Wow..

[Not Available 0]

Sicko, how dare you

[Macaroni 1]

Ok. First, I would like to say that I work at walmart and the associates in photo are required to look at every picture for copyrighted work and nudity. We have to report any nudity we see to our supervisors.

Second, I took pics of my baby when I was changing her diaper And she crawled away half naked to climb the couch. Jejeje. It was hilarious and a "kodak" moment.

[waleed's girl 0]

Don't the police and Child Protective Service have anything better to do.......like look for children that are actually get hurt.

[NickD 202]

I had a similar problem when I brought in a scanned image of my wife's green card, even brought in the USCIS instructions where they wanted a copy of it. They wouldn't process it. No amount of logic worked.

How about a law where photo processors are not permitted to look at your photos?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just goes to show that no good can come from taking pictures of naked children invading people's privacy... regardless of the situation...

fixed

Sorry, where's the invasion of privacy? They dropped the film off at a Walmart.

When I was a child, there were no digital photos or anything like that. Everyone took all their pictures to a store to have them developed and printed. And people took pictures of their kids running around nekkid or taking a bath or whathaveyou. And there was nothing wrong with it - and there still isn't. This whole idea of there being something wrong or sinister about taking pictures of your own baby taking a bath or running around the house nude is just absolutely insane. It's nobody's fcuking business.

[Donna A 4]

Just goes to show that no good can come from taking pictures of naked children invading people's privacy... regardless of the situation...

fixed

Sorry, where's the invasion of privacy? They dropped the film off at a Walmart.

When I was a child, there were no digital photos or anything like that. Everyone took all their pictures to a store to have them developed and printed. And people took pictures of their kids running around nekkid or taking a bath or whathaveyou. And there was nothing wrong with it - and there still isn't. This whole idea of there being something wrong or sinister about taking pictures of your own baby taking a bath or running around the house nude is just absolutely insane. It's nobody's fcuking business.

u better watch that pic in ur siggy...we might be reading about u next.

[scandal 951]

Second, I took pics of my baby when I was changing her diaper And she crawled away half naked to climb the couch. Jejeje. It was hilarious and a "kodak" moment.

prevert!

[Marina-Del 10]

That is, no child should be photographed, touched or tickled in areas that would be covered by a bathing suit.

Oh please. Don't be ridiculous.

I agree. That rule might make sense for strangers to the baby/child, but not necessarily parents.

One that rules means that little girls can't be photographed without a shirt on since girl bathing suits cover their chest. And that's just silly.

Here's an example for you. When I was little I was playing outside in my sand box. When I came inside my mom realized that I had been sitting in a tick nest and had tiny little baby ticks all over me -down there. I was like 5 years old. You better believe that both my mom and my dad got off the 50+ tiny ticks off of me! Is that child abuse? Is that wrong that my dad saw me like that and touched me to get the ticks off!? No, that's parenting.

As a side note: I worked in the CVS photo lab for 4 years. Our policy was that bath-time picks were okay of kids and any other pictures of kids naked that were clearly just the parents photographing their kids in day to day play time. If there was a close up or full role of naked kids standing for no reason, then that's a different story.

But bath pictures with kids 5, 3 and 1.5 is NOT a reason for investigation! Maybe if the kid was 9 or something, but 5, 3 and 1.5??? No way!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is, no child should be photographed, touched or tickled in areas that would be covered by a bathing suit.

Oh please. Don't be ridiculous.

I agree. That rule might make sense for strangers to the baby/child, but not necessarily parents.

One that rules means that little girls can't be photographed without a shirt on since girl bathing suits cover their chest. And that's just silly.

Here's an example for you. When I was little I was playing outside in my sand box. When I came inside my mom realized that I had been sitting in a tick nest and had tiny little baby ticks all over me -down there. I was like 5 years old. You better believe that both my mom and my dad got off the 50+ tiny ticks off of me! Is that child abuse? Is that wrong that my dad saw me like that and touched me to get the ticks off!? No, that's parenting.

As a side note: I worked in the CVS photo lab for 4 years. Our policy was that bath-time picks were okay of kids and any other pictures of kids naked that were clearly just the parents photographing their kids in day to day play time. If there was a close up or full role of naked kids standing for no reason, then that's a different story.

But bath pictures with kids 5, 3 and 1.5 is NOT a reason for investigation! Maybe if the kid was 9 or something, but 5, 3 and 1.5??? No way!

Exactly. Seems hat common sense is completely out the window in this country.

[Heracles 417]

How about spending time catching the real sick f---s, like those who keep kids in their basement or under tents for 20 years.

Gezz. It's no wonder that stuff is so prevalent here when we're chasing the wrong people.

[Ling Ling 22]

When I was a child, there were no digital photos or anything like that. Everyone took all their pictures to a store to have them developed and printed. And people took pictures of their kids running around nekkid or taking a bath or whathaveyou. And there was nothing wrong with it - and there still isn't. This whole idea of there being something wrong or sinister about taking pictures of your own baby taking a bath or running around the house nude is just absolutely insane. It's nobody's fcuking business.

Correct, it's nobody's business until you make it public, and then a minimum wage employee has to decide if it violates their policy. Minimum wage often equals minimum intelligence. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with whatever way a parent wants to photograph their child, but once you drop them off at Walmart, they're subject to public scrutiny. The whole idea behind PRIVACY and PRIVATE PICTURES is that they're kept away from people you don't know. If they knew the people at Walmart, they wouldn't have contacted the police. Walmart did EXACTLY what I would expect them to do. Anybody who doesn't is either a moron or naive.

As for when YOU were a child....was there this thing called the Internet? Were pervs setting up sites and trading pictures online? It's a different world, with different rules.

When your great-great-grandparents were around there probably weren't any traffic lights. Does that mean that if they were still alive that they wouldn't have to stop for one?

Times change...and sometimes laws change along with them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When I was a child, there were no digital photos or anything like that. Everyone took all their pictures to a store to have them developed and printed. And people took pictures of their kids running around nekkid or taking a bath or whathaveyou. And there was nothing wrong with it - and there still isn't. This whole idea of there being something wrong or sinister about taking pictures of your own baby taking a bath or running around the house nude is just absolutely insane. It's nobody's fcuking business.

Correct, it's nobody's business until you make it public, and then a minimum wage employee has to decide if it violates their policy. Minimum wage often equals minimum intelligence. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with whatever way a parent wants to photograph their child, but once you drop them off at Walmart, they're subject to public scrutiny. The whole idea behind PRIVACY and PRIVATE PICTURES is that they're kept away from people you don't know. If they knew the people at Walmart, they wouldn't have contacted the police. Walmart did EXACTLY what I would expect them to do. Anybody who doesn't is either a moron or naive.

As for when YOU were a child....was there this thing called the Internet? Were pervs setting up sites and trading pictures online? It's a different world, with different rules. When your great-great-grandparents were around there probably weren't any traffic lights. Does that mean that if they were still alive that they wouldn't have to stop for one?

Times change...and sometimes laws change along with them.

Common sense is flying out the window here. I, for one, hope that the law suit is successful and that courts stick it to Wal-Mart and send a strong signal to any other service providers that contemplate playing the moral police.

[Ling Ling 22]

I agree. That rule might make sense for strangers to the baby/child, but not necessarily parents.

One that rules means that little girls can't be photographed without a shirt on since girl bathing suits cover their chest. And that's just silly.

Here's an example for you. When I was little I was playing outside in my sand box. When I came inside my mom realized that I had been sitting in a tick nest and had tiny little baby ticks all over me -down there. I was like 5 years old. You better believe that both my mom and my dad got off the 50+ tiny ticks off of me! Is that child abuse? Is that wrong that my dad saw me like that and touched me to get the ticks off!? No, that's parenting.

As a side note: I worked in the CVS photo lab for 4 years. Our policy was that bath-time picks were okay of kids and any other pictures of kids naked that were clearly just the parents photographing their kids in day to day play time. If there was a close up or full role of naked kids standing for no reason, then that's a different story.

But bath pictures with kids 5, 3 and 1.5 is NOT a reason for investigation! Maybe if the kid was 9 or something, but 5, 3 and 1.5??? No way!

The rule is essentially for strangers, but also comes into effect when you're in the presence of strangers.

You're being silly to think that anyplace was off limits to your parents in an emergency or medical situaion...but if your parents started touching, tickling, and playing with you "down there" on a daily basis....would THAT be OK?

As to the age of the child, I was in law enforcement, and there are some pervs that PREFER younger children...so there's no cutoff until they're old enough to give legal consent. Again, this is only with regard to pictures you place in the public domain. PRIVATE pictures are your PRIVATE business....but once you make them public....they are subject to public scrutiny.

Again, Walmart acted appropriately, without question. The authorities appear to have gone overboard in their investigation...but as public servants, contacted by Walmart, they DO have a responsibility to look into the matter. They DO NOT have the ability to look at the pictures and say "Oh, they're just harmless pics" once they've opened a case. How would they know if the pictures were taken by the parents, a sicko relative, or some criminal minded babysitter, WITHOUT doing some type of investigation. If the parents had kept the pictures PRIVATE they would have no problem at all.

Common sense means you don't leave private pictures with strangers.

[Ling Ling 22]

How about spending time catching the real sick f---s, like those who keep kids in their basement or under tents for 20 years.

Gezz. It's no wonder that stuff is so prevalent here when we're chasing the wrong people.

Guess what...sometimes it's THESE type of investigations that DO allow them to catch the sickos you're referring to. These are EXACTLY the types of leads that allow for the capture of entire child pornography rings, and subsequently to child abusers and other predators.

UNTIL the police investigate, they don't know if the pics were taken by a parent, a relative who shouldn't have been bathing them, a babysitter who wasn't authorized to bathe them and take pics, or the babysitter's boyfriend who wasn't authorized to take pics.

If it really were so easy to chase the right people all the time, there'd be a lot fewer police, and they'd be a lot more effective. They'd just push the magic, "only chase the right people" button. Sadly we live in the real world where good parents do dumb things...and where it's not always obvious as to who the good people are and who the bad people are. Oh but wait....I'm sure YOU would be able to tell good or bad people JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM. Right?

[Ling Ling 22]

Common sense is flying out the window here. I, for one, hope that the law suit is successful and that courts stick it to Wal-Mart and send a strong signal to any other service providers that contemplate playing the moral police.

SO...you would be OK with people knowing that Walmart is the place you can take your nude pictures of children, and not have to worry about anyone asking any questions?

You'd be fine with your babysitter having unauthorized pictures of your child processed at Walmart, and then sold to some scumbag who sells them on the Internet?

You wouldn't be even a little bit angry if you found out that the clerk at Walmart saw these pictures, and just handed them to the babysitter's boyfriend with no questions asked?