon to destroy parts of the brain it will have an effect on the brain. A quick search and you'll see that radiation therapy has an effect on the pituitary gland, which is in charge of among other things growth hormones. Children are especially affected by this because the brain is not fully developed.

See for example:
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?PG=thera-brain#part_four

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15518596 (Fifty percent to 80% of children treated with craniospinal radiation for brain tumors will experience growth failure)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1727109?ordinalpos=1 (2400 cGy patients had deficiencies in IQ and academic performance)

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[PDAllen]

Of course I'd go for 'I know it when I see it'. You can't write down a five line law (or even a five million page collection of laws) which is supposed to cover the whole of human behaviour in some black and white manner, there will always be loopholes and things that are forbidden that shouldn't be if you try it.

So you have to accept that some things should be decided on the individual merits of the particular case.
In this case - you saying 'fuck you' to all of Slashdot isn't really going to offend anyone.
Me playing a numbers game with something more offensive (which, yes, obviously I was) probably does offend people, but I was trying to make a point. Given you did read it, and you don't seem to have liked reading it - point proved, you can stop me doing this again, but you've already suffered some very small emotional harm, and none of the fixes you suggest would stop me using another identity and a rewording of the same text to be similarly offensive in future.
If on the other hand I'd somehow found out that you'd recently split up with someone, and I sent you that sentence in a private email, then it would probably hurt you a lot more. And it would not be in the context of a post trying to make a general point, so there wouldn't be much argument that it could contribute to any 'public good'.
This emailed picture that started the topic is a step worse again; it's not something that you could easily block (a picture sent as a real estate listing, to a realtor, cannot be spam-filtered!) and it's clearly designed just to cause hurt.

As to freedom of speech, yes, I think it means a law shouldn't be needed. Of course, it's an amendment that's been ignored by various governments, with arguments like 'oh but freedom of speech isn't important compared to the war on terror', but basically there should be a default position that you can do (publish, or act) whatever you like, with the restriction that if a reasonable person believes your action is clearly bad for society you should expect to get a kicking for it.

In the context of 'free speech', there are things which you clearly should not publish to the whole world; like a list of account and PIN numbers, or in general personal secrets which the person in question should reasonably expect to remain secret (e.g. if your neighbour leaves his blow-up sheep out in his back garden, then he might want to keep its existence a secret but he loses the reasonable expectation, if he keeps it in a locked room and you find out only by breaking in to his house, then you should expect to get in trouble if you publish its existence).
So there are some things which you should be restricted from publishing to the whole world; but in most cases, you should be able to argue that something may be offensive to many people but you were trying to make a point - like the Danish cartoons, or similar - and in that case you should be given the benefit of the doubt. In short, it should be quite hard to find things which you are actually not allowed to publish to the whole world.
However, when you write an email (or letter, or whatever) to one person, then you should lose a lot of that protection. You're no longer doing anything that could be good for society - putting pictures of a car crash on the internet you could argue you're convincing people to drive more safely in future, sending them to the parents of the dead girl, you cannot make that argument.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[UltimaL337Star]

Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy. Apparently this has been a very rude wake up call. Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.

Just wondering, wasn't she driving something more like a 20,000 dollar Honda Civic?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[DoofusOfDeath]

Amen.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[bentcd]

What this whole situation shows is that "intellectual property" is still a good idea, if legislators hadn't completely distorted it.

What this situation calls for is a decent privacy law; co-opting copyright laws to cover this is little more than an ugly hack. A decent privacy law might state that identifiable pictures of a person's death are private and so come under its protection.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Kashgarinn]

If it's right that the original intent of the officers was to create awareness of hazardous driving in the first place, then these people are retards who in my opinion deserve the ruin they'll put themselves into by trying to sue anything and anyone.

The officers got reprimanded, and were showing care for their own families and communities by advertising a real-life situation of middle-upper class kids doing stupid things and basically getting what they deserved.

It's tragic, but what this family is doing is even more tragic in its selfishness and stupidity.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[MikeBabcock]

That last line goes through my head on a regular basis. We've got a society who've somehow developed behaviours into "legal or not" instead of "right or not". If you watch televised courtroom TV (I avoid it), you'll see completely stupid things being brought to court because people just have no concept of doing the right thing and I believe it frustrates even the judiciary to need to intervene in so many "obvious" cases.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[MikeBabcock]

In Canada its "common assault" to raise your arm or threaten bodily harm in any way, without any physical harm having taken place and you can be jailed for it.

Verbal abuse is harassment and is a prosecutable offence as well.

I'm not sure why you'd want the right to harass and bully people exactly, but don't move in next to me.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Jhon]

And by the way, its spelled 'constitutional'

Yes it is. Score one for you! Imagine that... my keyboard dropped a "t" while typing and I didn't notice. Thank you so much for noticing and bringing to my attention with such compassion and concern.

So any time someone injures themselves in public, their right to privacy means no one can take and share pictures of it?

I'm unsure how you got that from what I said. My words: "The parents arguably have a case". What you seem to have heard: "The parent's rights were violated -- end of story"

I will grant that you seem to be an expert on "misrepresenting" things, but I believe you are wrong when you suggest I'm misrepresenting the constitution.

So the Darwin Awards has go to go by your reasoning.

No. But I would strongly suggest you attend a 100 level class in logic. It might help you identify and prevent future fallacious reasoning. Or perhaps it's your style to put words in peoples mouths and then argue against what you CLAIM they said?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[syousef]

I agree with you and If I had points I would gladly mod you up. There is a difference between censorship and privacy, apparently some of you are not aware of that. These pictures were never supposed to be public, to protect the privacy of the family. The fact that they were leaked by persons within the Police department is a bit concerning.

I agree. They shouldn't have been leaked. They should have been used as a part of a public campaign denouncing the stupidity of driving while on drugs. Instead of faking advertising to shock people use the real pictures. As for the family's "right to privacy" fuck that! Their daughter got high and crashed her car in a very public place. If there's anything to be glad about it's that she didn't kill anyone else with her stupidity.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

And by the way, it's spelled "it's" and "moron".

Fixed that for ya.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[AkiraRoberts]

Ethically, it probably makes you a dick, and I would not defend you from any direct consequences of that -- like someone else saying, "You're a dick." But there is no law that states "Don't be a dick."

And that's the key thing. You shouldn't be a dick. No one should be a dick. The Golden Rule is a prettied-up restatement of 'Don't be a dick.' But it would be a deeply stupid thing the write a law that says 'Don't be a dick,' because the definition of 'dick' seems to be a little hard to nail down. Take this very case. Personally, I'd say you could argue that the guys in CHP who decided to use these photos to make a point about the dangers of wreckless driving + cocaine were veering into dickish realms. But I also think a reasonable person could argue the exact opposite. Attempting to address that under our hypothetical 'Don't be a dick' law could never really lead to any positive outcome.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[troll8901]

gavron,

I didn't realize so many people will reply to you and continue challenging you. I understand you're merely stating your VIEWPOINT and OPINION, and I was just seeking clarification. I hope all the extra challenges don't upset you.

Once again, thank you again for your time and effort in your replies.

- troll8901 (ironic - I didn't intend to troll)

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive.

Because if the last hundred graphic crash photos that have been shown to teens didn't do the trick, I'm sure these will. Lets face it teens have been shown graphic crash photos before. Many have probably gone looking for them on the internet. A new ugly pic will change nothing.

We may want to make a death valuable by coming up with some purpose it can serve but sadly, often we are just trying to place this value so we can feel better, in the face of another senseless death.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

...but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

That is correct, sir, and here are the pics you were looking for.

Slashdot has changed. A lot. I'm out of here - there was a time where this would have been considered too distasteful for even us open minded and cynical geeks. Doesn't anything shock people anymore?

Think it's time to migrate at last.

Also, the stories are getting crap.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

She showed complete disregard for the well being of anyone else, which is pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

It is also a very nice definition of a human child.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that whole 'for a limited time' in the copyright clause in the Constitution seems kinda freaky, doesn't it?

The type of documents discussed in this thread do not involve copyright, because they are things society as a whole tends to agree shouldn't be shared outside selected groups of people (e.g. police pictures should only be used during investigations or in court; medical records are only shared among medical professionals, the patient, and perhaps the patient's family, etc...). Copyright was developed to allow people to share written, musical, and pictorial works while still providing some measure of legal protections and control to the original creators. Thus copyright is entirely orthogonal to this situation.

What is clear is that being bombarded by these pictures is harrassment and regardless of the any of the specific circumstances the parents do not deserve to be harrassed in this grizzly way. There are already legal means to deal with harrassment and with the right private investigator they should be able to find at least a few of their harrassers. After some examples of how the internet doesn't give total immunity, espeically to the young and stupid, the family should at least a reduction in this horrible behavior. I'm a bit more ambivalent about suing the police, apparently there was a policy that specific officers willfully violated so they should be the primary targets of any civil suites. On the otherhand, I'm not too impressed by the level of internal disciple displaced by the CHP in this situation.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, they have the right. But are they willing to do what it takes to exercise that right (don't ever load images from the internet, always wear a blindfold whenever they go out in public, etc)?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[MightyMartian]

It's well known that you can take pictures of (just about) anything you want that's visible from a public place and then publish the photos without any copyright issues. However, no respectable photojournalist would take such gory pictures...

Well, at least of white people.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[kabocox]

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

I'd say that you are slightly wrong. They are with both. They should report to the Orange County Police Department for every single time some one sends them one of these.

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name.

That's not a real human reaction though. It isn't the fact that their daughter died that is the matter. It isn't the matter that the PD took the usual crime scene photos. The issues is that instead of spam, they are getting sent these crime scene photos constantly sent to their e-mail! I'd be fairly sure that those responsible were disciplined or maybe even sacked. That would have been a fine reaction if the images never were sent to the family or friends of the girl. It would be like some one posting links to the images here in this thread. That's just completely unacceptable behavior. The police and the random internet users are at fault.

Finding out the details of the girl and the accident doesn't make me too thrilled, but normally news outlets and such would report something like this in a few paragraphs with a decent picture of the deceased and folks would grieve and go on. How the heck can they grieve or go on if every time they check their e-mail some folks are sending them not just reminders of their daughter, but the most terrible pics that a parent could imagine for their child.

I'm sure these folks are hurting and are going to be lashing out. That's what every law with a some one's name in front of is really about, some one just lashing out. I think that everyone that sent her these imagines needs a $500 dollar fine and/or a week/month in jail.

How would you feel if I sent you terribly dismembered pics of you kid? You'd be upset, angry and want to hurt me in some form or fashion. You'd also want it to stop and to make a way or process so that others can't do the same thing. I understand exactly where these parents are coming from. They won't quiet until they've run out of resources. They won't run out of hurt until long after folks stop sending this stuff. Heck, it could have happened last week or a decade a go, but receiving that stuff in your mail would be just as painful!

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[nsteinme]

The function of parents is to protect their children.

Maybe you didn't think through your post fully or maybe you really believe it, but IMHO the primary function of parents is NOT to protect their children but to teach them to protect themselves. Of course until they reach the point when they can, their parents should protect them. But, to paraphrase a fellow slashdotter, it is at least one order of magnitude more important to world-proof the child than to child-proof the world. I think a significant chunk of the problems in this country would go away if more people followed this wisdom.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[evilkasper]

Yes because all those late 80's early 90's war on drugs shock adds were so effective... I find it disturbing that you seem so eager to relieve someone of their right to privacy based on the fact they did something stupid. Those rights are in place for a reason, if you strip them away for one person (or in this case family) you erode those rights for all of us.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[pyrr]

The point being made is that the deceased girl's family felt that the CHP had obligations of privacy in regard to them. They tried to sue them for an imaginary breach of this duty. The judge determined that there was no duty owed.

I think the judge was correct-- if people do things in public places or to other people which require the authorities to get involved, whatever intervention is done is largely a matter of public record since it was done on the taxpayer nickel. Does a john picked-up for hiring a prostitute have any expectation of privacy? Absolutely not. Arrest reports and mugshots are a matter of public information, and that's the way it should be. Wealth and privilege should not be able to suppress embarrassing information.

This girl happened to die during the commission of the crimes of reckless driving, driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and a host of other offenses that resulted in destruction of both public and private property and a death-- her own. Just because a dead person can't be prosecuted doesn't mean there weren't crimes committed, and the police were obligated to investigate and document those crimes. Once documented, except under certain conditions, the body of those investigations becomes part of the public domain. This is why sites like The Smoking Gun and Rotten.com are able to publish the sorts of things they do. Too bad it's embarrassing. Too bad it hurts your feelings. I'm going to hazard a guess that the ShamWow guy isn't happy that TSG and others have posted all those photos of both him and the hooker he beat-up as they assaulted each other. Same precedent applies there to the photos that were taken of them laying on hospital gurneys, as apply to the photos taken of an accident investigation.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[techno-vampire]

The judge determined that there was no duty owed.

That's not how TFS put it. Even so, the judge was wrong to dismiss the case because that's a question for the jury to decide. I was once a juror in a civil suit that had a multi-part verdict because it had to do (among other things) with the provisions of a verbal contract. The first thing we had to do during deliberation was to decide if a verbal contract between the two parties existed. If we decided that it did, we had to decide if the plaintiff's claims about its provisions were accurate. The same thing should have been done here. First, the jury should have been asked to decide if the CHP had an obligation to protect the girls (and/or her family's) privacy. If they decided not, they were done because the other questions became moot. Of course, IANAL, and it may in fact be the judge's duty to decide that, but it sure doesn't look like it from where I sit.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[daveime]

So that means there at at a minimum 15369 psychopaths that have posted on Slashdot ?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[NIckGorton]

1) Spouse doesn't work (or well, he doesn't make income.) He largely takes care of his elderly parents.
2) We do live in a place with very high real estate prices (on par with Princeton, though on the plus side we haven't had a bubble).
3) I work 2 days a week as a volunteer physician at a clinic that serves uninsured and underinsured patients. This costs me all totaled about $1000/month to do so. (Its in SF, so I share an apartment with a friend pretty much in the T-Loin, etc.)
4) I travel to teach medical students about LGBT health care and often pay for part or all of that travel.
5) As I said I donate pretty heavily too.

So its not sucking at money management, its more that we have a different perspective on what's important in life. The most expensive article of clothing I own may be worth less than $100, I bring my lunch to work, and I drive a car with 200k miles on it, but I also am practicing the kind of medicine I went to school to do and I am keeping my husband's parents out of a SNF. Though if we're talking money management skills, I certainly have you beat on the frugality front. I did my entire education in state at one of the cheapest schools in the US. When I started undergrad it was $381/semester and when I finished med school it was $2K/year (in 1998). I was not going to pay a lot for that muffler.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[orclevegam]

You're missing the point. The problem isn't the images, or the theoretical right of the family not to see them, it's the assholes harassing the family by intentionally sending them this stuff. There are laws out there already to prevent harassment of this kind without needing to bring free speech into the argument. It's not about the images being published, it's about intentionally sending these images and comments to the family members. This is no different than if someone was to get images of other nasty accidents and mail them to the family with letters talking about the crash. The content isn't really the issue, and neither is the medium, but rather the intent.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Ol Olsoc]

I can only assume that you are not a parent.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[thetoadwarrior]

Believe it or not I've never been to 4chan and have no desire to go there.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Pumpkin Tuna]

QFT As a former high school teacher, I can second this. Their little adolescent brains just aren't quite finished yet. Many of them really do feel they are invincible and only time (or disaster) will cure them of this fallacy

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Actually, TFA does. The dispatchers who sent out the pics to relatives thought it would shock them into driving better. A fairly sick bit of reasoning if you ask me.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Are you a teen. Most teens don't react that way to these types of pictures. Their brains are not yet ready to accept their own mortality.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[AK Marc]

I'm confused. I've driven over 100 mph on numerous occasions. Takes me less than 20 seconds to get either of my two cars to 100 mph. I've also had some crashes. The only one that could have conceivably be considered my fault, I was driving 30 mph in a 35 mph zone, and hit the side of a truck that crossed three lanes to make a right in front of me without a proper signal. I've been rear-ended while at a complete stop 3 times. I've had people change lanes into me three times. One said to the trooper that responded, "I saw him and hit him anyway, he should have moved." Another was in a tall truck and didn't see my little car (I wasn't even in his blind spot, he just didn't look out his window and I was too low to see in his peripheral vision). And one was someone that made an illegal left turn from the right lane into the work truck I was driving. In all cases, every time the cops were called, the other driver received a citation (except the one that could have been considered my fault, where no one was cited). And in every case, I was traveling under the limit traveling straight in my lane.

So, from my experience, 100 mph is safe, because they can't hit me. I'm gone to fast. When I'm driving with everyone else, in a straight line, breaking no laws, and below the limit is when I've had every single one of my crashes. Not to mention, the statistics show that faster is safer. Correct for drug usage and falling asleep, and faster is safer in almost all cases.

And, of course, if two monogamous virgins were to get it on, then the instances of unsafe sex would be unrelated to their chances of an STD. Perhaps it is that we talk in oversimplified absolutes that the teenagers rightfully ignore our advice. It takes years for them to understand that the lie was a convenient one with good purpose, and not old people conspiring to lie to prove a point. Personally, my children are being raised with the truth, however inconvenient.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember those asshole kids you went to high school with? They didn't change so much, they just learned to hide it better. Take a fairly-average person, give them the anonymity of the internet, and then put them together with a bunch of other like-minded people to egg them on, and the potential for disgusting behavior is astounding.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[SanityInAnarchy]

One of them is that freedom of speech does not, and never has, been intended to allow an attack on private individuals.

That may not have been its intent, but that is a necessary consequence.

You are free to speak out against a government or other public institution, although you must be able to back up what you say.

Absolutely not. I can (or should be able to) say whatever I want about any government or public institution.

If I say something wrong about said institution, they have precisely the same mechanism to defend themselves -- freedom of speech.

Now, certainly, we have other systems on top of that. For instance, you are free to make whatever claim you like about your home-grown herbal remedy, so long as you include the FDA disclaimer. Similarly, I can say whatever I like about an institution, but I cannot claim to be that institution.

Second, regardless of whether the pictures got distributed, the *names* should NEVER have been without express consent. This is more about the cops who released the photos than it is about the assholes who sent the emails,

I'll agree there.

However, once it's out there, not a lot you can do. At this point, for instance, Slashdot itself has released those names. So, I'd place the blame squarely on the original leak, not for the Internet doing what it always does. Going after individuals who actually screwed up is fine.

Going after the Internet, or anonymous people on the Internet, is just a Streisand effect. Suppose they catch this guy? I imagine they'll get even more harassment because of it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[SanityInAnarchy]

there will always be loopholes and things that are forbidden that shouldn't be if you try it.

That is true. However, you can usually be more specific than "I know it when I see it."

More importantly, laws should be written to avoid false positives. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Given you did read it, and you don't seem to have liked reading it

Actually, I was quite amused.

you can stop me doing this again, but you've already suffered some very small emotional harm,

Perhaps. I'm also somewhat immunized to this sort of thing in the future.

none of the fixes you suggest would stop me using another identity and a rewording of the same text to be similarly offensive in future.

True. But if it barely affected me now, and now I'm ready for it, it's certainly not going to have much more effect in the future.

If on the other hand I'd somehow found out that you'd recently split up with someone, and I sent you that sentence in a private email, then it would probably hurt you a lot more.

"A lot more" isn't saying much. I'll concede that, but it still generally wouldn't hurt me unless there was some truth to it. Even then, there's still a lot of choice in how to react.

Again, sticks and stones. We've raised a generation of children who have never been spanked, so now we have to invent emotional harm.

Of course, it's an amendment that's been ignored by various governments, with arguments like 'oh but freedom of speech isn't important compared to the war on terror',

Which is precisely my point.

basically there should be a default position that you can do (publish, or act) whatever you like, with the restriction that if a reasonable person believes your action is clearly bad for society you should expect to get a kicking for it.

How do you define "reasonable person"?

I can certainly expect retaliation along the same lines, but I don't see why I should expect a legal issue.

But seriously... go back and read what you wrote. Why is freedom of speech important compared to the war on terror -- that is, to people actually dying -- but not important compared to a little emotional pain that they'll get over?

I am willing to put my life, and the lives of my family, indeed my entire civilization, at risk for this value. You're not even willing to let someone else suffer some emotional pain.

there are things which you clearly should not publish to the whole world; like a list of account and PIN numbers, or in general personal secrets which the person in question should reasonably expect to remain secret

Granted. A majority of these should rely on more than just easily-disclosed secrets -- for example, a PIN just strikes me as an incredibly weak form of security.

But take this example:

if your neighbour leaves his blow-up sheep out in his back garden, then he might want to keep its existence a secret but he loses the reasonable expectation, if he keeps it in a locked room and you find out only by breaking in to his house, then you should expect to get in trouble if you publish its existence

Well, you already broke into his house.

But let's run with this for a minute. Suppose I find this funny picture of a sheep online. Suppose I then start putting captions on it, and distributing it. Maybe I make it a lolsheep -- I CAN HAS PENIS? Is that allowed?

Alright, suppose I find out the guy's email address, and mail that photo to him with the caption. Is that allowed?

Suppose I don't send him a photo. Suppose I just mail him out of the blue and say "I know your terrible secret, and you are a sick, sick man." I'm playing a numbers game -- quite a lot of people have one sick fetish or another. I

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[syousef]

I find it disturbing that you seem so eager to relieve someone of their right to privacy based on the fact they did something stupid.

Arrrggghhhh! What fucking right to privacy? She didn't O.D. in her bedroom. She did this in a public place and was busy endangering the public!

Those rights are in place for a reason, if you strip them away for one person (or in this case family) you erode those rights for all of us.

Privacy as in private. Not privacy as in right to cover up what happened in a public place.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[GravityStar]

For example, much of my personal information is publicly available if you know where to look... that doesn't give you a right to make a phone call and remind me of all of the painful events in my life.

I would say it does. If you don't want that to happen, hang up on me, and don't post those details in the first place.

Or, alternatively, We, the people, will create a nation ... and ensure assholes that enjoy tormenting people get to make a monetary apology ... never to vanish from this earth ...

Civil liberties only exist because of civilization. If you want Civil liberties, be prepared to be civilized.

Do yourself a favor and read up on how and why humans constructed civilization.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[cbhacking]

I'm fairly sure the laws preventing defamation apply at the very least to publicly help organizations and members of goverment organizations, although I'm less sure about government as a complete administration.

In any case, I still disagree that free speech is an acceptable defense in a situation where the only purpose of a communication is to cause unjustified harm to another. I would actually see it as more justified - probably also more harmful, but also more justified - if the captioned pictures had instead been posted publicly; that would at least have indicated that they were intended for humor. As it is, they were sent privately to an individual for whom they would be extremely painful. What you seem to be advocating is not freedom of expression, but freedom to cause emotional anguish.

Consider this: Suppose I developed a device that could determine the image its target would find the most painful to see, and would force the target to see it. Would you defend my right to use this device on unwilling strangers? Would you defend my right to use it on you? On your children? On your parents? I have no idea who you are and I strongly doubt we've ever met, but we're nonetheless probably more acquainted with one another (through this discussion) than whoever sent those photos was with the girl's father.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[evilkasper]

The difference here is the Police took the pictures, not the public. They have an obligation not to release those pictures unless they follow the proper procedures, this is the breach of privacy that occurred. Also not wanting pictures of your near decapitated daughter floating around the internet most likely has less to do with a "cover up" then you think. I would assume they just don't want to see it; I could be wrong on this though since I don't know them.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[syousef]

The difference here is the Police took the pictures, not the public

Do you really expect me to believe your only problem with this is the police taking the pictures? I think you'd be crying foul regardless.

They have an obligation not to release those pictures unless they follow the proper procedures, this is the breach of privacy that occurred.

I agree that protocol was breached and that officers should be disciplined but I do not agree that there was any breach of privacy. Police have been known to release photographs of criminals to the community at large. Granted they are for identification purposes and it would be a sick joke to suggest that is the case here. However by releasing these it MAY make other people think about getting into a car stoned.

Also not wanting pictures of your near decapitated daughter floating around the internet most likely has less to do with a "cover up" then you think.

There are lots of things I don't want to happen in life but as an adult I find I have to deal with them. This was his daughter's very public mistake. That the keys were available was probably his. He'll have to live with it.

I would assume they just don't want to see it; I could be wrong on this though since I don't know them.

That is too bad, but it's too late to prevent the accident from occurring and the matter is clearly of public interest.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. The fact that it's distasteful to display such a mutilated body? The fact that some people are getting their thrills looking at these extreme pictures? The fact that the parents are going to feel bad about it every time they see the pictures? The fact that some moron has decided to use it to taunt the parents?

Regardless I do not want incidents like this being buried or sanitised. Misuse of information does not warrant its censorship. People need to know what the consequence of their actions actually are, and there's no better way to learn without further carnage than to publicly expose such horrendous mistakes complete with all the gore.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[PDAllen]

More importantly, laws should be written to avoid false positives. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

I agree, but I don't see the relevance. Drawing some kind of arbitrary line might well create false positives, but that's not what I suggested.

"A lot more" isn't saying much. I'll concede that, but it still generally wouldn't hurt me unless there was some truth to it. Even then, there's still a lot of choice in how to react.

Again, sticks and stones. We've raised a generation of children who have never been spanked, so now we have to invent emotional harm.

If you feel you have a choice about how you're going to react to something, then it wasn't really emotionally damaging. If you think this parent would have been able to somehow decide not to be upset by seeing gory pictures of a recently dead daughter with mocking captions, then you're either stupid or massively naive.

basically there should be a default position that you can do (publish, or act) whatever you like, with the restriction that if a reasonable person believes your action is clearly bad for society you should expect to get a kicking for it.

How do you define "reasonable person"?

I can certainly expect retaliation along the same lines, but I don't see why I should expect a legal issue.

Reasonable person is already defined, I don't have to. A reasonable person is the standard for 'prove beyond reasonable doubt', et cetera. For example, a magistrate is presumed to be a reasonable person with the power to make summary decisions (unless an appeal is granted, which is really not that common).

As to your idea of retaliation in kind, that theory of morals has been dead in the water for the last 2000 years, because all it ever does is escalate a minor incident into a major incident and people getting killed.

But seriously... go back and read what you wrote. Why is freedom of speech important compared to the war on terror -- that is, to people actually dying -- but not important compared to a little emotional pain that they'll get over?

It's important in either case. I don't think that an extremist should be able to claim freedom of speech as a defence to (say) telling a suicide bomber how to get near the President. But I don't think the right way to go about restricting his freedom of speech is to pass massively over-the-top acts giving summary powers to a bunch of badly paid, unemployable-in-any-better-job, often racist DHS security people who are even protected from the consequences of their mistakes. The right way is, when you actually need to have a decision (which again isn't that often) you let a reasonable person decide. The reason for the patriot act type stuff is essentially that Bush didn't expect his judiciary to make the decisions he wanted, so he did something that's at best borderline illegal to run around that process.

I just find it difficult to apply this to something like emotional trauma, which humans have a great deal more conscious control over than the state of their skull.

Simple test here, really. If you think you can ignore something that's happened to you, then it didn't really cause much emotional damage. Some things just are not like that - for example, rape really causes very little physical harm, but rape victims are often seriously emotionally damaged. That's not because they chose to be, it's because they couldn't ignore what happened to them. If you don't understand this, you're lucky so far, but someday you likely will understand, perhaps when you have to bury your parents, or your siblings, or your spouse - or if life is exceptionally cruel, your child.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[evilkasper]

Do you really expect me to believe your only problem with this is the police taking the pictures? I think you'd be crying foul regardless.

Actually I wouldn't, my main beef as stated several times is that the police did not follow procedures which led to the pictures being leaked which was the breach of privacy.

I agree that protocol was breached and that officers should be disciplined but I do not agree that there was any breach of privacy. Police have been known to release photographs of criminals to the community at large. Granted they are for identification purposes and it would be a sick joke to suggest that is the case here. However by releasing these it MAY make other people think about getting into a car stoned.

Generally when the Police release a photo to the community it's a mug shot or some other picture used to identify a suspect on the loose, generally not pictures of mutilated dead people. To use the picture for an awareness campaign where I live oversteps the authority of the local Police. It would have to be done by some group like MADD or some other such group, and they would most likely talk to the family first to help insulate themselves against a lawsuit.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

I was pretty sure I made that clear... but hey I'll give it another shot. We almost seem to agree on this issue except for your "fuck the family" attitude. Your words. Also you seem to be saying that this is censorship which it is not. Had it been released through the proper procedures it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy either, but it wasn't and hence it is.

Regardless I do not want incidents like this being buried or sanitized. Misuse of information does not warrant its censorship. People need to know what the consequence of their actions actually are, and there's no better way to learn without further carnage than to publicly expose such horrendous mistakes complete with all the gore.

Pictures of gore do little in the way to shock the people. Go see a movie like Saw or Hostile and look at your target audience desensitize themselves to images of gore. Truthfully until you see something like this up close and in person it is just an image, there are other senses involved that bring it home if you see it in person. Hopefully you never have to see anything like that. Also just because the information/data is out there it doesn't automatically grant you a right to use it how you see fit and that is not always censorship. These two points seem to be where we really disagree.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[paazin]

That still doesn't justify portraying it in a tasteless matter; it's easy to shrug it off as 'natural selection' until it's someone you know. Way to go, empathy.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[SanityInAnarchy]

As to your idea of retaliation in kind, that theory of morals has been dead in the water for the last 2000 years, because all it ever does is escalate a minor incident into a major incident and people getting killed.

So it's better to escalate it the legal means?

I'm not encouraging actual vigilante justice, of the violent, illegal kind. I'm just saying -- again, like getting teased on the playground. Someone teases you on the playground, you tease them back, or you learn to deal, or you talk to their parents. You don't get your parents to sue the school.

Simple test here, really. If you think you can ignore something that's happened to you, then it didn't really cause much emotional damage. Some things just are not like that - for example, rape really causes very little physical harm, but rape victims are often seriously emotionally damaged.

And other people have rape fantasies.

That's not because they chose to be, it's because they couldn't ignore what happened to them.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that we should tell rape victims to "lie back and enjoy it". Nor do I think that a rape victim needs to hear that she may have had a choice. (Or he -- there are a few male victims. Not many.)

But rape is also a real, physical violation of a person, of a sort that they (by definition) could not stop.

And even in this case, different rape victims deal with it differently, and I do believe there's a lot of choice involved, certainly after the fact.

In this case, with this image, we're already seeing one example: They've chosen to make this a legal fight, and they're taking out a second mortgage on their home to do so, rather than working on keeping their family together, and creating something good out of this. And...

If you don't understand this, you're lucky so far,

My grandfather died fairly recently. Perhaps I have been lucky, relatively speaking, but I'm not sure "lucky" is the right word...

But there is an essential flaw, at least in this post: At least twice, you've presented the "it's obvious" fallacy. That is, if I disagree with you, I must be stupid or ignorant, because of course you are right -- without explaining why.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[PDAllen]

So it's better to escalate it the legal means?

I'm not encouraging actual vigilante justice, of the violent, illegal kind. I'm just saying -- again, like getting teased on the playground. Someone teases you on the playground, you tease them back, or you learn to deal, or you talk to their parents. You don't get your parents to sue the school.

First off, I wouldn't usually consider playground teasing to be the sort of thing that does much emotional damage, so the reasonable man's (magistrate's) response ought to be that there isn't any merit in the action and here is a bill for wasting my time if it's a one-off. That said, sometimes it does mount up; sometimes there is a child who does get teased all the time, and they end up 'dealing with it' by killing themselves, or finding a gun and shooting the school up. But the school shouldn't be the obvious target to sue unless they're obviously failing in some way. The parents of the children who are actually doing the bullying should be the target.

And other people have rape fantasies.

Are you seriously suggesting that makes it all OK? A rapist should be able to say 'oh but I thought she might be a girl who had rape fantasies' and walk away free?

In this case, with this image, we're already seeing one example: They've chosen to make this a legal fight, and they're taking out a second mortgage on their home to do so, rather than working on keeping their family together, and creating something good out of this. And...

So most of what they're doing is a waste of time: reasonable targets would be the CHP guys who sent the original images (though I don't really see why this would go anywhere, and apparently the court agreed) and the guy who sent the abusive private email (if they could be found, which almost certainly is impossible). But how would things be different in your world? Would you suggest making it illegal to start this sort of legal action?

At least twice, you've presented the "it's obvious" fallacy. That is, if I disagree with you, I must be stupid or ignorant, because of course you are right -- without explaining why.

With regards to why you can't ignore some events, then I don't think I can explain it. I used to think you could always choose to ignore such things - I got bullied a lot at school at one point, and found I could ignore that; by now it doesn't matter to me - but then something else happened that I couldn't ignore.

Let me put it in a more simple way: most people do agree that some things you cannot just choose to ignore, and the people who stand up and disagree (obviously I can't say anything about those who don't agree but don't say so) seem to be mainly people who haven't ever had anything all that bad happen to them. You're prepared from a quite young age that your grandparents are much older than you and will die, and probably it was to some extent expected and peaceful, as opposed to an unexpectd violent death. So, either you can continue to argue that even though nothing very bad has ever happened to you, you still know how you would be able to deal with it, or you can decide that maybe the majority might have a point, your choice.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[Stray7Xi]

Judging by the action taken by the CHP (suspending the two officers involved) they didn't have the right to release the images in the manner that they did.

I should clarify... because your response doesn't contradict my post

CHP has the right to release; that's CHP as an organization.
CHP officers don't have the right, it's not within their duty description. Hence why they were disciplined.

So taking CHP to court is meaningless, even if they didn't desire to release the photos, they had the right. CHP disciplining it's officers is the right course because the officers acted out of line.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet

[syousef]

Actually I wouldn't, my main beef as stated several times is that the police did not follow procedures which led to the pictures being leaked which was the breach of privacy

I already conceded that point, and said the officers should be disciplined. However I also said they definitely should be released according to procedure.

I was pretty sure I made that clear... but hey I'll give it another shot. We almost seem to agree on this issue except for your "fuck the family" attitude. Your words. Also you seem to be saying that this is censorship which it is not. Had it been released through the proper procedures it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy either, but it wasn't and hence it is. ...and I'll say it again. Fuck the family's feelings. Their daughter did something stupid in public that remains of public interest and serves as a warning to others who would do the same. Their feelings don't even come into play. No one should be asking permission to show these pictures because it was not something done in private.

Go see a movie like Saw or Hostile and look at your target audience desensitize themselves to images of gore.

It's different when you know the gore is fake Hollywood gore. Perhaps some people can't make the distinction (especially if they're not smart enough to avoid drugs in the first place). However some are.

Truthfully until you see something like this up close and in person it is just an image, there are other senses involved that bring it home if you see it in person. Hopefully you never have to see anything like that.

Sure but the body's not available for viewing in person to shock idiots who'd drug up and go for a spin. The pictures are.

Also just because the information/data is out there it doesn't automatically grant you a right to use it how you see fit and that is not always censorship.

Yet you on your high horse seem to feel justified preventing access to it because "you see fit".

These two points seem to be where we really disagree.

I suspect we'd disagree on much more.

cyber-harassment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just call it harassment. If somebody keeps on getting prank calls on the telephone, it's still called harassment.

Re:cyber-harassment?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if it's a different person calling each time. How would they categorize this?

Re:cyber-harassment?

[E IS mC(Square)]

Harassment by different people?

Re:cyber-harassment?

[misexistentialist]

The only way to stop non-threatening prank calls is to change your number. Harassing emails are even easier to deal with. If "harassment" was prosecuted, 99% of people would have this charge on their records. People are paranoid and easily offended; their recourse is to avoid the offensive materials and people.

Re:cyber-harassment?

[NeoSkandranon]

Except you can't put a restraining order on Anonymous.

gross. I don't want to see it either.

[OrangeTide]

I don't want to see these photos, and the parents and family shouldn't ever have to see them either.

The officers and department should probably be punished in some way to avoid this sort of behavior again. I am almost certain there is a policy against releasing accident photos in such a casual way.

As for stopping the spread on the internet, it's too late. It's probably already in the wayback machine and google images cache. At this point the best we can do is make a firefox plug-in that detects the image and censors it. Then install the plug-in on the family's computers.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Forgetting all the exact details for a second, let's say she died because some guy side swiped her off the road and into a tree instead and was not her fault....
Now can you see how unsympathetic it would be to release the death photos from the crash scene? You could almost construe the release of the photos as harassment to the family.
And, on another note, the photo's taken at scenes or wrecks/crimes taken by the police dept.'s camera, and indeed the PD's property and NOT the officer's who took them. In other words, those officer's needed persmission to disseminate the photo's, and literally stole from the PD. 'Nuff said.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[aztektum]

I'm reminded of a story about the Buddha. Paraphrased: A woman came to the Buddha filled with grief over the death of her child. She asked the Buddha if there was anything that could be done to cure her grief. The Buddha said he knew of a concoction that would do so, and listed off ingredients. The woman got excited and said she would collect the ingredients post-haste. Before she left the Buddha said "The ingredients cannot come from a household that has experienced the loss of a loved one (child, parent, grand-parent, sibling)." The woman agreed to follow the directive and went off in search of the ingredients.

Everywhere around town she went she found people that were willing to give her the items she requested. However when mentioning the stipulation that it come from a home where no one had died, everyone had to turn her away. She went throughout the whole village and was unable to find someone that had not dealt with such a loss. Realizing this, she discovered the cure to her grief.

Life spares no one of suffering.

Are the people posting these all over for kicks utter twats? Yes. Is the family over reacting? Also yes.

No one should have to see their child in such a way, but plenty people do. If you live in a warzone like Iraq or another country that deals with terrorist bombings all year long, likely you've seen it live.

But by all means, let's make an emotionally charged issue out of this. Let's censor the Internet. That will surely stop these things from happening in the first place, right? Thank goodness!

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[fermion]

I don't like to see these pictures either, and I wish they would go away. But then there are a lot of people that do. Some children appreciate the gore. Some conservative christians enjoy spending their days marching up and down the street displaying the gore to all passerby. It would be nice if the law would allow police to prevent such disgusting behavior, but there is freedom of speech. I may not agree with it, but as an an American I am duty bound to protect it.

The solution may be to prevent such photos from being taken. Alternatively, as a society we might simply shun those who enjoy such activities, asking them kindly to look at their naughty pictures in the privacy of their own home, not on the public street.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari fan I see?

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[lymond01]

Obviously censoring the Internet isn't going to help. Firing the two bozos who leaked the photos would be the first step, just to keep it from happening again. As far as the assholes plaguing the family with photos, the family should change their email addresses.

That being said, do not belittle the loss of a child, especially one in their teens. This alone can devastate a parent's life -- unable to work, to laugh, to do anything other than stare at the wall wishing their child was back. That someone would exacerbate those feelings of helplessness is beyond forgiveness.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[OrangeTide]

No one should have to see their child in such a way, but plenty people do. If you live in a warzone like Iraq or another country that deals with terrorist bombings all year long, likely you've seen it live.

Let's not go out of our way to rub it into the family's face. 10 years from now these images will still be popping up. Where as in a war zone you'll have hopefully buried/cremated the bodies by then. Just because some have to see it, doesn't mean it's is something we should readily accept due to the carelessness and unprofessionalism of CHP officers.

I don't have to go to Iraq to see dead mutilated bodies, the American streets have this every night when the bars close. I think you're being overly dramatic about this.

Individuals should be empowered to censor their own view into the web with better browser plug-ins and (if practical) firewall filters, but that's not really censorship because it is selective and a choice for individuals. But broad censorship, that's a problem, and it is basically impossible.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[Culture20]

Paraphrased: A woman came to the Buddha filled with grief over the death of her child [and fear of someone who kept anonymously leaving paintings on her doorstep depicting the brutal death of her child, reopening those wounds] . She asked the Buddha if there was anything that could be done to cure her grief. The Buddha said he knew of a concoction that would do so, and listed off ingredients. The woman got excited and said she would collect the ingredients post-haste. Before she left the Buddha said "The ingredients cannot come from a household that has experienced the loss of a loved one (child, parent, grand-parent, sibling) [and has been harassed afterward as a result] ." The woman agreed to follow the directive and went off in search of the ingredients.

Everywhere around town she went she found people that were willing to give her the items she requested. However when mentioning the stipulation that it come from a home where no one had died [and the family harassed] , everyone [grew incensed at the injustice done to her because such harassment is not normal] . She went throughout the whole village and [eventually found someone who knew the perpetrators. The village jailed them and the woman found peace, knowing that the evil people would not harm anyone else .

Life spares no one of suffering [even criminals] .

Is the family over reacting? Also yes.

No. What kind of unfeeling psycho/sociopath are you? They didn't see their daughter's picture in an ad campaign for safe driving, on TV, or in a newspaper. People are deliberately doing harm to the family's emotional and mental stability. "Woohoo Daddy! Hey daddy, I'm still alive." is not a normal caption for a picture like that.

Step 1: They should set their email clients to plain-text
Step 2: They should hire a secretary to filter work email since the job requires that they look at unsolicited images (of houses)
Step 3: File a police report if they haven't
Maybe rearrange the above steps.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[OrangeTide]

I have the right to complain about the stupid callous behavior of others. And I also have a right to point out when my police department violates protocol. The family of course has no right to censor the internet, and they can't even if they tried. They would just end up having to see the photos more often in an attempt to censor them.

Such photos have to be taken as part of police protocol, records must be kept. How those records are disseminated are of critical importance to all of us.

Generally speaking, as a society we do shun people waving banners of dead mutilated babies in the street. And most people aren't brought over to someone's side because of disruptive and shocking photos (referring to various protesters who use gory pictures as part of their demonstrations). Also society, generally speaking again, shuns people who would take a picture of a dead teenager and place captions on them at an attempt at humor.

I think fake gore is hilarious, you dress someone up with blood and brains everywhere, comedy gold to me. But if someone had to die to make the picture well it's a little harder to laugh at it. Sure laughter can be good medicine, but so far all the jokes with the photos were unfunny and in poor taste. For a tragedy to be a comedy I think there needs to be some irony, and there is no here. Deaths like these are just some stupid shit that happens all too often.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, for the love of God, learn to use the apostrophe correctly. Hint: it's not merely warning the reader that an S is coming up!

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[techno-vampire]

I don't want to see these photos, and the parents and family shouldn't ever have to see them either.

A friend of mine had to work crash sites when he was in the Air Force years ago. He was very careful to see that nothing like this ever happened to any of the photos he took. As he put it, "According to the First Amendment, the public has a right to know, but in these cases, they have no need to know." If those two stupid fools had realized this simple fact, none of this would be happening.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[jackb_guppy]

It is never too late. These pictures are coming up via search engines, there is stopping point. Just as **AA have been working with YouTube and others t stop the spread of copyrighted material. They can stop the linking.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either.

[Cazekiel]

No one should have to see their child in such a way, but plenty people do. If you live in a warzone like Iraq or another country that deals with terrorist bombings all year long, likely you've seen it live.... so? Are you going to then say that it's justified to send the mother of a young man killed in battle a picture of her dead son drying up in the desert with his intestines lying all over him with the text "Splodey!" written upon it? Because that's the true analogy to this situation. Just because the girl was spoiled and stupid doesn't mean that the parents aren't scarred and probably suicidal over her death and the disgusting behavior of people who find it funny. There's simply no justifying that kind of disgusting act.

Likely to backfire

[blind biker]

Take a random Joe like myself, who hasn't heard of Nikki Catsouras: now I'm aware of the existence of grisly photos of this unlucky young woman. Some of these random Joes will likely be interested in seeing those photos in spite of the family's wishes. And thus the number of people who saw the pics has increased.

Unfortunately, their only practicaly recourse is just not to look at those pics. I, who has not heard of this woman or her accident before, have not seen the photos, ever, so it is possible to avoid seeing them.

Re:Likely to backfire

[badcowboy]

Schadenfreude - people want to see the pictures - it is human nature. Think of it as reality television gone horribly wrong. Ever wonder why an accident scene attracts people and will stop traffic even on the other side of the freeway? I had a friend who wanted to carry a manikin head in the car so he could toss it out when going by accident scenes so that people would have something to look at.

Re:Likely to backfire

[MiKM]

Not to be callous or anything, but I wouldn't call her "unlucky". Tragic? Yes. Unlucky? Getting hit by a drunk driver is "unlucky". Driving a car at 100 MPH while on cocaine is incredibly poor judgment. I agree with your point, though - I hadn't heard of her either. Sadly, three of the top four Google results contain pictures of the accident.

Re:Likely to backfire

[pxlmusic]

they do that here in droves.

atlanta is the rubbernecking capital.

fail.

Re:Likely to backfire

[Anonymous Coward]

i, for one, do not want to see the pictures.

i dont rubberneck at accidents other than to see how badly the vehicles are damaged. first sight of blood i turn away.

the misfortune of others is not fascinating to me, its depressing.

Re:Likely to backfire

[timeOday]

Why do you think the family is hoping to eradicate the images from the Internet or stop other people from seeing them? Their own attorney stated, "Putting these photos on the Internet was akin to placing them in every mailbox in the world." Does it sound to you like they are hoping to un-do that? To me it's pretty obvious they're suing for the pain and suffering caused to them by the police, and possibly to decrease the chances of it happening again.

Re:Likely to backfire

[ceriphim]

Well. You could call her unlucky, based on the fact that she had stacked the odds against herself. Driving at 100mph with a shitload of coke in your system *is* incredibly poor judgement, she would have been lucky not to get into an accident.

I would also make the case against it being called "tragic", though dictionary.com isn't strictly agreeing with me on this.

Re:Likely to backfire

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not poor judgment. Once she took cocaine, all bets were off. Her mind was altered. And she took cocaine why? Because she was depressed? Because she lived in a community where peer pressure to do so among those able to was too strong? Because the stupid bitch chose to have a brain tumor surgery as an 8-year old that left her neural pathways damaged forever (RTFA)?

It's amazing how primitive our collective view of the human psyche is.

Re:Likely to backfire

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>Sadly, three of the top four Google results contain pictures of the accident.

Why else would she show up on Google at all? She is only 'famous' for dying in a particularly grisly way. If you search for Timothy Mcveigh, you're going to get results concerning the Oklahoma City bombing because frankly that's the only thing that made him noteworthy.

My heart goes out to the family, but look- if the only reason people know your daughter's name is her terrible car accident, what do you expect to pop up on Google?

-b

Re:Likely to backfire

[yerktoader]

How exactly do you know that she had a "shitload of coke" in her system? The article shows her using cocaine twice. The last time she had any prior to the accident was the night before. Do you really think she was still high? I truly doubt she was Rick James-ing it all night.

More likely, her brain injury, for which the family was bringing her to a specialist for, was responsible for her actions. It's all in TFA.

Re:Likely to backfire

[greerga]

The descriptions are bad enough. I'll pass on seeing the real thing, thanks.

Re:Likely to backfire

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you take a hammer and put some good sized dents on the hood of your car. That way, the next time you want to see bent sheetmetal, you won't have to slow down everyone else's commute with the rubbernecking crap. As a bonus, you won't even have to worry about seeing blood.

Re:Likely to backfire

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I had already seen the photos a long time ago on the Ogrish forum (http://www.ogrishforum.com). It's tagline is "reality uncovered". If you want to fully understand the impact of war, or road accidents, or suicide, you should go have a look through the pictures or videos threads.

The 2 responsible should be fired

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's just the start.

1. They should lose any pensions and should never be able to work in law enforcement again ... anywhere in the US.
2. If this is a crime then they should be prosecuted as criminals. It should be investigated and if necessary, prosecuted external to the local police department and DA. Both groups want it swept under the rug.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[troll8901]

1. They should lose any pensions and should never be able to work in law enforcement again...
2. If this is a crime then they should be prosecuted as criminals.

If these were law, persons of authority making a mistake, will be receiving harsher punishments than criminals.

This will deter good people from joining the police and patrol positions, and attract bad, smart people into joining the police and patrol positions.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[muridae]

Persons of authority should be held to more account than the citizens they protect. This was not a mistake, accidentally leaving the files on a vulnerable computer or on an internal server that happened to be externally visible for a day.

This was an effort by those officers to distribute the files to people outside the police department who, frankly, had no business seeing them. They say it was to discourage their own family from driving drunk or speeding, but who's to say. If they had been informed about normal procedure and knew these pictures should not be distributed then they should be held accountable for it.

Don't charge them for mistakes. Charge them if they willfully breached protocol for their own fun. And make it harsh.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the father was kind of idiotic. If he's that well heeled, after he ruined their careers he should have shut his mouth, waited a couple of years, and started to get a little payback.

No, I'm not talking about hollywood movie payback, I mean real payback. I've worked around people with money, and it's not an exaggeration to say that they can get away with things that you and I cannot. It's amazing what can be done with repeated civil suits and the hiring of the occasional private investigator to climb up somebody's ass every two years or so for the next twenty years.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here.

I remember fondly when the Slashdot community demanded the same type of punishment for Kevin Mitnick!

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[antibryce]

why not go after them with the same federal obscenity laws our govt loves to use against consenting adults making porn?

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[troll8901]

Don't charge them for mistakes. Charge them if they willfully breached protocol for their own fun. And make it harsh.

Well said, and thank you.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[yerktoader]

Here here.

I remember fondly when the Slashdot community demanded the same type of punishment for Kevin Mitnick!

A long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.....

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[justinlee37]

1. They should lose any pensions and should never be able to work in law enforcement again

How might that affect any children they might have, who are innocent?

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not sure how you work things in the US, but in Canada when you work in law enforcement, health care, victims assistance, etc. you are either explicitly (you sign) or implicitly bound by a confidentiality agreement. Breaking that agreement would result in all of the things you suggest.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[cbhacking]

Amen, with one caveat: if the pictures had been completely anonymous (difficult, but a reasonable effort could be made) then no harm would have been done. They family still might have disapproved if it was done without their knowledge, but chances are they never would have known... because nobody would have been able to look up the email address of the girl's father and send him the sickest excuse for a "joke" (giving him the benefit of a doubt that it *might* have been intended as humor; it's possible some people are that tasteless) I've ever heard of.

Let me make that really clear: as I see it, the major fault was not the distribution of the photos, but the identification of the victim in them. THAT is a fairly clear breach of privacy, and should be punished (as should the people who sent the emails, of course - even if it was intended as humor, such things probably count as criminal harassment, and certainly form the basis for a civil suit).

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[princessproton]

Did you seriously just pull a "Please think of the children!11" ?

Having children does not grant a person a carte blanche for unacceptable behavior, and should not be seen as immunity from the consequences behaving in an inexcusable way. If anything, what these officers did would be even WORSE if they were themselves parents -- not only because of the pain they inflicted upon another family, but because they are setting a very poor example for their children as to what constitutes appropriate behavior regarding sensitive topics. Maybe the children (if any) will learn the importance of compassion and decent behavior by seeing what happens when one fails to act in an honorable way. There are plenty of other fields that these "officers" can work in that do not involve the handling of sensitive materials, and I don't think it's unreasonable in light of their actions that they lose their current positions.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[justinlee37]

I don't think it's unreasonable to fire them, but taking their pension is another matter entirely.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[muridae]

Kinda, maybe. How hard is it to completely anonymize anything? The picture might have contained just enough detail to identify the family even without the girl's name being attached. Say, car color, model, approx age of victim, and location of the accident by the county the cops work in. From that, and knowing the day of the accident, you could probably find the family just by reading the paper.

No, I don't think they could have been make completely anonymous. Not to the point where griefers and trolls couldn't have caused problems. And as Penny Arcade taught us, that's what the internet is made up of.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[OhPlz]

They had a noble enough goal. They wanted to show the pictures to family and friends to convince them to drive safely. You would fire them and destroy their retirement for that? I don't think you're being rational. Yes, it may have been a mistake. They paid for it. I think even the suspension was even a bit harsh.

There is a strong knee-jerk phenomenon on this site. People here supposedly don't want their rights trampled on, but they're so eager to trample on other peoples' rights. These officers are doing the best they can, and had good intentions here, and you'd ruin them for that! Good grief.

What happened after the pictures got into the wild is reprehensible. What the officers did was innocent. What you're proposing is outrageous. The fact that you posted as a coward tells me you realize it too. Not willing to face some knee-jerking on your account?

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[OhPlz]

The punishment should fit the crime. These officers took photos that any journalist could have. Even a motorist could have stopped, gotten out, and taken the same pictures. The cops would shoo them away, but they wouldn't likely be able to confiscate the camera.

Knowing that, it seems to me a gross over reaction to say that these two officers should be destroyed for this. This didn't happen in a person's home or somewhere where there is an expectation of privacy. I might look at it differently then.

It seems to me that people are outraged over the fact these pictures were taken and distributed. Had it been anyone other than law enforcement or fire/rescue, there wouldn't be anything you could do about it. It seems like we're trying to take advantage of the fact that they were wearing a badge at the time.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired

[muridae]

You are right, I am being harsher on them just because they are cops. The fact that it was two officers who took the pictures is exactly why they should be punished more than a journalist. If a journalist happens upon a crime scene there is usually police there to keep them back. The police, on the other hand, are immune to that boundary.

They were using their privilege, as law enforcement officials, to obtain information, they should not have had, and to distribute it. Because they did all of this while acting under color of the law, they should be punished harsher than a normal person.

Look, I know cops are normal people. They have good days and bad days just like everyone else. But, as long as they are privileged in their jobs then they need to be held more accountable for the actions they take while in the line of duty.

How is it possible?!?

[BlueF]

I am so entirely baffle as to why people would want to view this sort of photo, let alone send such an email. I'm ashamed to be the same species.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the same reason why site like Ogrish.com and Rotten.com excist. People are fascinated by death, and the different forms it takes.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Curiosity is a normal behavioral attribute of our species. Being a total dick is a result of cultural, parental, and peer learned behavior. Curiosity is a very important survival strategy. Case in point I'm sure you wouldn't be doing 100mph while on cocaine if you saw these pictures, thus increasing your chances for survival and passing on your genetic information.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Im with you there.

Heck if i had an uncle who sent me those kinds of pictures to scare me into driving safer id surely ream him out if not also beat him down for sending such disturbing images.

Side note .. what ever happened to the HIPPA laws? Im pretty sure they apply even if shes dead. Also I havent looked into it but sounds like she was a minor... so isnt it federally illegal for her image to be released like that? Its sad its on the net now and you might be able to make those who first published the pictures and those who sent the emails to the family. It wont really solve much however it would set a precidence for harassment and ensure that other CHP like groups would never release images like that without authorization.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you also ashamed to be the same species who creates horror films and entertains itself watching special effects that resemble people being shot, mutilated, gored and even exploded to bits?

If you ever entertained yourself by watching such a movie then you should just drop your righteous indignation act and start feeling embarrassed by the hypocrite that you are.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you support war, so.. you support such things happening, just not people looking at it. You do realize you are the sick one right?

Re:How is it possible?!?

[phantomfive]

Not everyone in the US supported the war. Just 80% of us. :) That's a depressing statistic. But things ARE changing.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[thetoadwarrior]

Humans generally don't get to experience this sort of stuff and realise it because death is final and it's guaranteed to happen to everyone so yes a lot of people are curious about it.

Personally, I'm not that bothered to look at that sort of thing but a lot of people are and it's because some of them are sick and some are just curious because they know they may die in such a way.

Re:How is it possible?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so entirely baffle as to why people would want to view this sort of photo, let alone send such an email. I'm ashamed to be the same species.

I've seen a dog sniff at a freshly killed dog on the road, whimper a bit and move on.

I've seen other animals eat one of their own after being killed on the road, thus making use of the dead animal.

Then we have people. We stand and gawk, talk about how kewl or fucked up that was, and then snigger and and most likely move on. Some of us, however, send pictures to the loved ones because it gives us a rush. We tormet, we terrorize, we enjoy the agony of others. Not all of us, of course... but a sizable chunk.

That sizable chunk of defective people is why I have a concealed carry permit. Do not fool yourselves into thinking that kids who view a pic on the net like that and find it fascinating will not beat your brains out with a ballbat when you're in your 50s just for the fun of it. The only thing that keeps many of us from running into bad situations with these little pricks (and adult pricks) is their fear of being caught. They are not "decent" people.

Here's two more idiots you should take note of: right here. Degenerate behavior is the new norm.

*sigh*

[crimsonshdw]

I remember this too. It was passed around last year because of how graphic the accident was, and as a cynical tale of poetic justice to the stereotypical spoiled daughter totaling daddy's Porsche (which is why it went viral, and with help from 'chan). The accident tore her family apart and everyone can sympathize with how much emotional trauma is and will be caused because of the accident. What limited a lot of the empathy from people was the fact that she was speeding in her dad's sports car and died a totally frivolous death. Sending her father crash site pictures with captions for ***** and giggles is so fundamentally flawed. * * * Anyone else read the part where they blamed the tumor on daughter doing coke? "It turned out to be benign, but 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday--perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control. Her family believes that's why, the summer before the accident, Nikki tried cocaine and ended up in the hospital in a cocaine-induced psychosis. She used cocaine again the night before the accident, her family says. Lesli and Christos discussed checking her into a hospital, but decided against it: she was to visit a psychiatrist the next day, a specialist on brain disorders. So they let her sleep it off, and the next day, the three of them ate lunch together."

Re:*sigh*

[yoshi_mon]

Thanks for the back story but seriously, this is /. not 4chan. You can curse here and please use paragraphs.

Thanks.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

trust me, cursing is allowed on 4chan.

Re:*Sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

They ARE suing the CHP and trying to establish precedent that has been already set in other states, extending privacy to the dead and preventing public servants from spreading such things as happened with their daughter.

It's a safe bet that the demands of their lawsuit aren't just that the CHP change its ways - they're suing for money.

The interesting question is where the money that gets paid to the family is going to come from. Maybe it will get taken out of the pay of the administrator who set the CHP policies on confidentiality of evidence. More likely it will get taken out of the pay of low level CHP patrols or even passed on to the tax payer.

So, if it is the tax-payer who is ultimately going to be paying, is the tax-payer actually guilty in all this? Maybe. But I bet that a lot of tax-payers would disagree.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't. Fuck these people. The girl driving in such a way on public roads deserved it. Anytime someone drives like that on public streets and manages to only kill themselves, the day has gone well. More often than not people like her kill several innocent motorist or pedestrians AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

It is poetic justice, and the parents deserve to be reminded EVERY DAY what a piss poor job of raising their children they did.

What punishment do your parents deserve for producing a piece of slime like you?

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

this is /. not 4chan. You can curse here

Wow!! That's good to know!! I hang around 4chan all the time and never see anyone curse. All of them fucking literature majors over there!!

Re:*Sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they would disagree, but had their been a law respecting privacy for the dead, I'm sure most wouldn't object to taxpayer money paying the fines - where else would the money come from? They won't take it from the unrelated employees, it's probably not legal, and their would be a shitstorm. They might take some from an individual if this is a civil case, but there likely won't be enough money from one or even several individuals to pay whatever is awarded, and hence at least some will come out of taxpayer money - I don't know the policy, but I'd guess it always comes from taxpayer money when a public entity is fined.

And I'm sure they are suing for money, and I don't blame them. In spite of CA not observing privacy for the dead, the "it's a public service" excuse seems like something a lawyer would say - pretty weak to me. There is really no reason for these two dispatchers to have distributed the images, and it's completely outside of any standard operating procedure - anyone who honestly wanted to perform a public service out of these pictures would have requested permission from their superiors and the family first, but they didn't. I won't go so far as to say they were acting out of malice because I don't know them, but it certainly seems likely.

Any monies paid to the family would likely come out of overhead just as it would if any public entity was found responsible for breaching the law, and hence out of the public coffers - that doesn't mean the public is guilty. To say so is circular reasoning:

Phase 1: Underpants!

Phase 2: ???

Phase 3: Profit!!!!

Re:*Sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure most wouldn't object to taxpayer money paying the fines - where else would the money come from?

Uh huh, someone's gotta pay so might as well be the general public (tax-payer). If you were to think beyond "I'd like to see the family get some money and, well, the tax-payer is the one who can best afford to pony it up.", and instead try to justify the transfer on general ethical principles, I strongly suspect you'll run into some difficulties (e.g. having to assume that the general public is guilty).

There is really no reason for these two dispatchers to have distributed the images,...

My understanding is that it went something like: dispatcher emails photo to wife, wife emails photo to sister, sister emails photo BFF, BFF emails photos to sleazy boyfriend who puts it up on 4chan. Should a dispatcher be able to talk with his wife about what he sees at work? For the most part, I'd say yes.

On the other hand, if the minute the dispatcher got his hands on the photo he contacted a hard-core porn site to see if he could make a buck off the photo then that would be a different story.

Re:*sigh*

[TriezGamer]

That would depend entirely on how much responsibility you feel that parents have for what their children become.

Re:*sigh*

[crimsonshdw]

I had it nicely formatted and something was lost between the draft and posting *shrug*, the editing of language is just habit from other boards.

Never heard of her before...

[Anonymous Coward]

But now they somehow made me aware of it... and the morbid fascination of it made me look those up.
Keep in mind, not for the faint of heart: Photo
Yes, horrible: But keep in mind that this was due to her own fault, and I can't think of a better picture that makes other people aware not to fuck around with a car... all high on cocaine.

Parent implies link to virus!

[cheftw]

-MILDLY IMPORTANT-
If you do go to that website be warned, it does contain the images mentioned but also a video. THIS VIDEO IS A VIRUS. It didn't run very well in WINE but some people have less secure nonfree operating systems.

tl;dr
If you go to her name dot net the video is a virus.

Re:Parent implies link to virus!

[Carlosos]

Who on slashdot would open an .exe file after clicking on the supposed video that should start in the browser?

By the way, the person that made the website was creative with that virus (or maybe adware?). I'm sure a lot of naive people would open that (but those don't exist on slashdot, right?)

Re:Parent implies link to virus!

[schmiddy]

tl;dr If you go to her name dot net the video is a virus.

You don't need to post cliffnotes summaries of your slashdot posts, or any other writing for that matter. If an ADHD Windows-using teenage reader is too jacked up on Mountain Dew to read the three concise sentences you wrote, too bad for him, let him run the virus-video.

Re:Parent implies link to virus!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to post cliffnotes summaries of your slashdot posts, or any other writing for that matter.

You say that now, but give it five minutes. In that time, there will be thousands of Slashdot posts on various articles from people who just read the summaries and don't bother viewing any actual links contained within.

Re:Parent implies link to virus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Avast immediately aborted the connection when I clicked the link.

Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe

[cheftw]

Long live Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!

Is it not a little ironic that they are all long dead?

Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

Don't let your coked up daughter steal your sports car and go on a joyride if you don't want people to remind you that you're a terrible parent every day for the rest of your life.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[PhxBlue]

Wow. Please, never have children.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[stinerman]

I don't know about karma, but I don't have much sympathy for the kid. She knew the risks of cocaine when she decided to use it. Unfortunately, only her family has to live with the consequences.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

Why? Are you suggesting that I'm going to let my kid get her hands on coke and steal cars?

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Seriously. Kids start doing things you don't want to "let" them do as soon as they can walk. Sometimes sooner.

No parent should ever be subjected to what these guys have gone through, regardless of the stupid choices their kid makes.

And where the fuck are all the people who whined here on /. last week about poor Saddam being "tortured" by forcing him to watch a cartoon?

Free speech != speech without consequences. Any real Libertarian understands this.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[db32]

I sure hope your daughter never has to have a brain tumor removed either. If you bother to read the story the real root of her problems was from brain damage suffered during the removal of a tumor at 8 years old. Also...you are an unbelievably stupid moron if you think you "not let your kid get her hands on coke" or not steal cars. Unless of course you plan on giving up your entire life to follow her around like a stalker 24/7.

And actually...I agree that you should never have kids, not because of what you may or may not let them do, but because sick self absorbed callous pricks shouldn't multiply.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

And how exactly does "brain tumor" equal "a teenager with easy access to both coke AND the keys to the 911"? It doesn't matter one bit if she was acting retarded because of a brain tumor. The tumor doesn't magically remove responsibility for her well being from her parents. It is the parent's job to ensure that she isn't going out doing stupid shit and associating with stupid people, and obviously the Catsouras family failed miserably. To pass responsibility off onto a brain tumor is no better than blaming Canada.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[teknosapien]

You! out of the Gene pool your not allowed to breed

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

>your
Frankly, I wouldn't be telling people that they shouldn't be breeding if I were you.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[db32]

You really are an idiot aren't you? Do you think there is some magical way to control everything and everyone a child interacts with? OK, outside of being a callous prick about this, you shouldn't breed because you are too stupid to have children if you actually believe the shit you are saying. Explain to me how you are supposed to stop "easy access to coke", if you have a real answer to that I am sure that law enforcement would love to hear your ideas. However, you can pretty much go anywhere on the planet and still get access to drugs. Law enforcement can't even keep drugs out of jails! What the hell makes you think there is some magical way to stop that? As far as the car, she had a license, she could legally drive. There shouldn't be anything more to it other than "don't drive this one". She disobeyed, but that hardly has anything to do with what happened to her, she just as easily could have done it in a car that she was allowed to drive.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

It's called being a parent. If she hangs out with people that do drugs, don't let her hang out with them. If she continues, ground her. A license to drive isn't a license to steel a car, and you should know that. If you don't want to be a parent, you deserve to be presented with the pictures of what happens to your kid as a result.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you perhaps mean fortunately only her family has to live with the consequences? My thought is that it's a good thing didn't manage to kill anyone else, else unrelated families would also be going through hell.

I agree with you completely. I have no sympathy for anyone exhibiting as poor judgment as she did, or her parents for blissfully ignoring the problem or sweeping it under the rug as a minor inconvenience that could be dealt with at a nebulously "later" date.

The simple fact is she had a history of cocaine abuse prior to this accident. If your family member's ass has been dumped in a hospital because of cocaine abuse and then months later you learn that they've resumed the habit: fucking deal with it right away. This family did not. This is what happens when you pretend a serious problem can be ignored.

Addendum: I just reread your comment. My apologies, you mean to say that since she's dead, she's not particularly able to comprehend the consequences of her mistakes. For what it's worth though, I doubt the personality of anyone who would ever do something so incredibly stupid as she did is the type that would permit that sort of introspection.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[db32]

It is called being delusional. You are welcome to live in your self deluded fantasy land, but please, stop injecting your nonsensical ideas into how reality should work.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

So a parent being responsible for their children is delusional? And you're telling me not to have children?

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech != speech without consequences. Any real Libertarian understands this.

And not much else.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have zero experience with anyone who's had a serious brain injury....Oh wait, I guess yourself counts.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The tumor was a possible cause, and the easy scapegoat. There's no evidence it actually affected her in any way.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt they *let* her steal their sports car while high on drugs. They might be neglectful parents but I really don't see their daughter asking them to use the car so she can go on a murderous rampage at 100MPH.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have zero experience with anyone who's had a serious brain injury

And I'm very proud of that. Through a combination of good decisions by my parents, and later myself, I've never had to associate with people with brain injuries, people who use wheelchairs, the morbidly obese, people with body odor problems, or people who make less than $20,000 a year. I had a great upbringing and have only had to associate with good people. I'm healthier, more educated, and earn more than 95% of the population. Sometimes, it helps to separate yourself from the common herd.

Oh and you meant to say "I guess you count." I guess you couldn't take any time from your busy schedule, hang out with brain-damaged people, to proofread a little? ;)

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a very fucked up sense of ethics.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[gsakkis]

Sorry to ruin your schadenfreude but from TFA it doesn't seem like a case of daddy handing in the keys to his spoiled brat:

About 10 minutes later, Lesli heard the door slam, and footsteps out the back door. She walked toward the garage, hesitantly, and locked eyes with Nikki, who was backing out of the driveway in Christos's Porsche 911 Carrera--a car she was never allowed to drive. Lesli called out to her, but Nikki looked away, accelerating out the cul-de-sac.

It was an impulse, can happen to anyone no matter how good parent he/she is. Also the cocaine addiction might not have been simply a result of bad judgment and free will:

In third grade, Nikki was diagnosed with a brain tumor that doctors didn't think she'd survive. It turned out to be benign, but 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday--perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control.

Things are not as simple as we might think by reading the summary.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Ant P.]

Explain to me how you are supposed to stop "easy access to coke"

Show the would-be substance abusers these pictures.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[BeanThere]

Wow. Please, never have children.

You're saying people with good values shouldn't have children? I don't get it.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

The fact of the matter is that the keys were available. If he left them out where his coked up daughter could get them, he may as well have handed them to her. Nikki's judgment is irrelevant. The issue is that her parents were doing such a terrible job at being parents that they let her get away with this shit.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[cheros]

I think it's fairly clear that you are not a parent - you're not quite living in the real world.

You are, in all seriousness, more or less implying you have never in your life done anything stupid because your parents have always stopped you.

I don't think so, or you have an extreme case of selective memory..

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DNS-and-BIND]

I can very easily stop "easy access to Porsche sportscars designed to go way too fast for freeways" simply by not being rich and spoiled. Pretty much stops the coke, too, actually!

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Ifandbut]

Why? Because he might tell his kids about the dangers of hard drugs, or the dangers of going 100mph down the road, or keep his $100k sports car out of the hands of his children.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact of the matter is that the keys were available. If he left them out where his coked up daughter could get them, he may as well have handed them to her.

So when you get home from work, you take your car keys and lock them up in a cupboard? What do you do with the key to the cupboard?

One can argue that the parents were bad parents to have raised a child who thought that taking the family car for a joyride was a good idea. And there may be some truth to that.

I had a cat that clawed the furniture. After a few times scolding the cat, the cat learned not to claw the furniture. Later, I had another cat that clawed the furniture. After a few times scolding the second cat, it learned not to claw the furniture -- when I was there to see it. Two cats: same situation, same training, completely different results.

I have two children. If I hadn't witnessed both births, I would swear that they are in no way related: they are totally opposite in personalities and in their thinking. Parenting makes a difference, but not necessarily as much as you think.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because only expensive cars can go 100mpg and rich people do coke... +1 Stupid for you.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[NecroPsyChroNauTron]

I think we've all done stupid things in our time, I know I have. Should my parents have to suffer if one of those things ended in my horrific death? Should yours? Parents can make rules, but this girl was old enough to drive, therefore old enough to make her own decisions and act according to her own free will. Why are constant and malicious reminders somehow right or necessary? Is it likely the parents are going to forget this without those reminders? What purpose does harassment serve here? Perhaps if you die horribly we should all pass judgment on you and torment your family because your apparent lolita/furry obsession indicated by your deviantart favorites...... So easy to sit on the moral high ground isn't it?

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DirePickle]

Don't let your coked up daughter steal your sports car and go on a joyride if you don't want people to remind you that you're a terrible parent every day for the rest of your life.

???

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

If the thing that ended up getting you killed was something that your parents should have easily prevented because you're still a teenager living under their roof, then yes, they should have to suffer because it was their fault. If you have a fight with your daughter who is hopped up on coke and mentally unstable, you don't leave the keys laying around where she can find them.

...And what do furries have to do with anything? That's libel and I won't stand for it!

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

This isn't a scenario where she just randomly went on a joyride and accidentally crashed the car. This was an incident where she was hopped up on coke and mentally unstable and had just gotten into a fight with her parents. In this case yes, you do take all the keys and you keep them on your person. I would hope that as a parent you know better than to trust your kid's judgment when they've proven themselves to be foolish enough to be doing something like cocaine, let alone when they're actually high on it.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[NecroPsyChroNauTron]

Nothing just using the limited information I can gain from my position as a distant observer to make judgments that may or may or not be close to the truth. See what I'm getting at? To be fair you only had one or two favorited that portray furries. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a scruffy overweight 23 year old male like yourself simply has a purely platonic interest in little girls. At very least strikes me as creepy. Why is this relevant, you might be wondering? Because I am judging you much the same way you are judging these people you know little to nothing about. Perhaps their is some truth in your speculation. Perhaps then, there is some truth in mine as well? What were they supposed to do? Would it be simply a natural to assume someone would take such unexpected and drastic action? Perhaps they should lock their keys in a safe, and wear them securely handcuffed to their wrists whenever carrying them? Regardless of whether or not they were bad parents, you seem to be supporting the act of sending malicious and harassing reminders of an even that I'm sure this family is struggling to move past and get on with their life. Thus, I could care less about applying the same lack of consideration to people such as yourself. You reap what you sow.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[twostix]

I'm sure her parents gave her the cocaine. Idiot. At 23 do your parents still wipe your arse for you? Most people move out of home as adults at 18, 18 year olds aren't "children".

And by the looks of your abomination of a homepage http://damiennightbane.livejournal.com/ your pretty much everything wrong with the internet typified so I wouldn't talk too loud about other peoples parents failing.

Just because you spent your entire life in your basement posting to 4chan doesn't mean anyone else does. Those of us who grew up in normal social circles get exposed to this thing called "life", where access to drugs of various types is par for the course and 18 years old is *hardly* considered a child.

Though just reading through that embarrassment you call a blog you say you've smoked pot (bloody hypocrite), watch porn (psuedo child porn - Hentai), carry a knife with you everywhere you go and your also proud (a little too proud for a 23 year old) of the fact that you're a racist, 4chan posing internet loser.

23 years old, and your blog reads like a angsty 15 year olds Myspace page.

Something about throwing stones in glasshouses and all that comes to mind.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

Good job, you found a livejournal that hasn't been updated in more than a year. Do you feel proud of yourself?

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[NecroPsyChroNauTron]

Somewhat yes. But did I say LJ? Or deviantart? Looks pretty recent to me. So you had questionable attractions to little girls a year ago but not now? So hypothetically speaking, lets say you die. You do something really stupid, and I decide to blame your parents for it, and start sending them pictures of your corpse with messages saying you were an evil closet pedophile. Are you telling me I would be right to do this? This isn't really a discussion about your personal life, and I am not trying to lead a tirade against you. My personal opinions aside, I was simply using this as an example to show you what you sound like to other people. Were you to simply concede that your comments inadvertently made you sound like like an ignorantly judgmental person who puts too much stock in their assumptions who then also feels it necessary to express this useless negativity to other people, I would likely have nothing left to respond to you with. Just sayin....

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[NecroPsyChroNauTron]

I misread the page and thought that last reply was directed at me, and such was the context I was replying from. Although that in no way invalidates what I said.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[DamienNightbane]

Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The fact of the matter is that Nikki's parents did such a terrible job of raising her that she got into coke in the first place. You can't even compare Nikki being a coke addict to me having tried pot, because they're not even on the same level. Almost everyone tries pot at some time, but the vast majority or people know better than to get involved with coke, let alone when they still live at home with mommy and daddy. I may be judgmental, but they're still terrible parents that raised a daughter that turned out to be a real class A retard before she blessed the world by taking herself out before further spreading their DNA.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Scannerman]

So a parent being responsible for their children is delusional? And you're telling me not to have children?

To believe that any real level of control is possible is pretty deluded.

You do what you can to give them the tools to make reasonable judgement calls and hope for the best.

In this case it seems that wasn't enough.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[NecroPsyChroNauTron]

Yes defend your actions, but condemn others. This girl sadly did make some dumbass decisions, and I consider her responsible for her own actions. However In this case, I'll consider YOUR parents responsible for raising a class A socially defunct weaboo asshole like yourself. Back to your basement troll.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[shutdown -p now]

Explain to me how you are supposed to stop "easy access to coke", if you have a real answer to that I am sure that law enforcement would love to hear your ideas.

That one is so obvious I'm not even sure why I bothered to reply, but still, it has to be said...

You don't stop easy access to coke. You raise your kids in such a way that they don't want that coke in the first place. If you fail in doing so, then, yes, you fail as a parent, and the blame is yours.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You make that sound so easy to do.

Asshole.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree except for the "she just as easily could have done it in a car that she was allowed to drive" part.

you'd never get to 100mph in my hyundai accent! :)

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron. It isn't about controlling your child, it is about instilling knowledge and behavior into your child so that they can control themselves.

Now please go die in a fire.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. I own a 150hp crotch rocket which is just as much a "weapon" as that Porsche was and I keep the keys under lock and key, just as you would do with firearms.

Don't come crying wulf if you don't and your stupid teenager wrecks your car. I think it's good these pictures are out there. It's a vivid reminder of what traffic accidents can do, and contributes to safe driving.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Put the kid in a private school that searches them every day. They exist, I went to one. You couldn't get anything suspect into the school if you wanted to. They exist and they exist for the rich elite who have problematic kids (as these people obviously did).

When we looked over these photos when they came online two years ago, one of the first thing we discussed was whether this was a manual or automatic gearbox Porsche. We could see what appeared to be a mangled torque converter, and if that was the case, then we could say that she wouldn't have gotten the car out of the garage, let alone wrapped around a toll booth, if the car was a manual (because if dad can't drive a stick, we know his kid can't).

She'd have earned more points out of me had it actually been a manual, because less than 7% of the US Population seems capable of driving a manual these days.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[AK Marc]

If you bother to read the story the real root of her problems was from brain damage suffered during the removal of a tumor at 8 years old.

No, the real problem was the doctor saying she'd have impulse control problems. If the doctor said "and be careful, she'll be overly nurturing and caring, and you need to make sure she learns to be blunt enough to survive in today's world" then she would have not had a problem with impulse control. When you tell parents "your children will be XXX" they will often act to make sure that will come true. And the best part is, after the parents do it to their children, they get to blame the doctors.

Re:Seems like karma to me.

[Cazekiel]

My brother turned into a pot-smoking, compulsive gambling alcoholic; this after living with a mother who couponed/rebated so hardcore that she'd spend 3 cents on 3 big bags of groceries (not shi$%ing you) and a father who got drunk once a year on the 4th of July.

In other words, some kids just turn out badly without the parental units fugging it up. To say that MY parents were "bad parents" because of how my brother turned out is absurd. They had their issues and sure, some of it passed on to us, but they did their best. Anyone who says that my brother is my mom or dad's fault gets a boot to the head, from me.

BAWWWWW

[Anonymous Coward]

You know there's tons of this shit on the internet. Look up Dead-Chan. Go to fucking Liveleak. What makes these people any more different than anyone else? Catsouras is wealthy.
Fuck all what happens to people like you and me. Get a fucking thick skin and learn how to internet, faggot. And it's pretty gay to argue that whatever he does will trickle down to the rest of the proletariat because nobody is going to care in the end.

Re:BAWWWWW

[Computershack]

The difference is, dumb cunt, that you go to those sites voluntarily. It's about as far opposite as it is possible to go to having the picture of your dying daughter emailed to you.

Re:BAWWWWW

[Anonymous Coward]

And the situation with Mitchell Henderson is no less egregious?

Please, the media is cherrypicking their causes. A beautiful California teen driving a Porsche is far more marketable than some sad little boy in the midwest who kills himself over bullying and a lost iPod.

Re:BAWWWWW

[ScentCone]

And.... the parent(s) of the suicide boy are being e-mailed taunting pictures of the kid, hanging from a belt in the closet? Really?

Re:BAWWWWW

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, someone doesn't know how to use Google.
Go google up Mitchell Henderson, faggot, and find out for yourself.

Horrible!

[cyberzephyr]

I am astonished with this situation.
I wish there were something i could do to fix this injustice.
We may be geeks or whatever but this is beyond the pale and as black as Dick Cheneys heart.

Re:Horrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

She went on a cocaine fueled roadrage, almost killed a fellow driver and would've no doubt drove along happily at the same speed had not a helpful toll boot popped up to stop her.

As for sending the pictures to her parents, well, being her parents we can't really free them from guilt, their genes, their child, they rised her and then lent her the porsche. Them making a fuzz of this also indicates they're not the brigthest.

It's really not as black, cruel and heartless as one might think.

Re:Horrible!

[cyberzephyr]

Anyone dying is a sad day for human beings....

Re:Horrible!

[yerktoader]

Don't give them the time of day, for christssake. It's just another 4chan troll who probably sent the pics to the Catsouras' in the first place.

Re:Horrible!

[cyberzephyr]

all i can say is ok :-(

Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[gadlaw]

There are whole industries based on helping us laugh and yuk it up at the expense of other human beings. Like the Romans packing the Coliseum to watch people fight to the death or be eaten by wild animals we as a race revel in the misery of others. All of the so called 'reality shows' out there allow you to look in on many aspects of misery and discomfort of other people. Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor, even your game shows are there not so you can see someone win but so you can see lots of someones lose and lose miserably. Let's get that close up of the woman who debased herself for weeks chasing after 100 thousand dollars and who puts her future in the hands of some good looking bachelor fellow and who just lost, the tears streaming down her perfectly done make up job are priceless. The latest internet sensation is a woman who came onstage and everyone was already laughing at her and her awkward, less than attractive ways. Nobody was there to hope that Susan Boyle could sing, they were there to make fun of her and most of the contestants on those shows are there for us to laugh at and even when it gets to the few good singers those of you who watch are hoping to see someone fail more than you're hoping that everyone does well. We love the misery and we love to wallow in it. On the internet isn't the main reason for the website 'The Smoking Gun' so we can see people debased and brought low so we can laugh at them? Every week with the cooperation of Police all around the United States they find the mug shots of people at their lowest point and collect the ugliest, the prettiest and the most absurd photos they can find so we can all laugh at them. We're not told that the attractive woman whose picture becomes internet fodder was arrested after fighting with her boyfriend, mother or for not having her Driver's License when stopped for going five miles over the speed limit. No, we get to laugh and guffaw and make jokes like 'bath her and bring her to my tent' for our own amusement. Meanwhile, there she is, forever on the internet because the dignity of human beings isn't our concern and it certainly isn't the concern of the people who get those mugshots and post them for all to laugh at. Human dignity isn't high no the list of things that Police concern themselves with as witnessed by the weekly mugshot review from The Smoking Gun and posted at Fark. But the Police are only a reflection of the rest of society they come from and the posting of grisly car accident photos is a reflection on us. There should be privacy rules and laws against that since common decency isn't one of the more common attributes of people if it ever was except in our best, most rose colored visions of ourselves.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Areyoukiddingme]

Speak for yourself. There's a reason I don't own a television. The TV shows produced with a big budget use it to depict grisly murder on a nightly basis (Dexter, CSI). The ones with a smaller budget use it to depict misery and failure ('reality' TV). The religious channels wallow in it and use it to guilt people into donating money, thereby excoriating their guilt, which instantly translates into 'I can watch it some more now, and even if I'm a horrible person for doing it, I'm also forgiven.' The hundreds of available channels serve only to multiply the effect. No thanks.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Anonymous Coward]

TeeVee? What's that???

I vaguely recall such a thing, back in '95, when I found the intern... oh, wait.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Carlosos]

There is no need for new laws. Privacy and harassment laws already exists. I'm not sure if the USA also has dignity laws (couldn't believe it if not).

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care that you don't have a TV. Nobody cares that you don't have a TV. This discussion didn't need your "I don't have a TV" declaration. It isn't even on topic and barely related to the post you were replying to. What is it with you "I don't have a TV" people? Why do you feel the need to butt into every conversartion about anything and tell us all how wonderful life is without TV? Why do you think you are so much better than the rest of us because of your lack of TV? In fact don't answer any of those questions just go away! Go enjoy your rich TV-less lives that give you oh so much time to pontificate on websites.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Ifandbut]

Well, I watch CSI for the mystery and who-done-it. I'm sure BSG falls into your 'depiction of misery and failure' because of all those miserable people cramped onto ships trying to find a new home constantly under threat from their failed creations.

There is plenty of good TV on. My favorite atm are Chuck and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Lost. All of which show more then "grisly murder" and "misery and failure" while being big budget.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why I watch cartoons only. Call me immature, but they don't push murder and failure in my face.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Areyoukiddingme]

Law & Order has the mystery and the who-done-it. Its ratings slipped and never recovered after CSI came out. Admit it. You watch it for the mystery, the who-done-it, and the brutality. You and everybody else. 5.9 million people watched Law & Order last week. 12 million people watched CSI, and that was the lowest ever rating for a new CSI episode according to Nielsen.[1] That's one week worth of ratings, but I can't be bothered to find summaries. I just remember that last week's is typical, and from the Nielsen commentary, we can conclude that if anything CSI usually has even more viewers. What's the difference between the shows? CSI depicts the violence, with blood. Law & Order doesn't.

As for the rest of the shows you mention, that's four out of dozens, or hundreds if you count syndication. I haven't seen any episodes of the Sarah Connor Chronicles, but I find it very hard to believe that anything from the Terminator franchise doesn't show people being killed on a regular basis. That was the point, after all...

I'll go ahead and take a shot at your phrasing, just to make the point.

All of which show more then "grisly murder" and "misery and failure"

More than? So you're saying they all show both grisly murder and misery and failure, but they show other stuff too? That's nice....

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Ifandbut]

I watch CSI over Law & Order because I thought Law & Order was dry. The characters, the stories, the annoying dun dun every 5 min. CSI has better production values and more likable characters (infact I stopped watching when Grissom left because he was my favorite character). Yes, CSI does include murder but 99% of the time the show shows that no matter how depraved an act of violence is, no matter how gruesome a killing is, justice is served and the catch the bad guy. Maybe it is just me but CSI tries to show us that not all of law enforcement is not completely corrupt.

Terminator is about more then killing (machines). The series is nothing like the movies. The series asks questions like "what does it mean to be human" and "is it right to kill someone knowing they will create a machine that goes on to kill all humans".

Yes, the shows show murder and failure but it is the context. I'll agree that murder for murders sake is pointless and degrading (I'm looking at you Saw movies).

However, when a series uses murder, misery, and failure to tell a story (can a machine be human [BSG/T:SCC], perseverance in the face of incredible hardship [BSG]) or give hope that no evil deed goes unpunished [CSI] then it all becomes another tool for the writer/director much like romance, action, and drama are.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are the exception to the rule.

If it's not a crime, it should be.

[goodmanj]

We give members of the police, fire department, IRS, etc. authority over us, and grant them special access to our personal affairs to allow them to do their jobs.

When these people abuse their authority, or misuse this special access, they're not just betraying their organization, they're betraying all of society. As such, this shouldn't be just an internal disciplinary matter: it should be a crime.

IANAL: is there in fact a criminal charge that can be laid on these guys, something specific to their role as public officials?

Re:If it's not a crime, it should be.

[faedle]

The photographs were collected as part of a police investigation. As such, they are a matter of public record, and can be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The only "crime" committed here is that two officers did not follow internal policy, which is hardly a federal offense.

From what I understand, the officers in question were disciplined for not following the proper procedure.

Or, are you suggesting that pictures taken by the police are not subject to disclosure? Be careful what you wish for.. do we really want the police to be able to decide what information they collect we can and cannot have access to?

I, personally, would prefer a situation where the information is available, even if it might disturb. Allowing the cops to say "no, you cannot has" is a dangerous precedent.

Re:If it's not a crime, it should be.

[good soldier svejk]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure sending the email to the father is harassment. I think this may be a teen trend too. My niece's best friend died in a car crash last year and some sick girl left a message on his cell phone pretending to be her last month.

Re:If it's not a crime, it should be.

[langelgjm]

FOIA only applies to the federal government, though most (if not all) states have their own public information acts. However, those acts will vary widely in scope and efficacy.

Aside from that, I highly doubt it's as easy as you think to obtain photos like this. Not familiar with the California statute, but there likely are privacy laws involved (e.g., I'm sure they can't just turn over whatever information they have to anyone who requests it).

Finally, no one has brought up the copyright issue. Again, not familiar with California's laws, but since these photos are not works of the federal government, the state may have copyright on them, introducing another complication.

Re:If it's not a crime, it should be.

[faedle]

California also has a Freedom of Information Act: I should have referred to it under the proper name ("Public Records Act").

However, most governmental agencies in California simply refer to it as "Freedom of Information Act requests" to keep the language simple.

Yes, it is pretty easy to obtain photos like this. I've filed many Public Records Act requests in California. If there's no longer an investigation, and the records are still available, the police has to hand them over in California.

Re:If it's not a crime, it should be.

[faedle]

Yes, but the OFFICERS did not send the photos, as best as can be derived from news reports. The officers may have disclosed the photographs to a third party.. however, by all appearances, if the person had filed a proper Public Record Act request with the county Sheriff or the CHP, they likely would have obtained the photos anyway.

And that's the point.

The photographs could have been obtained for a copying fee and filing a form. The only crime on the officers' part was not getting the form and collecting the fee. Hardly worth the shouting.

That said, the person who E-mailed the photos is probably a sick fuck. However, that's the kind of immature crap we (on the Internet) have learned to expect from trolls and other bottom-feeders.

Perhaps a more effective strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how well this would work, but it seems like it would be worth a shot. Next time someone wants to get pictures off of the internet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if they sent a story in to /. (or some other similar and large site) something like this:

Hello, my name is x. Pictures a, b, and c are circulating on the internet, and because of d are causing me enormous emotional grief...(further explanation)...I'm asking you please, if you know any kindness, not to circulate these pictures. Thank you.

Now obviously there are completely amoral places on the internet that are going to do whatever the hell they want, but it seems to me like a significant portion of the internet would react positively to such a plea.

Re:Perhaps a more effective strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your optimism regarding human nature is very, very amusing.

Re:Perhaps a more effective strategy

[cdrguru]

Sorry, but the more you acknowledge that you don't like the pictures the more some folks are going to send them around.

Would common decency be nice? Sure, but that is so 1980's.

Re:Perhaps a more effective strategy

[greyhueofdoubt]

Who decides the validity of one of these requests?

"Hi my name is Phil Spector and I'd really appreciate it if you'd not show pictures of me murdering my wife"

"Hi my name is Ted Stevens and these pictures of my free house renovations are really affecting my mental health"

"Hi my name is Dick Cheney and these picture on the internet of my lesbian daughter are really affecting my leadership among the religious right"

Know what I mean? Some people would post these accident photos as a cautionary message while some would be repulsed by them. That's the de facto system we already have and it seems to work fine. If you don't want to see nasty stuff, don't go looking for it.

-b

Re:Perhaps a more effective strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Touche.

Although I didn't really mean to change the de facto system in any way. I was really thinking more along the lines of getting better results by working through the system instead of against it.

What I mean is, I think a lot more people would be willing to comply if, when someone wanted a picture gone (and it was for an honest reason; I think people can use common sense to figure out what are and are not valid requests), they simply asked instead of railing against the internet and issuing cease-and-desist orders.

They should find those who emailed him...

[Computershack]

They should find the people who emailed him and shoot the fuckers. They've obviously got serious mental issues so society would be a far better place without them.

Re:They should find those who emailed him...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, if we were feeling really atavistic, we could drop him off a cliff with cameras at the bottom. Then send the pics to his parents. Then they can sue, and the whole stupid cycle can start again.

Re:They should find those who emailed him...

[greyhueofdoubt]

lol... You think we should shoot crazy people? Well, you can be first. Or you can move to Texas, where your cognitive dissonance can roam free among the other good folks who think executing mentally ill prisoners is god's will or something.

No offense.

-b

Defeatist attitude to punishing criminals.

[Anonymous Coward]

You Can't Fight the Internet by eldavojohn (898314)
To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet

Firstly, it is beyond discussion that the actions described ("Hello daddy, I am still alive") are serious harassment.

Secondly, it is beyond discussion that in every other area of life, serious harassment is a criminal act that leads to punishment. Although Slashdotters like to imagine themselves living in the world of 'Complete Freedom Of Speech Except Of Course Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre', someone who went up to the house of these parents and put printed copies of the image with the caption "Hello daddy, I am still alive" through their letterbox would beyond any doubt be prosecuted. It may not rank on top of the priority list, but if it happens repeatedly, checking the photos for fingerprints, and installing a security camera, would be minimum. And if those responsible were caught, they would be punished.

It is surprising and even shocking that just because communication is now done electronically, "you just can't fight" online harassment, and the "score is not to settle with the nebulous force of users that is the internet". Both of these arguments could be made in a discussion about REAL-LIFE harassment ('the score is not to settle with the nebulous mass of people that is the American populace'), and have failed. Because obviously, they weren't good enough to make real-life harassment legal.

Hence, why the defeatist attitude to punishing an act that is illegal and extremely frowned upon in every other situation but on the internet?

Because it's interesting.

[maillemaker]

Every visit http://www.stileproject.com/ ? It's full of death, accident, and medical photos. It's interesting. If you've ever wondered what happens, for example, when a motorcycle loses against an 18-wheeler, you can see for yourself.

It's plain old curiosity.

Everyone is fascinated with images of mortality, for in them they see their own possible demise.

Re:Because it's interesting.

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Everyone certainly is not fascinated with such images. I don't know where you get "facts" like that from.

Re:Because it's interesting.

[LateArthurDent]

you can see for yourself. It's plain old curiosity.

I could, but I most certainly won't. There are things I'm just not curious about. I know such accidents exist, I know people are fragile, I know people die. I don't need to see it in detail.

Everyone is fascinated with images of mortality.

That some people are fascinated with those pictures is fairly self-evident. However, most of us are grossed out and feel the pain of empathy for the victims and their families. These are not pleasant feelings, and we try not to seek them out.

That said, I don't believe in censorship, and as long as all you're doing is viewing those photos, go ahead I guess. Just don't send it to the rest of us, please. Also, the people who leaked the photos should be sued. The people who sent the photos to the family via e-mail should be prosecuted for harassment.

Re:Because it's interesting.

[princessproton]

Being curious or fascinated and feeling empathy are not mutually exclusive. Personally, while I definitely feel for the individuals and families involved in accident photos or other gruesome scenes, that does not diminish my objective curiosity. If people were not able to deal with such sights in a detached and medically curious way, who would perform surgeries? Who would be the EMTs or other first responders? The visceral reaction that one experiences when faced with these types of scenes varies in intensity across people (and can certainly be diminished with enough exposure). This is what keeps our emergency rooms operational, our dead properly cared for, and what allows us to move forward in medicine. Although this case is purely sensational in nature, in does not vary materially from the basic subject matter that many within the law enforcement and medical communities must deal with on a daily basis.

Re:Because it's interesting.

[LateArthurDent]

Personally, while I definitely feel for the individuals and families involved in accident photos or other gruesome scenes, that does not diminish my objective curiosity.

Well, like I said, go ahead. I didn't mean to offend in any way people who do have that curiosity. I objected when the original poster said that "everyone is fascinated with images of mortality." No, not everyone is, and it's been my experience that most aren't.

If people were not able to deal with such sights in a detached and medically curious way, who would perform surgeries? Who would be the EMTs or other first responders? The visceral reaction that one experiences when faced with these types of scenes varies in intensity across people (and can certainly be diminished with enough exposure).

Again, you don't have an argument from me there. And the fact that people's viceral reactions can be diminished with exposure, as you've put it, has been an argument for censorship of violent pictures for a long time (you don't want to desensitize an individual to violence unless it's necessary to his profession, and then only if his profession is desirable in society). I don't personally believe we should do that, because it becomes up to somebody to determine what level of violence is acceptable, and what professions are desirable and require desensitization. That's not a power anyone, or any committee, should have.

On the other hand, my opinion that most people are not morbidly curious by nature is reinforced by your claim that people can be desensitized. Most people in the medical profession go through a rough period acclimating themselves to what they have to deal with.

Although this case is purely sensational in nature, in does not vary materially from the basic subject matter that many within the law enforcement and medical communities must deal with on a daily basis.

As I've said, I don't believe in censorship, and I don't think there's anything wrong with you or anybody else viewing the pictures that are available. I do think there's something wrong with the police officers who leaked the picture, and I think there's something insanely wrong with the people who sent the pictures to the family.

Where's your LOLCATS now?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're spamming your memes and running around like fucktards in your Guy Fawkes masks, remember that this is the other face of your beloved Anonymous.

Re:Where's your LOLCATS now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent poster is clearly an optimist.

Re:Where's your LOLCATS now?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>27721529
>>27721641
Same person.

Re:Where's your LOLCATS now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on.

Re:Where's your LOLCATS now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other face? The girl was retarded, the family's obliviousness leading up to the incident showed a distinct lack of parenting. After the crash, which luckily did not claim more lives, the family would rather go out in flames attempting to silence people talking about the accident than raise awareness to prevent their retardation from spreading. These people are the perfect targets for anonymous. Also very typical targets. The Church of Scientology was a very a-typical target and is considered by most to have been a mistake (for all the mixed messages it sent about anon caring).

Re:Where's your LOLCATS now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension FAIL.

Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe

[Arancaytar]

... and I'm not feeling too good either!

How about ruin the lives of the two dipshits...

[cjjjer]

I am not an American so I don't really know much about law in the USA but can't the family sue the two CHP dispatcher dipshits who posted the images in the first place? I mean why go after the police department, the state or any other entity when all that is saying is "w00t! I work for an entity that will protect my ass when I fuck up". Fuck the police and state I would want to ruin the lives of the two dipshits.

Why people feel the way they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a like of instant dislike for the family because they were rich, she was 18, and she was driving a porsche at 100 mph on cocaine. In fact, she was mentally ill, so factor that into your judgements.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[thetoadwarrior]

She wasn't mentally ill. It stated "doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up somedayâ"perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control"

Acting like she was some kind of mental handicap is a bit silly. There is no guarantee that had anything to do with this and it'd be my opinion that it would more likely be plain old peer pressure that caused her to try cocaine.

While this may have started off for those reasons. Their fight only makes things worse because people go through this same sort of thing all the time and they don't have rich parents wanting to make a scene and change their law for their child.

It's no surprise they're all in therapy if they're basically putting themselves in the poor house over this.

I personally rather run the risk of seeing pictures of dead family members online rather do something that could lead to the hindrance of free speech because as it's been said this isn't a problem with free speech. It's a problem with some clowns not taking their job seriously and it's rather common as I knew a volunteer fireman who kept a photo album of accident pictures and he had shown them to people like it was his pride and joy.

People have always been like this and always will and you can't stop it by passing a law. You only end up ruining life for those with decency.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[Anonymous Coward]

But the article did say she had experienced a cocaine induced psychosis. That means she was out of touch with reality. I have a psychotic sibling, and it's basically what you think of as a "crazy" person. And often it is about the age of 18 that diseases with psychotic symptoms come out, such as with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. I fear that her family probably doesn't want to look at this possibility, and didn't want to look at it at the time. Chances are, that if an 18 year old sees a psychiatrist, as this one did, and is described as psychotic, then they have a really high chance of being schizophrenic. It's not well understood, or commonly agreed upon, but some people believe that drug use can bring on these diseases "out" earlier.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[cbhacking]

Sorry, but you, personally are missing the point with this line:

it's rather common as I knew a volunteer fireman who kept a photo album of accident pictures and he had shown them to people like it was his pride and joy

Did the pictures personally identify anybody? Was there sufficient information attached that you could find the email addresses of living relatives? If the answer is "no" then there's no harm done, although I personally still wouldn't put the pictures online without blurring out anything that *might* be identifiable. In this case, however, the answer was obviously "yes" which to me says that these people are either horribly insensitive or incredibly negligent (depending on whether it was by intention or accident) and frankly, in either case I think their ought to be consequences.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[saiha]

Post a picture of anybody with a good story to go with it and within a week you will have their name, their dogs name and who they bought their house from.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[Bodhammer]

"I personally rather run the risk of seeing pictures of dead family members online rather do something that could lead to the hindrance of free speech because as it's been said this isn't a problem with free speech. It's a problem with some clowns not taking their job seriously and it's rather common as I knew a volunteer fireman who kept a photo album of accident pictures and he had shown them to people like it was his pride and joy.

People have always been like this and always will and you can't stop it by passing a law. You only end up ruining life for those with decency."

Yes, but it will be grandstanded by the legislature in the interest of "protecting us". This is the same reason we have the "Patriot Act" and "Fusion Centers". The politician will say that it is better to take away the rights of millions to save a life - hence the nanny state which is another name for fascism.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[mabhatter654]

this has nothing to do with free speech. One of the OBLIGATIONS of law enforcement is that privacy of certain records is maintained because it's "abusive" for information they obtain in investigations to be used without going through the proper lawyers. Law enforcement ALREADY knows the images taken can hurt people if misused and has rules their employees chose to ignore.

They all know these rules when they sign up, it's very clear, and in this case chose not to follow them.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[Machtyn]

It's a problem with some clowns not taking their job seriously

Truly. You'd think that this type of thing would be equal to HIPAA

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[Anonymous Coward]

> hence the nanny state which is another name for fascism

No, it isn't. It has nothing to do with fascism at all.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[daveime]

They should have just said she was an alcholic ... seems to work for Mel Gibson

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[thetoadwarrior]

How do you think all those pictures get online? It's from people like him that keep pictures and eventually put them online. I never looked at the album (for good reason) but I'm sure some were identifiable.

The point is though tha this isn't something new and you can't really stop it. In a way it's to expected. You have to question the mental state of someone who volunteers to scrape people off the road and if he takes his own camera it becomes harder to prove who did it as the department doesn't have their own copy to compare it to.

But if you do want to stop it you have have to do something to discourage people from doing it. Banning it from the net won't do it otherwise child porn wouldn't exist on the internet.

Re:Why people feel the way they do

[Bodhammer]

Yes it is. Pick up a history book.

Once you have everyone suckling at the big government teat rather than being self-reliant it is very easy to find the neck to put the jackboot on!

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

The term for this is...

[SanityInAnarchy]

...Streisand Effect.

For once, I actually feel sorry for the family, and would much rather the images never made it out. However, the consequences of having an Internet capable of silencing something like this, once it's out, are unacceptable.

it's all about the LULZ

[KandiGraham]

hay these family should lighten up ok? after all the people who emailed them their daughter's bloody death photos were only in it for the LULZ. amirite? amirite? the dead pools closed! amirite? yeah...............

I can see both sides

[teknosapien]

Ok the harassment needs to stop. It's bad enough that this family lost a loved one but the harassment brings the emotional trauma of losing a child to a new level I for one think that the family should go after the CHP dispatchers and the PD that leaked the them. What they do with the proceeds is up to them. Personally If I lost one of my children and something such as this happened there would be no end to the wrath I would rain down upon the perpetrators of this and the entity that allowed this to happen. To the family, very sorry about your loss I can not fathom what you are going through

Fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe the story that the guy got an email with the pictures, but it does make the story more sensational!
  More likely he googled his daughters name, or someone told him they were on the net.
  Him being a real estate agent, and the spam for a real estate listing sounds contrived.
  All the crap emails I get are sales pitches or rip-offs, I've never received shock picture spam. Is this type of spam actually common?

Sorry, but this is the Internet

[cdrguru]

Try, just try turning off some titilating bit of gossip. Can't be done.

The daughter's picture will keep coming up for years. Eventually it will be forgotten, but not any time soon. And the more they try to suppress it, the longer it will last.

Every parent's nightmare, I'm sure. But welcome to the new Internet world.

Two things make me very disturbed about this

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The family let their drug affected daughter drive a car. Family don't let family drive drunk, not even the day after.

2. The cops use a digital camera. That sounds like something that give a very high risk for leaking photos, as well as evidence that is easy to tamper with.

Okey, one extra
3. Some ass hat email the family with photos.

Re:Two things make me very disturbed about this

[Achromatic1978]

The family let their drug affected daughter drive a car. Family don't let family drive drunk, not even the day after.

Parents said they had "taken keys to her car, but she managed to find keys to other car elsewhere in house" - apply usual grain of salt.

2. The cops use a digital camera. That sounds like something that give a very high risk for leaking photos, as well as evidence that is easy to tamper with.

I would venture that most digital cameras used by police departments use something like Canon's Digital Verification Module, which is designed for forensic work, to sign the image as it is stored in-camera, for a irrefutable "this is the image that was seen through the lens" statement.

These pictures should be in every Drives Ed Class

[cthulhuology]

Seiously, we should show these pictures in every drivers ed class. Giving children lethal weapons and letting them loose upon the world has consequences. Building a society where people think it is reasonable for an 18 year old to be driving around at night after partying is also part of the problem. But most importantly, if you do something fatally stupid in public, there are consequences for both you and for the ones you leave behind. Maybe we as a society need to confront the grim reality much more often. I for one have already lost too many family members to auto-accidents, and expect to lose many more before my time's up. We shouldn't hide the consequences of our choices, we should be forced to acknowledge them and live with them. And that goes for everyone.

Remember the high school Driver's Education Movie?

[Rick17JJ]

Many of us probably saw a movie much like that when we were taking the driver's ed class back in high school. For me, that would be about 1969 or 1970, when I was in driver's ed class, in Southern California. They showed us a movie that consisted almost entirely of color video of the most horrific accidents they could. Showing that to us, was an attempt to discourage us from driving recklessly. Do they still show that movie or something similar in driver's ed class? If I remember correctly, I think they said something about having permission from the accident victims relatives, to use the footage.

Just before showing the movie, the teacher warned us that several students had nearly passed out while watching the movie in his other classes. He said that anyone who could not handle the sight of blood should leave. I did not expect to have any problems, but was surprised when I did almost pass out when walking to my next class. Many years later, I also discovered that I was someone who would passed out while attempting to donate blood.

I am not sure if seeing the movie actually discouraged anyone from driving recklessly or not. During the next year or two afterwards, several students were killed or injured. Several of them were either driving drunk, speeding or not wearing their seat belts. One was ridding a motorcyle at the time. One student was killed by being run over twice by a car.

Except that it has been used as official policy

[SmallFurryCreature]

Showing disturbing images of car wrecks HAS been part of official programs to serve as a wake-up call to drivers. Especially (would-be) drunk drivers have been shown the results of drink driving in graphic detail.

So, it has been deemed that the public HAS a need to know. There is no need for me, a civilian to see the results of the recent dutch aircrash. There is a need for pilots who think they can land on autopilot when vital instruments are broken to see the results.

The officers involved claim they used the pictures to warn others of the dangers of the girl's behaviour. Stupid perhaps, but not without official precedent.

Re:Except that it has been used as official policy

[techno-vampire]

Yes, and back when I was in the Navy, we all had to watch a movie of crash sites before leaving Boot Camp. However, that was in a controlled environment, and the images were never released "into the wild," as they were here, and that's the difference IMO.

Re:Except that it has been used as official policy

[NeoSkandranon]

AFAIK families sign a release for usage of those photos, same as when any other identifiable photograph is released on a large scale.

*Sigh*

[yerktoader]

I know reading TFA is hard, but the Catsouras' aren't suing 'teh intarwebs', the sites hosting the pictures, nor even those who sent them the images. They ARE suing the CHP and trying to establish precedent that has been already set in other states, extending privacy to the dead and preventing public servants from spreading such things as happened with their daughter.

If they were trying to restrict anonymity online, free speech of said websites, etc, then sure - flame the motherfuckers. But it looks like they're simply trying to force California and it's workforce to show the same respect for the dead that is observed in other states.

If I have missed something from TFA please correct my understanding.

Oh, and to those who painted a picture of Nikki as a spoiled brat, or someone who got what she deserved: You've obviously never lived with nor loved someone who has had a brain injury. Either that or you simply don't give a shit.

Should it be?

[SmallFurryCreature]

What exactly is the crime? Worse, think VERY carefully about what the consequences of it becoming a crime could be.

NO MORE OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION OF ACCIDENTS!

Take another famous series of "snuff" pictures, the JFK shooting. How many times have these been shown as part of "investigations" into the shooting? Would you really want a world in which such images become secret and can therefor not be examined outside the legal authorities?

While it might seem easy to say, "there ought to be a law" what people forget to think about is what the end result would be. Would every image taken of an accident suddenly be secret? What does that mean? All TV's on black during the 9/11 attacks, all recordings confiscated because they showed people dying?

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Re:Should it be?

[goodmanj]

You're right that there's a slippery slope regarding official data, but my post isn't on it. There's a categorical difference between a citizen *requesting* privileged information from the officials, and the officials publishing that information *against* a citizen's wishes.

To continue your JFK analogy, absolutely the government should let citizens see the Zapruder film if they make a legitimate request for it. (See below re "legitimate".)

But that's not in the same category as the FBI renting out a billboard outside the Kennedy compound in Cape Cod and putting up a shot of Kennedy's head being blown off.

In one case, officials are responding to a public request for information. In the other, they're abusing their trust and acting on their own volition. There's no trouble distinguishing between the two.

What's a "legitimate request"? It should be determined by a judge, if necessary. The judge's charge should be to balance the needs of the investigator against the wishes of the subjects depicted or described by the data. It'll sometimes be a tricky judgment call, but that's why we have judges. But the *government*'s desire for secrecy should not have merit in his/her decision.

Re:Remember the high school Driver's Education Mov

[nathan.fulton]

Yes, they still show these videos.

I am not sure if seeing the movie actually discouraged anyone from driving recklessly or not.
Probably not.

I am not letting you off the hook that easy.

[westlake]

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

We are each responsible for our own actions.

"I found it on the Internet" does not excuse the geek's voyeurism.

It is does not excuse transforming photos of a real death into your own schlock images of horror.

You are the pornographer.

His enabler. His client. Whatever you chose to call it.

Photoshop. The Internet.

These are your tools and your responsibility.

To hide among some great nebulous mass of users is cowardly.

It is corrupting.

It demands a response.

The law always comes to Deadwood. Remember that.

Re:Remember the high school Driver's Education Mov

[dr_dank]

I think the video you're referring to is Signal 30.

School is In

[Fantastic Lad]

It's all about perspective.

From where you sit, I'm sure you think you are right. And to some degree, you are. But one day you will experience the other side of the coin, (assuming you have a soul), and then you will know a larger part of the story of life.

That's how it works. It's all about learning, and the world is one giant school.

-FL

Re:School is In

[Anonymous Coward]

>(assuming you have a soul)
If the person you're responding to is from 4chan, then there's no reason to assume any such thing. The opposite is much more likely, in fact.

Mod parent Sanctimonious Prick down -5.

[EWAdams]

How the fuck do you know what their lives were like? And who the fuck are you to pass judgment in any case?

Excuse to censor the Internet

[J'raxis]

So not only has this family suffered through this tragedy, but now they're being exploited by people who want to censor the Internet as the poster child for new censorship laws. I only wonder how long it took for these people to find the "perfect case" to hold up in whatever new assault they're planning on the Internet.

I'm an EMT.

[slimjim8094]

I have a rather... unique take on this. In my line of work, I necessarily see awful things - a 7 year old girl who died from a neck wound after running through a plate-glass window, and a 9 year old boy who died of a heart attack while playing basketball. Bloody car crashes (though nothing this gruesome) and a woman who was underwater for a few days before anyone realized...

But I digress. Yes, I looked at these pictures and - though they are gruesome - I was not ill affected. It's because I see this stuff all the time, in real life.

As a society, we are too sheltered. When our ancestors were ripped apart by a mountain lion, their friends didn't go and bitch about it... this is life and it sucks.

I'm just happy she didn't injure anyone else on her way down. It seems like it's always the drunk/high ones who walk away, and the sober family of 5 coming home from dinner who doesn't...

Re:I'm an EMT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear ye, hear ye. I have knocked on too many doors to give bad news. On one occasion, I had to drag a grandmother to a morgue to ID a family of seven some of whom were in the same state as this kid. I won't mourn her passing.

Re:I'm an EMT.

[Indigo]

Ok. So when the next gruesome, mutilated corpse turns out to be your own child... you won't go and bitch about it, right? After all, this is life and it sucks.

Re:I'm an EMT.

[slimjim8094]

Depends. If the reason is because some drunkard ran them down, I'd rip his head from his neck. If it was because they took cocaine and drove through town at 100MPH... well I don't think I'd let that happen.

And who, exactly, would there be to bitch to?

close, but no cigar

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck.

Correct. The right to be a sick fuck is an inalienable human right, whether the internet exists or not. Maybe you don't like it, but freedom isn't about suppressing what you don't like.

Acting like a sick fuck is, in and of itself, perfectly legal.

It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free.

Correct. There are social consequences to acting upon your 'sick fuck' inclinations. But there are no legal consequences. At least, not until acting on your inclinations results in you breaking a law. Then, and only then, are there legal consequences.

 

Re:close, but no cigar

[Anonymous Coward]

Harassment is breaking the law you dumb motherfucker!

A true picture of the ugliness of humanity

[erroneus]

This is a pretty good picture of what people are capable of. Perhaps the people who did the harassment are simply the type are are "angry at rich people"? Many people who have never had $100,000 cars to give to their children probably feel some resentment of those who do. And how squeaky clean is this family to begin with? Perhaps the wicked deeds of the father were bad enough that someone feels this is poetic justice in some way? These things quite often start with a cause of one sort or another.

Whatever the case, I doubt the "whole story" is what we are seeing here now.

Re:A true picture of the ugliness of humanity

[cheros]

Sorry, that's ridiculous.

There is no argument whatsoever to post pictures of their dead child on the Net without permission of the parents, regardless if she's a Hilton heir or someone cleaning racks at Walmart.

It doesn't matter how much you have when a child dies, it hurts just the same and it will continue to do so for years. To have to face those images on top of everything else is foul beyond belief.

Re:A true picture of the ugliness of humanity

[erroneus]

I am not attempting to justify the situation in the slightest. I am pointing out that for some people, there may be justification in their minds. And when you are emotionally unstable or biased enough, it takes very little to create justification for horrible acts. Take for example what we call "the holocaust" or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2. The people behind those horrifying acts felt there was ample justification for those actions. The subject line "A true picture of the ugliness of humanity" was not a random collection of words.

The act has not yet been identified by source(s) of origin but it is my guess that the act(s) are very targeted and driven for specific reasons and we just don't know what those may be at this time.

Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe

[Jantastic]

Long live Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!

Is it not a little ironic that they are all long dead?

Screenshots, or it didn't happen

/prog/riders

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughter has no head. How does she drive?

Terrible!

No excuses

[Roger W Moore]

But her actions could have been devastating to another family as well.

Yes they could have but they were not in this case nor are her family responsible for her actions to this degree. So how does this excuse causing distress to her remaining family? If you park illegally you might delay an ambulance causing someone to die. Does that mean people have the right to start harassing you? What level of probability is enough? There is a reason we have laws with prescribed penalties for breaking them. It is not a perfect system but mob justice is no justice at all.

However I agree with your second point that just because there are some who abuse societies freedoms that is not an excuse to strip those freedoms fro the rest of us.

Re:No excuses

[multisync]

Yes they could have but they were not in this case nor are her family responsible for her actions to this degree. So how does this excuse causing distress to her remaining family?

I wasn't excusing people causing distress to her family, simply presenting an example of why someone might be motivated to do so. In fact, I plainly wrote "I have no idea who is taunting this family, and agree sending the photos to the family simply to taunt them is a dick move." But we don't know if the person who sent the photos feels justified to do so because of some personal vendetta, or if they are just doing it to be dicks.

The fact that her actions didn't result in tragedy for another family in this case is fortunate. Would you have been more empathetic if she had left left a trail of causalities in her wake?

Re:No excuses

[Roger W Moore]

I wasn't excusing people causing distress to her family...

You were explaining that there was an excuse for them to behave this way, even though you disagreed that it was a sufficient excuse. My point is that this is no excuse at all because the logic is wrong.

Would you have been more empathetic if she had left left a trail of causalities in her wake?

Yes, I would be far more sympathetic if those doing this had been the family of her (thankfully hypothetical) victims. The reason being that these people would have been extremely emotional and could be excused in lashing out in such a fashion. It would still not make it right but I would at least excuse them for not having made the best choice of action in a time of such distress.

You Can't "catch" the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that there are those who believe the internet should be consequence-free even though most of the rest of the world historically has been full of consequences. Why the internet should be the exception is what the debate should be about.

Let freedom ding.

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting story about the right to privacy which this forum upholds when it comes to themselves. And how when it's an accessible entity using technology to violate it, the indignation and legal advice comes to the fore. But when it's an unaccountable and inaccessible entity then it's "tough luck, sucks to be you". I think one will find the mores and advice change as more of the "tough luck" crowd themselves are struck by the same untouchable tool. Free speech meet free responsibility.

Hmm, an interesting contrast

[Anonymous Coward]

With the results of Dale Earnhardt senior's death.

Normally in Florida, the results of an autopsy are public records. They changed the law so his could be sealed.

Maybe they should move to Florida.

If this hapened to a politicians child...

[Neptunes_Trident]

I bet they would take this far more seriously and actually PASS some sort of privacy law. If this had happened to a politicians or high profile family. While everyone here makes good points, you fail in noticing just who the rules change for. And that should be even more disturbing than the useless image of a dead person.

Re:These pictures should be in every Drives Ed Cla

[cheros]

I'm all for educating our kids to they don't kill themselves prematurely (and maybe show them what smoking does to a pair of good lungs as well), but such pictures should not be used without permission of the family.

They have to deal with the grief from her death already, which takes can years on its own. Adding what those sick idiots did isn't helping - releasing those images should have been their decision.

Anonymous Delivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you don't want them to.

Interesting situation

[44BSD]

When I create something while on the job, my employer owns all rights to it. If I decide to email it to my brother-in-law because I think he might learn something from it, my employer would be perfectly within their rights to fire me. This is all made extremely clear in a short, easy-to-read employee manual. Apparently, the police in this instance are not subject to such a simple control. They should be. They took the taxpayers' property and used it for their private ends. Totally unacceptable.

Clearly, we as a society do not want to prohibit distribution of photos simply on the basis that they make some people extremely uncomfortable, and I would not have a problem with a passer-by who happened to take a photo of the accident scene selling it. The victim here, even if she were to have survived, clearly had no expectation of privacy since the accident was in a public place.

If I was as rich as the parents in this seem to be, I'd remember that revenge is a dish best served cold, and would not make any more of a public fuss about this. There will be plenty of time to devise a perfectly legal and appropriately devastating response to this, should they decide those responsible need to be reminded of what they have done.

Re:Interesting situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Its public material - there is no legal protection against release of these images to private parties or any legal regulation against what one does with the images once they're given to you.

The only thing these cops did wrong was that it was likely the duty of a lawyer or secretary in the public relations office to release the images rather than the cops.

Photo's of this nature are commonly passed around.

[King_of_Mars]

Just in case anyone was curious about why the images where taken in the first place. Public service agency's, both Police and EMS/Fire departments routinely pass around photos like these at conferences and training sessions and in private. I was actually shown this particular set of photos back in late 2006-07, roughly around the time they where taken. There are several reasons we do this type of thing, some of which do not apply to this particular case;

Images of accident scenes are sometimes helpful when delivering a patient to an emergency facility. (This does not apply here) This is as much an issue of efficacy as anything else. Instead of saying things like "impact between the C and D posts", "negative steering wheel deformation, negative windshield staring." etc.... I can just show them a picture.

They make for useful teaching aids. This is actually more complex then it first appears. It can help you assess an accident scene before even seeing a patient, giving you clues to the nature and quantity of injuries present. Perhaps more important though, EMS personal spend a lot of time driving, 20 to 40 hours a week depending on your work schedule and particular company. This is dangerous, more so then most people realize. This particular danger is increased because we have been given the ability to ignore traffic laws during certain conditions. Images like those mentioned make up the most vivid and palatable examples of exactly why you do not drive with out due regard. To this effect I have actually seen perhaps a half dozen examples of accidents involving emergency vehicles.

There is a sort of benefit from being acquainted with morbid scenes before actually having to deal with one. Although I would be hesitant to say that this is why these pictures where widely distributed. But this does not apply to the "Faces of Death" crowd that has probably been distributing these photos.

And yes there is a certain amount of morbid gawking that goes along with it. I'm not entirely sure that I could phase that in a more positive way. Perhaps they only way some people can cope with this sort of thing is to grow contemptuous of it. Which can only happen with repeated contact and to some extent ridicule.

This Is About Justice, Not The Internet

[reallocate]

This isn't an attack on the internet anymore than a libel suit is an attack on the printed page.

The family has been abused by the actions of the CHP members and by those who deliberately sent deceptive and abusive email to the family.

The family has every right, and every obligation, to seek legal action -- civil and criminal -- against their abusers.

Using the internet as a communications tool does not absolve anyone of resonsibility for their behavior.

Mixed feelings...

[KingAlanI]

The people from the CHP, and those on 4chan and whatever that are spreading these pictures are assholes adding insult to injury, no doubt.
Certainly, living people in the family are being punished for something in which they had none or minimal culpability...

The car-crash event itself is certainly painful enough to deliver any punishment that may or may not be needed; likely more than 'necessary'; it doesn't seem to make sense to add any more. This is a "punishment-fit-crime" issue that I've certainly seen manifested on a (thankly!) smaller scale

I wonder if there's anything more than class-warfare/class-resentment behind the reactions to the Catsourases.

There's likely some schadenfreude in seeing bad things happen to well-off people. I'm not saying that this is right, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

I'd guess that the main other source for this phenomenon is some sort of deep-seated desire/instinct to see people be hit with the consequences of their bad decisions.

Sentimentality and kindness certainly have their place, but they can also lead to us being too easy on people making bad decisions who realized the consequences of said decisions.

However, I'm disinclined to think that the hammer always needs to drop on people for moderate lapses that *happened* to have serious consequences

If sufficiently bad decisions were responsible, I can see how that leads to a lesser desire to show sympathy...
Personally, I'm tempted to think "reduced but not absent sympathy/whatever"...

Damn, I seem to find that *everything* is a gray area...

civil law remedy

[ridgecritter]

This family has a cause of action against the CHP dispatchers and their employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It should be straightforward to establish before a jury that they know, or should have known, that release of the pix would inevitably lead to the results described.

Obligatory Harry Potter reference

[Anonymous Coward]

The images of Nikki, including one of her nearly-decapitated head...

Nearly-headless Nikki?

/shamelessness

What a waste.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Nikki was a good fuck. One less fine pussy in this world.

All Griefers Go To Hell

[AbsoluteXyro]

I seriously hope they do. E-mailing these pictures to her family? That is the dickest move of all dick moving time.

Re:All Griefers Go To Hell

[LanMan04]

I'm sure the family's socioeconomic status has a lot to do with the harassment. The griefers see this as a way to give a little pain to their "betters", especially when it involves an expensive sports car, drugs, and an out-of-control teenager.

Re:All Griefers Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

The griefers see this as a way to give a little pain to their "betters", especially when it involves an expensive sports car, drugs, and an out-of-control teenager.

If they want to give a little pain to their "betters" they should have the guts use a public forum and argue or protest against what they precieve as wrong, either way it should be sans gruesome pictures of the dead girl. Instead they cowardly hound the parents from anonimity, which doesn't do anyone good in the long-run.

Re:All Griefers Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously hope they do. E-mailing these pictures to her family? That is the dickest move of all dick moving time.

I seriously hope they do. E-mailing these pictures to her family? That is the dickest move of all dick moving time.

I think that's the main reason the family is so outraged. How would you feel if someone found those pictures of your loved one and emailed them to you in a mocking manner. "Oh Hey I'm still alive!"

Yes, the pictures are out there but the person that sent the email to the father is a sick person and should probably be nut checked or if it was a girl, punched in the box. Just saying.

Wow..

[mhousser]

I can't believe people could find humour in sending these pictures to her father. If by some miracle I could run into the person who sent this email, it would make me sincerely happy to viciously beat this person into the ground. This just makes me so angry..

Re:Wow..

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you say, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe

[Anonymous Coward]

ehn?
trolling or serious?

no censorship

[Teriblows]

to be frank she was unidentifiable from the picture. second it was in a public place. and well yes people had little sympathy, she was a rich girl who drove recklessly in daddys expensive car. shows what happens when you go face first into concrete. not the censored actress has a bloody nose/scratched forehead you get from media/tv/movies. images like this do have educational value.

Cyberstalking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't sending these photos a sort of cyberstalking? Persistent harassment via the internet is no more legal than it is via the telephone network. I suspect, btw, that the people defending the practice here are also the ones doing it. There may be very few individuals involved, perhaps even only one.

Woah :(

[Anonymous Coward]

She effed herself up big time. Unfortunately... http://topcat29.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/what-has-been-seencannot-be-un-seen.jpg

Re:Woah :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't dare click. Is it Safe For Work?

Authoritarian maniacs

[dugeen]

I'm disappointed that so many people on here are blaming the dead girl for this, when of course the blame justly lies with the people who leaked information to which they had privileged access.

You're painfully wrong

[WNight]

You can understand the ugly realities of war without viewing pictures like that.

Then why are people noticeably more upset about a tragedy when they see photos of the victims? Could it be because they couldn't really understand it on a personal level until then?

Whatever it is though, if it wakes them up it's generally a good thing.

Besides why do you get upset at those who dropped the bombs? Was it their fault?

Um, the trigger is under your finger, whose 'fault' do you think pulling it would be? Mine?

You seem to have a real problem understanding blame/fault.

"You know Sarah, you really are ugly" or "You're fat Bob. And stupid and lazy to boot"? Or should a husband tell his wife, "You know what? That dress actually does make you look fat"?

People don't want to know all the ugly truth. No, it is not always better or more beautiful than a pleasing lie. Sometimes knowing nothing but the pleasing lie is what allows people to continue living.

Which of those facts, if told to someone who didn't know them, wouldn't be in their best interests to know?

I'm sure Sarah would love to know she was considered ugly. Not just random drive-by but "Your teeth are so big that you look silly when you smile and people laugh behind your back." She could avoid smiling that widely and might actually look better.

Ditto with Bob. I'm sure he'd be embarrassed if he had tried to squeeze into a size M shirt which didn't fit, then proceeded to lumber his 300 pounds over to complain and found out the sad truth from the clerk in front of a bunch of people who laughed. If you'd told him this last week when he complained that a bag of cheese-doodles doesn't feed the average fellow, he'd be a lot better off. Similarly learning about motivational and intellectual challenges he might finally abandon his father's dreams of decades of med school and go tend bar like he always wanted.

And most of all, your wife REALLY WANTS TO KNOW if that dress makes her look fat! Why the fuck did you think she asks? If she knew that she never would have bought it! It's up to you how to break it to her that it's not the dress... but even that she'd be happier knowing.

Common Decency

[bryan1945]

The dispatchers should not have sent the pics to anyone, not matter the pretense. Don't most high school kids already get a class where they show bloody accidents to try and scare them into driving carefully?

If the pics then just were put up somewhere, then who cares? The parents probably wouldn't even know. But some jackass(es) had to shove it in their face. Probably one of the worst things about the internet- even if you try to avoid something, someone can jack it into your space somehow. Why not just deliver the girl's head to the front door?

As for the lawsuits and everything else, I don't much care.

Even if the girl was a coked up idiot, and they were awful parents, there is no need to make it worse on the parents.

Now you all can laugh at me for being naive.

Life as a series of unfortunate ciromstances.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents may have been to lax. obviously they had money.

Daughter might have been easily influenced. Cocaine, fast cars and youth is never a good mix.

Police officers who leaked the pictures. They simply should have known better.

Person who sent the e-mail, typical scum. This borders on hate mail and should be treated as such.

some are really sick and need some serious help

[edgar_allan_poe]

after hearing and reading about this incident, i have a responsibility to myself to rise above this potentially disturbing material. in fact, i need to give myself a break and would love to let this girl's parents know that not everybody wants to look at a picture of tragic carnage to feel good about themselves. i would say, 'the people that joyride their perversions this way are sick and have to live with this burden. also, when they deny their existing mental illness, then they verify a whole separate level of illness and, therefore, are completely fucked.' personally, if i were these parents, i would feel a sense of gratitude that deranged perverts exist in this world and that my beloved daughter is safe from them. God rest Her soul.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And the purpose of posting the images is what...?

[Cazekiel]

The biggest problem isn't whether pics like this should or shouldn't be publicized; it's that when they ARE, there are callous, evil and cruel bastards that think it's funny to send e-mails to the parents of their dead daughter with a (un)funny caption. That made me sick to read--that someone would actually do that disheartens me and bums me out. That's the worst part of the net; the internet-toughs that throw the N-word around on youtube when they'd never say it to the person's face, all the way to people mocking the dead. Whether or not this girl fugged herself up and got killed because of her own dumb behavior doesn't matter. The parents don't need that shit. I myself lost two children (not my own) that I loved, one of them being in my infant/toddler class from the age of 3 months old. He was almost four, his sister eleven when they died in a fatal car accident, one of the worst my town has ever seen. I don't know what I'd do if I got an e-mail that showed off his face all busted-up, or his body sawed in half as it was. I was lucky enough not to have seen the damage. It was bad enough seeing his sister in the hospital, who'd gone through the back windshield, right before they took her off of life support. Okay, I'm turning into Ms. McWordy here, but it's something that hits close to home. There's nothing we can do about the cruelty of people online who think they're the shit doing stuff like this, but maybe NOT posting the images where everyone can see them isn't the worst idea. Besides a bunch of high schoolers going to the auditorium for a "What NOT to do after the prom" seminar can be exposed to this as a precaution--wtf does anyone else need to see this for? Morbid curiosity, that's it. People fighting for the right to see it aren't doing it for educational purposes. They either get off on blood and gore or find it funny.

Where I get them.

[maillemaker]

>Everyone certainly is not fascinated with such images. I don't know where you get "facts" like that from.

I get them from the school of Life Experience.

For example, watching miles of cars slow down to look at an accident even though there is no obstruction to traffic. The onlookers that gather at any accident scene. Lots of people like to bitch about rubbernecking, but my experience is most people do it anyway. I believe that people are, as a general rule, fascinated with such things.

I think many people are just ashamed to admit it.

Rubbernecking.

[maillemaker]

>That some people are fascinated with those pictures is fairly self-evident.
>However, most of us are grossed out and feel the pain of empathy for the
>victims and their families. These are not pleasant feelings, and we try not to seek them out.

I guess it's possible that the miles of cars I see stacking up to gawk at car accidents is really caused by a few folks, but I doubt it. I believe most people are fascinated by death on some level.

There's a reason behind the meme, "It was like a train wreck; I couldn't help but watch it."

Most people can't help it.

Re:Rubbernecking.

[LateArthurDent]

I guess it's possible that the miles of cars I see stacking up to gawk at car accidents is really caused by a few folks, but I doubt it. I believe most people are fascinated by death on some level.

There's a reason behind the meme, "It was like a train wreck; I couldn't help but watch it."

Most people can't help it.

People like to see the twisted and bent metal, they like imagining how far a car had to get off the ground to get to a certain position, or just how many train cars derailed. It's a lot of power, and people are curious about that. They think that's morbid (thus the train wreck meme) because they know people must have been hurt, but they still abstract the actual people away from the scene.

I'll grant you that even if there's people involved, it's sometimes fun. The fact that America's Funniest Home Videos exist is proof of that. People like seeing others getting hit in the crotch. In addition there are tons of movies with people getting thrown through windows and what's not. That's fun. However, all of that stops the moment people see the actual gore and blood of someone truly badly hurt. People don't generally stick around to see that, they run away, they often vomit. Even most R-Rated movies avoid truly horrific gore, except for those horror films that go so far beyond reality that people can once again abstract it, because it's cartoonish.

This is the final straw

[sonciwind]

I will no longer defend the human race at the Consortium of Galactic Civilizations.

Radiation Therapy + Loss Impulse Control

[DrYak]

Sorry, but radiation therapy doesn't lead to "loss of impulse control" -- that's just something the parents say.

Well, technically it could if the frontal lobe was affected.
Brain surgery is hard, and lesion of the remaining brain region around the tumor is possible.
Radiation therapy is complex and although all precaution are taken against it, destruction of the healthy region around the tumor's former site can happen.

If the tumor was somewhere in the frontal lobe, there's still a probability that some permanent damage of the frontal lobe resulted from the treatment and that she got an altered personality as a result.

Now go ask other doctors with better knowledge in neuro-anatomy and psychiatry to tell you the exact region of the frontal lobe you'd have to hurt in order to exhibit this peculiar behaviour problems.

OTOH, adolescence is also associated with an increase in risk taking. The stupid things the poor girl did may also be simply the result of a normal teen-age person doing stupid things like all other teens, and the parent just feel the need to find a rational reason for it.

Understanding and Confusion.

[Anonymous Coward]

First,

This tale is extremely sad. I feel complete sympathy for the family. They should never have to see the photos if they so choose. But, towards the end of the article... it seems that they are implying that others should not be able to see them either.... and I can't completely agree with that. I am sorry, I know. To be tormented online is atrocious. But, I just can't see it as completely justified to not want a single other soul to be able to learn from this with a graphic warning. That is how the family should react. By, saying... fine you want to look...look! Learn from this tragedy. That is how it should be approached. You may find that people will not want to look so much then.

Do yourself a favor and stop being GravityDouche

[Anonymous Coward]

Do yourself a favor and stop being GravityDouche!