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.'"

25 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 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...

    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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!
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

  2. 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 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!!
  3. 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.

  4. 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. *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."

  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.