Exercising the Brain Cells
Posted: Fri May 30, 2003 6:43 am
Here's one that could get a few people going.
A soldier returns from the Iraq "war". He has a roll of film developed and it allegedly shows Iraqi P.O.W.s being mistreated - being held in some sort of net between the forks of a forklift truck is one example quoted on the morning news. A number of other photos show P.O.W.s being manhandled. As a consequence, an M.O.D. investigation is being held, and the soliders involved are being interrogated, and will face action if the M.O.D. deems it necessary.
The question - setting aside your views on the legality of the "war" where does the solider stand on the invasion of his privacy? When you take a roll of film to be developed are you not entrusting the privacy of the film's content to the developer on the understanding that the pictures are your private property?
Remember Julia Somerville and her court case, six or maybe seven years ago? She and her husband were arrested because a roll of holiday snaps was deemed to contain "indecent" pictures of her young children, frolicking in the swimming pool. The person making the initial allegation was an employee of the chemist that developed the film. In both cases, it seems that the person behind the counter in a retail shop has been given the right to decide when to call in the"authorities" if the content of private photos is deemed by that person to warrant the action. Nobody knows what the criteria are when this judgement is being made - all that happens is that a bunch of Officer Dibbles arrive and hey presto, you're in the shit, up to your neck.
Frankly, this pisses me off.
Naturally, there will be forumites whose arguments will be along the lines of "we have to protect the innocent,, bla-de-blah-de-blah........."
Let's look beyond that - let's look at the principle.
A soldier returns from the Iraq "war". He has a roll of film developed and it allegedly shows Iraqi P.O.W.s being mistreated - being held in some sort of net between the forks of a forklift truck is one example quoted on the morning news. A number of other photos show P.O.W.s being manhandled. As a consequence, an M.O.D. investigation is being held, and the soliders involved are being interrogated, and will face action if the M.O.D. deems it necessary.
The question - setting aside your views on the legality of the "war" where does the solider stand on the invasion of his privacy? When you take a roll of film to be developed are you not entrusting the privacy of the film's content to the developer on the understanding that the pictures are your private property?
Remember Julia Somerville and her court case, six or maybe seven years ago? She and her husband were arrested because a roll of holiday snaps was deemed to contain "indecent" pictures of her young children, frolicking in the swimming pool. The person making the initial allegation was an employee of the chemist that developed the film. In both cases, it seems that the person behind the counter in a retail shop has been given the right to decide when to call in the"authorities" if the content of private photos is deemed by that person to warrant the action. Nobody knows what the criteria are when this judgement is being made - all that happens is that a bunch of Officer Dibbles arrive and hey presto, you're in the shit, up to your neck.
Frankly, this pisses me off.
Naturally, there will be forumites whose arguments will be along the lines of "we have to protect the innocent,, bla-de-blah-de-blah........."
Let's look beyond that - let's look at the principle.