This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 26th, 2008 at 0813 by Jeff Hess
and is filed under Crime, Litigation, Video.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
13 Responses to “I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE DEFENSE ON THIS ONE…”
The only defense I can possibly come up with is (mind you, this is my opinion and mine alone and does not represent Wal*Mart in any way, shape or form)- were the pictures actually developed in the Wal*Mart 1-Hour Photo Center or were they sent out to the Fuji development lab? While this newscast was very good at showing the “1-Hour Developing” signs, they left this major detail out.
*IF* the pictures were developed in the store, I can’t come up with an excuse beyond customer privacy, etc… Weak, I know – but a quick Google search will turn up more than a few news stories where a Photo Center (Wal*Mart or otherwise) called the Cops on innocent parents and trouble followed.
*IF* the pictures were outsourced, then it’s no surprise nothing was done – the Fuji labs process thousands of rolls of film a day and it’s all automated. Unless the order has some kind of special instructions or is one of the spot-checked orders for quality control.
Again, not speaking for the company in anyway, just expressing my own views on the issue…
Even if Wal*Mart did simply ship the negatives to Fuji and returned the prints to the customer, I’m guessing there could be some responsibilites held by Wal*Mart. IMHO, if Fuji is the case, morally, Wal*Mart is in the clear, but, legally, there could be issues of them distributing child pornography, even if they weren’t aware they were. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m just guessing.
As someone who has worked in such a capacity, I would honestly be shocked to find out that they were developed all this time in 1-Hour. And not much shocks me about Wal*Mart. 😉 If they were, the associate(s) responsible (along with some of the management team) should be looking at jail time (IMHO, of course). If it were Fuji Outlab service, since it’s all automated, I’m not sure anything could/should be done…
I’m not JD-impaired either, but since anything coming back from Fuji would we in a sealed envelope and there could be no issue of quality control — the reason you get to look at pictures coming out of a 1-hour set-up — I’ve got to believe that Wal-Mart walks on the case if Fuji did the processing.
This is simply a cursory review and opinion on my part-but since this activity went on for 3 years-is it possible that someone in the developing lab may have been profiting,too,from “looking” the other way,so to speak? It might be advantageous to determine if it was the same person always doing the developing. Could additional copies,by WHOMEVER,or WHEREVER ,the film was developed have been secretly for OTHER nefarious purposes?
The story doesn’t mention anything about confederates or additional photos, and since it’s difficult to hide the cost of duplicates over a long term — see One Hour Photo — I expect that Wal-Mart’s responsibility lies in poorly trained technicians.
Not to sound flip or disrespectful,Jeff,but what training does ANYONE require to recognize child pornography?Or to contact the authorities ,as per Oklahoma law?
I find it ironic that you are providing the defense.
We need more info. It could be like Bob suggested. Otherwise, you hit the nail on the head with regard to poor training and ignorant or unmotivated associates. I don’t have high expectations for people whose only training probably consists of watching a CBL.
Of course, poorly-trained, ignorant, and unmotivated associates are at least partly Wal-Mart’s fault.
I apologize for not being clear. I think Wal-Mart is 100 percent at fault here as long as the film was processed in-house, which I have every reason to believe is the case.
I’m just waiting to see what creative bit of fiction the flacks come up with in an attempt to weasel out of the suit.
Ick.
The only defense I can possibly come up with is (mind you, this is my opinion and mine alone and does not represent Wal*Mart in any way, shape or form)- were the pictures actually developed in the Wal*Mart 1-Hour Photo Center or were they sent out to the Fuji development lab? While this newscast was very good at showing the “1-Hour Developing” signs, they left this major detail out.
*IF* the pictures were developed in the store, I can’t come up with an excuse beyond customer privacy, etc… Weak, I know – but a quick Google search will turn up more than a few news stories where a Photo Center (Wal*Mart or otherwise) called the Cops on innocent parents and trouble followed.
*IF* the pictures were outsourced, then it’s no surprise nothing was done – the Fuji labs process thousands of rolls of film a day and it’s all automated. Unless the order has some kind of special instructions or is one of the spot-checked orders for quality control.
Shalom Bob,
I had the same question concerning one-hour vs. Fuji processing.
And you’re right, if Wal-Mart sent the prints out for processing then Wal-Mart has no reasonable responsibility.
What I can’t figure out is the extreme stupidity of someone who would take photos of a crime to a public processor.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Again, not speaking for the company in anyway, just expressing my own views on the issue…
Even if Wal*Mart did simply ship the negatives to Fuji and returned the prints to the customer, I’m guessing there could be some responsibilites held by Wal*Mart. IMHO, if Fuji is the case, morally, Wal*Mart is in the clear, but, legally, there could be issues of them distributing child pornography, even if they weren’t aware they were. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m just guessing.
As someone who has worked in such a capacity, I would honestly be shocked to find out that they were developed all this time in 1-Hour. And not much shocks me about Wal*Mart. 😉 If they were, the associate(s) responsible (along with some of the management team) should be looking at jail time (IMHO, of course). If it were Fuji Outlab service, since it’s all automated, I’m not sure anything could/should be done…
Shalom Bob,
I’m not JD-impaired either, but since anything coming back from Fuji would we in a sealed envelope and there could be no issue of quality control — the reason you get to look at pictures coming out of a 1-hour set-up — I’ve got to believe that Wal-Mart walks on the case if Fuji did the processing.
B’shalom,
Jeff
This is simply a cursory review and opinion on my part-but since this activity went on for 3 years-is it possible that someone in the developing lab may have been profiting,too,from “looking” the other way,so to speak? It might be advantageous to determine if it was the same person always doing the developing. Could additional copies,by WHOMEVER,or WHEREVER ,the film was developed have been secretly for OTHER nefarious purposes?
Shalom SF,
The story doesn’t mention anything about confederates or additional photos, and since it’s difficult to hide the cost of duplicates over a long term — see One Hour Photo — I expect that Wal-Mart’s responsibility lies in poorly trained technicians.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Not to sound flip or disrespectful,Jeff,but what training does ANYONE require to recognize child pornography?Or to contact the authorities ,as per Oklahoma law?
Shalom SF,
Well, first, you’d have to assume that the person pulling the photos, cutting them apart and putting them in the envelope is actually looking at them.
Second, if the photos involve posed or incidental nudity, it’s not alway clear where the line between art and pornography lies.
Third, unless specifically told what to do, it would not be unreasonable for an uncaring and untrained employee to just ignore what they may see.
Anybody out there work in a Wal-Mart photo processing department who can fill us in?
B’shalom,
Jeff
Jeff,
I find it ironic that you are providing the defense.
We need more info. It could be like Bob suggested. Otherwise, you hit the nail on the head with regard to poor training and ignorant or unmotivated associates. I don’t have high expectations for people whose only training probably consists of watching a CBL.
Of course, poorly-trained, ignorant, and unmotivated associates are at least partly Wal-Mart’s fault.
Shalom Someone,
I apologize for not being clear. I think Wal-Mart is 100 percent at fault here as long as the film was processed in-house, which I have every reason to believe is the case.
I’m just waiting to see what creative bit of fiction the flacks come up with in an attempt to weasel out of the suit.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Perhaps “a defense” would have been more apt wording on my part.
Shalom Someone,
Well, I like to think we do our best to be fair.
B’shalom,
Jeff