Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

62 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. You Can't Fight the Internet by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...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.

    2. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by karnal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Karnal
    3. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by gavron · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "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

    5. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    6. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by hhallahh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    7. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by DMCBOSTON · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    9. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by The+Mgt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Bysshe · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
    11. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Saxerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    12. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    14. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    17. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by mjeffers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    19. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    20. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    21. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by donny77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by multisync · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    24. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    25. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      With pics.

      --
      No sig today...
    26. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    27. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    28. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by evilkasper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    29. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Orwell was an optimist.
    30. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't lose your head over the situation.

    31. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Informative
      "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.

    32. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by stfvon007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    33. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by gavron · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    34. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by darthflo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    35. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Nursie · · Score: 4, Funny

      "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!

    36. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by NIckGorton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    37. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    38. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    39. Re:You Can't Fight the Internet by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  2. cyber-harassment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  3. gross. I don't want to see it either. by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. by aztektum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  4. Likely to backfire by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Likely to backfire by badcowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Likely to backfire by MiKM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. The 2 responsible should be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:The 2 responsible should be fired by muridae · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  6. *sigh* by crimsonshdw · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  7. Parent implies link to virus! by cheftw · · Score: 5, Informative

    -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.

    --
    Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
  8. Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe by cheftw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Long live Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!

    Is it not a little ironic that they are all long dead?

    --
    Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
  9. Seems like karma to me. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seems like karma to me. by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:Seems like karma to me. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  10. Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others by gadlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
    1. Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  11. Re:Why people feel the way they do by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Why people feel the way they do by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  13. Re:Why people feel the way they do by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:Why people feel the way they do by Machtyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  15. All Griefers Go To Hell by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I seriously hope they do. E-mailing these pictures to her family? That is the dickest move of all dick moving time.