XXX-files: Loophole let father keep secret pix of daughter

Boston Herald ^ | Monday, May 19, 2003 | David Weber

[presidio9]

A western Massachusetts woman recently made the shocking discovery that her father secretly photographed her with a computer-operated camera while she got dressed and undressed in her room in the family home.

But the 24-year-old woman was absolutely stunned when the police - after searching the father's computer files and finding more than 3,000 nude pictures of his adopted daughter - told her there was nothing illegal about the photos. In fact, the police gave them all back to the man.

``The fact that they gave him back all my pictures - that's just not right. He has all my pictures. He can do whatever he wants with them,'' said Jane, who spoke to the Herald on the condition of anonymity. ``My dad is walking around now like, `Ha, ha. I got away with it.' ''

Adding insult to injury, the man, who has been banished from the house by a restraining order, has ceased contributing to the bills and mortgage payments. Jane, her 4-year-son and her mother, who has filed for divorce, may soon find themselves homeless.

Jane's mother realizes she has lost her marriage but said, ``Nobody is going to violate my daughter and stay here with me.''

Jane's father claims he had her under surveillance because he suspected her of doing drugs. Asked to explain why he had 3,000 pictures in his computer files of his daughter naked, but none of her using drugs, he said the drug pictures may have been deleted by a friend of Jane. He also said he had only ``100 or 150'' nude pictures of Jane.

Hampshire First Assistant District Attorney David Angier confirmed Jane's account, but said there were no laws broken.

``We have these cases come up from time to time,'' he said. ``Usually they involve two sex partners, and one of them is taping without the knowledge of the other.''

Jane's case could be seen as an example of the state's criminal statutes not keeping pace with technology. Police told Jane her father, who married her biological mother and legally adopted Jane when she was 5 years old, has his own pornography Web site. Jane is terrified that her pictures have been viewed by untold thousands.

``It's just disgusting,'' said victims' rights attorney Wendy Murphy. ``He (the father) can do whatever he wants with those images.''

Jane's father denied he has a porn Web site, but said he does have one for his business of selling home security products. His wife did not know about that business until she confronted him after Jane discovered the nude photos.

Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley said Massachusetts has one of the nation's most stringent laws against wiretapping, but it applies to audio - not video - recording.

``It's almost like a gap. It's a case of the technology being ahead of the Legislature,'' Coakley said.

State Sens. Susan Fargo (D-Weston), Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) and Michael Knapik (R-Westfield) all have filed bills that would close the loopholes in the law.

``When you tell people there aren't any protections, they're just dumbfounded,'' said Fargo.

Jane said her father began photographing her in 1999, when she moved back into the house after having a baby. She said her father insisted she move into a room in which he had a computer and occasionally used as an office.

All three adult family members had access to the computer and knew it was equipped with a video camera. But Jane did not realize that when the computer was off, the camera remained on. She has since learned that the camera was activated by motion in the room and recorded a still photograph every five seconds.

Jane became suspicious last month when her parents went to Cape Cod for the weekend. She noticed that the camera, which normally pointed toward the center of the room, where she always changed her clothes, was aimed at her bed.

Jane talked to a friend about her suspicions. The friend logged on to the computer. Three hours later, he made his way into some hidden files and found more than 3,000 nude photos of Jane.

Jane has explored the possibility of a lawsuit, but said lawyers so far have been reluctant to take up her cause because her father is not a rich man, and the possibility of a large settlement or verdict against him is slim.

``I just want to have a law to be passed so this doesn't happen again,'' Jane said.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Bravo for the mother. Good for her. So many women would let this perverted creep to get by with it, or make excuses for him.

"Jane" needs to get her kid out of that house as soon as possible. Who knows what her son may have seen or experience with his grandfather. This sort of thing is passed on from generation to generation.

[rs79bm]

This man should be checked out. Who knows what he will try to do next.

[Gorzaloon]

Think of this when you see the constant, ubiquitous, nearly harrassing, X-10 camera popup ads. Some of them imply coyly that this is just what the cameras are for.

[CedarDave]

Jane has explored the possibility of a lawsuit, but said lawyers so far have been reluctant to take up her cause because her father is not a rich man, and the possibility of a large settlement or verdict against him is slim.

Frickin' lawyers. If there is no big money in it or no major face time (e.g. Laci Peterson), they ignore people who need them the most. I have a friend who has had seven cancer surgeries, one of those was bungled (surgeon and radiologist got mixed up as to where to cut) which so far has required two additional surgeries. They are ranchers and have no insurance and limited savings. Lawyers told them straight up there was not enough money in it for them to take the case. My friends are now working directly with medical malpractice boards in two states trying to get a settlement.

[BibChr]

Exactly right. I am surprised those ads haven't been targeted.

Dan

[newgeezer]

X-10 camera popup ads. Some of them imply coyly that this is just what the cameras are for.

"Imply coyly"? No doubt about it, X-10 knows (1) what grabs the attention of the typical surfer, and (2) who's their target market.

[Billthedrill]

Dang it, buddy, get a grip - nekkid pix of a one-year old on a rug, that's one thing, but usually about puberty that cutesy stuff ain't so cutesy any more, and proud papa becomes...oh...I don't want to be seen as "judgmental"...but the word "pervert" comes to mind...

[RichGuy]

Roaches got to eat and Frickin' Lawyers got to make a living. If she cannot pay and the likelihood of a cash settlement is slim, why would any lawyer take her case?

[JaimeD2]

Jane's father denied he has a porn Web site, but said he does have one for his business of selling home security products.

I wouldn't be surprised if those cameras were what the guy sold.

[dighton]

Think of this when you see the constant, ubiquitous, nearly harrassing, X-10 camera popup ads. Some of them imply coyly that this is just what the cameras are for.

They come right out and yell it.

[CharacterCounts]

Frickin' lawyers. If there is no big money in it or no major face time (e.g. Laci Peterson), they ignore people who need them the most

Just wondering. You have voluntarily worked for free for how many strangers in the past 12 -36 months???

[ican'tbelieveit]

Hmm, another parent abusing their own child, who would have thought it.

[ikka]

For one, lawyers are encouraged to take a few cases pro bono for precisely this kind of thing. Second, the photos may belong to the father but he cannot use them for commercial purposes without obtaining a signed model release. If he sells them or uses them in advertising he can be sued for the amount he made plus punitive damages.

[presidio9]

Ever wonder why there is a picture of a hot chick in those ads? Never a potential robber, or a baby-sitter. Always a hot chick. What am I afraid she is going to be doing that I need to buy a surveilance camera to protect myself from?

[CedarDave]

A mistake was made by Doctors and what she wanted was her expenses paid for the surgery (in a fancy Houston hospital), the doctor bills, and the travel expenses. She refused to rip off the doctor(s). She was told that the lawyer wanted 50-55% of the settlement. She told the lawyers that was a rip off too and they told her that if she didn't play their game, to go after it herself, which is what she is doing. She's old fashioned in that she just wants what's due her and nothing more. Too bad integrity like that is no longer rewarded in certain segments of today's society.

[CedarDave]

See my #17.

Personally, I tend to underbill my clients for my professional services. Yah, I know that makes me a sucker in some people's eyes. But I'm doing o.k. and sleep nights.

[RichGuy]

I think it is fine if she wants to go after this herself. My point was that lawyers are business people and they need to cover their costs and make enough of a profit to contunue in business. Winning against a big company can cost a ton. Also, some cases they lose, so they need a bigger profit than they would need if they were sure they were going to win them all.

[Erasmus]

What am I afraid she is going to be doing that I need to buy a surveilance camera to protect myself from?

Suffering from abuse.

Self-abuse.

<]B^)