Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/25/2002 1:43:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:00:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 2:02:44 PM EST by Adam_White]
Conservatives love to complain that liberals are all about the denial of personal responsibility, yet on that thread I see a lot of so-called liberals throwing out a "privacy" red-herring on what is a cut and dry issue. The guy did something illegal AND immoral, and was caught. Why was he caught? An employee, doing his job, saw something suspicious. The local authorities thought there was PC enough to pursue the issue. The guy confessed. Heck, it's not as if some anti-hunting activist tried to turn in a hunter for doing lawful activities here - this is a clear case of a knowledgable employee with a conscience. I don't see the "privacy" issue here at all. A photo developer isn't a priest or an attorney. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke Adam
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:08:18 PM EST
I feel the oppoite of Adam. what the walmart guy did was wrong. Those pictures were that mans private property and even if the pic showed he did something wrong doesnt mean that you can copy his pics and send them to the cops. Think about that for a minute thats like someone asking for your SSN to do a transaction for you and then after you leave the person writes down your SSN and takes money out of your account
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:10:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 2:12:16 PM EST by Max_Mike]
Subject line should have been: Wal-mart Photo Lab Employee Turns In Poacher. Legally you have no right to privacy or protection from self-incrimination if you turn over the proof to a photo lab.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:12:37 PM EST
If you take pictures that you regard as personal/private, use the 24 hour turn-around send out photo service. The photos are untouched by human hands until you open them. OR get a digital camera.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:13:05 PM EST
Who uses their real name and address on photo containers anyway? As long as you have the pickup tab it doesn't really matter who you are. To anyone who is planning on taking pictures of their firearms and getting them developed somewhere, you might want to consider this. Who knows what the minimum age worker at Wal-Mart will consider an "arsenal" and decide to call the cops to have you checked out.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:13:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 2:16:31 PM EST by Slacker]
I'll relate this long winded story so that anyone considering paying walmart money to develop their film will think twice. My GF and I were on vacation and we were snapping pics of each other. Nothing naughty mind you, just candid shots of us throughout the day. In one pic of her she was sitting down and had a dress on. The pic captured a little bit of white panty under the dress. (I didn't know this when I dropped off the film) I returned a few hours later to retrieve the pictures. Walked in, paid the lady and left. Never looking at the pics. I wanted to view them with my GF, understandable, I'm sure. When I got home and we opened the envelope, it had a note inside that said walmart policy was to not develope anything that could be considered pornography. Scratching my head...I was stumped. I return to the store and questioned the employee. She told me that there was "innapropriate material" in one photo. She wouldn't show or tell me what this material was...nor was the negative in the envelope. I was getting madder by the second. My property, my film, my picture, my girlfriend...MINE! They didn't seem to understand that I was about to start breaking things...until my voice got really really loud and the veins in my forehead got really big. Someone must have called security (Walmart Ninja's) and they wanted to know what the problem was. I was more than happy to explain it to them. As I explained, the po-po showed up. Asked for my ID etc. They immediatly disarmed me (gasps heard from all within earshot (OMG he's got a gun!) At that point I was in deep, all the managers, cops, ninja's and onlookers were gathered around...with me as the centerpeice. What did I do you ask? Well, I started relating the story to the customers that were watching! Guess what? That changed the attitude of the manager! He then changed his tune and returned my property to me (negative only), plus he apologized and had the clerk return my money! I walked out with my negative, my money and a shit eatin' grin on my face. If I hadn't damn near started WWIII with those assholes they would still have my property! I consider it stealing when someone will not return my property to me. Above all else, I cannot tolerate being stolen from. Fuck Walmart and thier White box ammo. They are damn near communists and I won't support them. I don't need to be told what is decent and right, I'm an adult! After this incedent I went digital. I do a better job than those monkeys anyway. [rant mode off/]
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:30:02 PM EST
Whold you trust this man with [b]your[/b] photos? [img]http://www.foxsearchlight.com/onehourphoto/masterimages/apple/trailer_05.jpg[/img] As to the hunters faux pass... what do you think Digital cameras are for? [}:D]
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:38:41 PM EST
The privacy of photos turned into a processor reminds me of something. While on a deployment to Central America one of my soldiers used to get care packages from his brother. It so happened his brother owner a photography shop and always included some rather interesting copies of other peoples wives/girlfriends/etc. Lots of Tits and Ass with the occasional X rated stuff. The guys ALWAYS looked forward to his packages.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:42:54 PM EST
This is unbelievable. This happened in my town. Redford is perhaps 13 miles away from here. I guess I won't be going to Wal-Mart anymore. Around here you would be considered on abnormal if you didn't use bait pits. I do not believe I know anyone who does not, of course I don't hunt much myself.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:47:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By OregonShooter: I feel the oppoite of Adam. what the walmart guy did was wrong. Those pictures were that mans private property and even if the pic showed he did something wrong doesnt mean that you can copy his pics and send them to the cops.
View Quote
So, what you're telling us is that even if there was something illegal going on in those pictures the employee should not turn them over to the police. I wonder if you would feel the same way if those pictures were of young children being raped and sodomized instead....
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:49:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 2:51:15 PM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:49:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 2:51:51 PM EST by Glock31]
The Walmart photo guy caught a poacher. People like him give all hunters a bad name. Edited to add: The reason for the no baiting law is most likely to limit the number of animals taken during the season. In KY, you can bait for anything except turkey, and that's because they're trying to increase their numbers and make it a little harder to kill them.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:50:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 2:51:50 PM EST by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 3:25:46 PM EST
This is one of the reasons why I switched to digital photography and process my own pictures. I can't exactly have someone processing pictures of my naked girlfriend. [:D] It's easier with a digi camera.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 3:54:15 PM EST
Goes to show, don't shop at Wal-Mart. Support your little neighborhood gun store! Must ban high-capacity super Wal-Mart centet! "For the children."
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 3:58:42 PM EST
What's a "Wallmart"? AB
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 4:01:05 PM EST
The guy committed a crime. He got caught. I have no sympathy. To think that your photos are private when you give them to Wally World is laughable.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 4:08:14 PM EST
His weapons should be taken away and distributed to more intelligent users.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 4:16:19 PM EST
A few years back when I got out of teaching, I ran a camera shop for a few years. The developing that used to come through the store was mostly pretty ho-hum (most people are pretty bad picture-takers) but every now and then we'd see some interesting stuff, usually shots of housewives coming out of the shower, topless local girls or women on vacation somewhere warm, or the like- some real cute ones occasionally, but we made it a point never to discuss the subject matter of anybody's pics with the customer, unless he or she brought it up first, and then to pretend that we hadn't looked at the pictures m u c h , just for basic inspection against dust or foreign matter on the paper, etc.. The subject matter was his or her business, not ours, unless we saw outright crime in them, which we never did. On the other hand, at another photo shop I also worked at, they used to do the photo developing of crime scene shots for the Worcester, MA, PD. Some really gruesome stuff.....murder scenes, horribly abused children, abandoned corpses, etc. To this day, since I live and am raising children in the same town I used to run the photo shop in (it has since been sold, and gone out of biz, long after I left), when people in town, former customers, ask me if I used to look at the pics, I always answer, "Of course not", just to spare their feelings. In truth, photo shop employees always look at the pix, mostly because they are bored stiff, and want something different to look at beyond their day to day existence. One more thing to bear in mind: sometimes photo shop types not only look they also copy your photos. One manager of a chain photo store in MA used to collect spare copies of "private" photos that his shop developed, putting them in an album and showing them at parties for laughs. Once a partygoer recognised somebody in a photo in the album, and called the police on the guy with the album. He was arrested, and at the very least, got a criminal record and lost his job. Stupid.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:06:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 7:07:29 PM EST by Adam_White]
Max_Mike, Glock 31: I agree, it is important to differentite "hunter" from "poacher." Aimless: Please allow me to clarify the "immoral" term. I feel strongly against poaching. My use of the term immoral was based on that feeling - not so much the baiting. Hunting in any manner against the prescribed is immoral - for anti-competitive and anti-management reasons. The fact is that game seasons and laws are all factored in to the grand management scheme - anyone who willfully ignores this is a poacher - and I believe such is illegal and immoral. Adam
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:12:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:15:05 PM EST
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Wal-Mart weenie should be charged with any and every crime that's applicable in this case. The poacher's actions weren't right, either, but in a court of law, if I were the judge, I'd look for an excuse to throw the case out if the Wal-Mart weenie did in fact break any laws in the process of ratting out the poacher. And in the process, I'd give a truly threatening lecture to the poacher that stops just short of going completely over the line. If a police officer did that, the case would be thrown out in any court in the nation. You can't break one law to bring in a violator of another. CJ
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:28:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:55:47 PM EST
So, If we ever want to get someone in DEEP SHIT, all we have to do is go to a 1-hour developer with a roll of film that has bad things on it, put the marks name/address/phone number on it and sit back and watch the sparks fly? That would be a very mean thing to do. Remember in "Unintended Consequences" when the guy made some fake photos and planted them on the corpse? Damn....
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 8:01:02 PM EST
Get used to it. Now that Homeland Defense has been signed, it's a Brave New World.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 8:11:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By ChrisLe: So, what you're telling us is that even if there was something illegal going on in those pictures the employee should not turn them over to the police. I wonder if you would feel the same way if those pictures were of young children being raped and sodomized instead....
View Quote
Your attempt to illustrate the absurdity of their position is beyond their comprehension. The clerk held evidence of a crime. The "hunter"/poacher is a dolt. The fact that a gunowner was involved is clouding some folks judgement here.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 9:37:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 9:38:38 PM EST by steenkybastage]
Well, technically the photos themselves would be considered intellectual property... just as a song on a CD is still the property of the artist. and it is illegal for someone to copy music w/o first obtaining the artist/record labels permission (usually done in the form of buying their CD). Why should it be any less illegal for someone to copy a photo brought in for development? I've sold a few of my photos I took in Alaska for several hundred dollars each... would it have been ok for the developer to make copies and sell them off to interested buyers? I don't think 90% of people in the US grasp the concept of intellectual property, cause they've never taken the time to create something themselves. I for one would be PO'ed if someone took a photo or video I put my time, effort and money into and used it for their own purposes. Regardless of whether it was to "turn me in" or to sell it off...
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 10:00:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 10:04:13 PM EST
Don't ya just hate rats?
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 10:37:48 PM EST
Cynthia Illick, Wal-Mart Spokesperson at the company’s central office in Bentonville, Arkansas, told me in a telephone interview, "In this case (the Terry incident), we did find our policy of insuring a customer’s confidentiality to be violated." "But," she continued, "the associate meant well." She also added, "Wal-Mart is taking steps to clarify its policy to insure it doesn’t happen again." According to Illick, memos are being sent to all Wal-Mart one-hour photo processing centers as a result of this incident.
View Quote
I agree it is now a "Brave New World". Just think of all of those "well meaning" photo developers just waiting to process your BRC/AR15/Knob Creek film.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 11:43:11 PM EST
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Got to give the photo mart dude credit. Break the law go to jail. I have hunted for years and not broken any laws. Did not always have meat in the freezer but I sleep well. (just got a digital camera too!!)
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 11:45:29 PM EST
Just keep in mind that digital photos are not legally binding: primarily because they can be altered without showing any "markings". An analog photo, however, is legally binding and admissible in court. So I would go for the inadmissible position. Of course I'm not a lawyer. (Thank God)
Link Posted: 11/26/2002 2:38:44 AM EST
Sorry... poachers suck and I'm glad the dirtball got busted. And besides, anybody who takes film to any public business for development and expects privacy is as stupid as anybody who posts to internet message boards and expects the same. The guy poached. He made it public. He got busted. Justice was done.
Link Posted: 11/26/2002 3:51:58 AM EST
Top Top