To all you fellow ladies who point out how impossible it would be for the girls to participate in the "peeing out the campfire" ritual:

It depends. Small girls usually do go through a phase when they prefer to (try) peeing standing up. I know I did when I was between three and eight or so. And since I spent all of my summers at a cabin without indoor plumbing I had plenty of time to practice. And I got pretty darn good at it at one time.

A small girl, with a skirt, peeing standing up? Very possible. Not messy at all.

I couldn't attempt it today without making an unholy mess, but I bet I could have "helped" with thar campfire when I was six. Can't be harder than hitting an ant or a bug 30-40 cm in front of me, which was what I amused myself with as a small girl.

Given we have a reasonably large number of Salon readers condemning this guy and his family, it's very clear he did indeed exercise poor judgment taking his photos in. While he shouldn't become paranoid, a little bit of discretion is indeed advisable in the future, and in addition to feeling angry and outraged, he should also perhaps learn something from it, in the "measure twice, cut once" sense.

Being from the Alaskan Bush, I thought nothing of this but now I think he was out of touch with his society. That's excusable, but not admitting it and learning from it is not.

“I have photographed my boys in diapering/bathing/toweling/potty situations, because I love them and want to provide a full record of our growing and happy family.” (not singling out this guy -- there have been numerous other posters with similar boasts)

--------

In the interests of a full record of your growing and happy family, I trust you are also photographing your wife’s morning sickness, the baby’s projectile vomiting, yourself in the throes of diarrhea, not to mention assorted hangovers, menstrual leakages, migraines, wardrobe malfunctions and just plain sitting there looking stupid. All for the record, of course.

Which photographs will embarrass the children, of course, and be used gleefully by you for that very purpose. I’m sure you will waste no opportunity to whip out those adorable potty photos when your son brings his date over before the prom or when his fiancee shows up with her parents for an engagement lunch, all for the record of course, because you love them. I suspect that on those occasions you will forget to show the potty photos of yourself or the tampon photos of your wife, because –- oops, you forgot to take them in the first place. Guess the record isn’t so full after all.

BTW, if one of these years your camera ends up mysteriously smashed, check your sons’ clothing for shards.

...I'm assuming the kids had their clothes on for those. So why aren't more people up in arms about the fact that these little kids were drug in to be interviewed alone, by a stranger, about sex abuse and the SESSSIONS WERE NOT RECORDED. Where is the protection for the child in that? This seems to me to be absolutely outrageous.

Lots of people here have reported the existence of naked childhood photos of themselves and are now grown adults and not embarrassed by them. My parents certainly didn't whip out those pics on my prom night, but they are in albums and I don't care if people look at them. The difference between a naked kid picture and a tampon or hangover picture is vast. Kids actually enjoy being naked, and when I look back on my own childhood photos I can see that joy radiating out of them.

Also, parents have the right to document their kids' lives while keeping aspects of their own lives private. My parents have one picture of me from when I was about three-- I was very sick and had been throwing up so much that I eventually fell asleep with my head rested right on the toilet seat. I'm not embarrassed by that picture in the least-- on the contrary I think it's sweet and it shows that my parents were right there next to me while I was going through a difficult time. I wouldn't want my mom to take a picture like that now, but I also don't want her packing me healthy lunches or wiping my butt anymore either. Kids and adults are different, and I don't think my parents needed to document their own illnesses in order to justify taking a picture like that.

Anyway, my dad has no problem letting me see my grandmother's albums of his childhood, which contain pictures of him happily bathing as a child. He's not embarrassed. These kinds of pictures are so normal, it's hard for me to even imagine why someone would be bothered by them.

Is it an uncontrolled nanny state out to imprison law abiding parents along with real criminals, or an innocent man who believes state authorities are out to get him, even though all relevant facts suggest otherwise?

Let's look at the facts:

1) a roll of film was developed that contained what could be questionable pictures and authorities were notified. For those of you who think that a young girl bathing alone and unguarded in a secluded venue is not fodder for kiddie porn, I would suggest that is because you are not a pedophile. I am not either, but I can imagine how such an image might be just what they are looking for.

2) a police officer, agrees with the parent that it is probably nothing, but due to rules meant to protect victims who are unable to defend themselves the photos are sent up the chain of command to a social services agency.

3) the social services agency, which is no doubt understaffed and overworked, does not call as quickly as the author would like, so of course he panics presuming this means that they are meticulously building a case to take away his kids. In reality, his case was probably classified as a low priority in which the children were not in immediate danger.

4) upon finally getting the round tuit and calling the parent up for an interview, the parent, who has hired a lawyer, immediately begins placing demands on the agency, as to when and where he will allow his children to be interviewed. Any trained social worker would immediately see this as a red flag, but they write it off as a nervous parent, and relent to his demands.

5) as is the normal procedure, the social worker separates the child from their parent to prevent any undue influence, and begins to ask them routine questions about touching etc. When the children provide no further evidence, the social worker speaks with the parent, who although hostile, is regarded as simply being a nervous gentleman, and is informed that the agency will be stopping by his house in a few days once they've gone over their notes, they ask for some contact information incase they need to ask anyone else some questions, but they never actually contact any of these people. Naturally no interview notes were taken, because nothing substantive was given in any interview, likewise, there was no need for a video interview, as there was no clear evidence of abuse, and no real suspicion that any video testimony would be needed at a trial.

6) after a review of all the facts, the agency determines there is no clear evidence of abuse, and the caseworker, stops by the author's house and informs them apologetically that the inquiry is being suspended. No formal apology is given as no real harm, has been done. No persons outside the family have been contacted about this matter, and no criminal charges have been filed.

Please note, if at any time, the social worker had felt the children were in an unsafe environment, they could have gone to court and had a judge order the children removed from the home. The social worker does not have this power without a judge’s authority; likewise, a social worker is not a criminal investigator. That the case was handled by a social services agency and not the police shows that it was a routine investigation and that no firm judgment had been made by the authorities as to the author's guilt.

Although I am sure the author was very upset by the accusations, the entire witch hunt took place in his mind, and not in reality. He presumes the worst, where as a disinterested observer might see the slow actions of the agency as proof that there was no cause for alarm.

In a society of laws, you do need law enforcement agencies, and you likewise need people to advocate for those with out power. Although it is unfortunate that an innocent man endured the inconvenience and stress of an investigation, would we rather there was no investigations without concrete evidence?

If you are traveling with a pound of bacon in your briefcase, and the bomb sniffing dogs come over to you sniffing at your case, would you rather the authorities didn't check to make sure it's not a bomb? If you had heard that pedophile was arrested and that people had known he took photos of his children naked for years, but no one ever said anything, would we feel our tax dollars were well spent?

Right now, the rule is, if a complaint is filed, an investigation ensues. Without this rule, cases of real abuse go ignored, because a cop with better things to do doesn't believe you, or thinks nothing of a man taking pictures of his young daughter nude.

People talk about freedom for security as if it is a one or another prospect. Unlimited freedom or unlimited security, both ways lead to neither freedom nor security. What we have is a system with redundancies to ensure the innocent are not unjustly punished, does it fail sometimes, of course it does, and that is a tragedy, did it fail in the author’s case, absolutely not! If he was writing this story from prison and not France, the system would have failed him, but instead, without real evidence he was free to go about his business.

Yes, people in the past have been railroaded by this system, but that is usually based on false accusations of abuse from credible witnesses. Either because of false memories, or vindictive people, some people have gone through a great deal of trouble because of our desire to protect society, not children but society. But without the solid accusation, I know of no case in which any defendant was denied their right to life, liberty, or property.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my humble opinions