Child Protection over Friends Only Facebook Pics

[HarrietSchulenberg]

At the nursery Christmas play parents were asked not to put photos on the internet in order to respect the privacy of other parents and children. I take internet security VERY seriously due to my paid work and that of my H, which requires absolute confidentiality. I am also a School Governor.

I put some pictures of my son on Facebook. My photos and profile are accessible only to my Friends, which comprise of a very small group of personal friends and family. The photos did not contain any reference to the school, the children (other than my son's first name), year group or other identifiable information. I never tag photos.

I received a phone call from the Child Protection officer from the School today. My photos had come to their attention and I was formally reminded of the need for internet security.

Through a process of elimination of my Facebook Friends (wasn't hard) I have worked out who is responsible. I am very hurt and surprised that this person has put me in this position, seeing as her own internet security is, at best, lax.

Have I been very stupid, or AIBU to think that I have not breached any child protection measures? I could just have well have printed the pics and shown them round at the school gates.

This is how I see it:

The frequency of these events is low (as you say), but if they were too occur they could be catastrophic to the child concerned.

The pleasure gained from a beautifully composed photo is fairly high. The pleasure gained from a photo that is cropped is marginally less high.

It seems to me your argument is selfish in the extreme and based on wanting to win a philosophical argument rather than engaging with the people on here who really know what they are talking about.

LookToWindward you really aren't reading anything are you?
No one is saying you can't take photographs for your family album.
What people are saying is that the OP was irresponsible for publishing those photographs on a social networking site after it was requested she didn't. Now neither you, I or her know if that request was made because a child at the performance is considered vulnerable and needs to be protected but do you think it's fair to take that risk?

"I've seen two - maybe three extreme cases that are so far from everyday reality that they may as well be asking that we ban cameras altogether".

far from your everyday reality. And no-one is asking to ban cameras. Just not publish pictures of school photos on the net. That's not difficult.

All my ILs thought they had thier settings on 'friends only' and didn't realise FB had changed the default so that 'friends of friends' can see. I can't BEAR ds being all over everybody's bloody FB pages.

I agree. And I also think that I shouldn't have to give what anyone else considers to be a good reason to have my child's photo 9(or my own, for that matter) on Facebook. If I did not consent to it, I don't want it. To override that is just bloody rude and selfish, IMO

It happened at my Dcs school. Somebody heavily involved with the school published pictures of her child with others on Facebook. However, her friends had friends and managed to see them. She received a formal warning because of her position in the school. Therefore I would say it depends who is publishing them.

sorry - that should have read "I shouldn't have to give what anyone else considers to be a good reason not to have my child's photo ... on FB"

This is how this works: if I take a photo in a public place (with the exception of a tiny minority of places but I don't see many family pics being taken at Nuclear power stations so we'll ignore those) or with the permission of the owner of the property / premises then that picture is mine, legally and morally. I own the picture and its copyright.

If that picture happens to include you or your children then that is tough. You have no right to your image or whatever you want to call it. You have no right to ask for it to be taken down or removed. You have no right for a copy. You have no rights with regards to my work at all.

I have over the years taken pictures of school plays, public performances, parks, leisure centres and so on. These pictures have - more often than not - included pictures of others children. I have published these pictures on my own website, on Facebook and have even sold them for publication. That's because they are my photos.

Now if somewhere has no photography rule then I will respect that - as stupid as I may think it is. I have already said elsewhere that I think the OP is BU as she is a governor and must follow both the letter and spirit of the law of the organisation she is a member of.

However, we as a country will only look to reduce or remove a right if we feel that right infringes on the rights of others or presents an undue risk to others. So for example we ban the possession of handguns as the removal of the right of ownership is considered to be a price worth paying to reduce the risk of injury / crime by allowing said ownership. Likewise we do not ban the ownership of kitchen knives as the removal of that right is considered to be unreasonable given the benefits that ownership of items bring.

We as a society do not ban the taking or publication of photographs because the risk to those in the photographs is sufficiently small that the removal of the right of public photography and expression is not considered worth the small risk it may cause. If you disagree see your local MP.

If someone chooses to foster a child from a difficult background then that decision carries a degree of risk. I - and the lack of any law proscribing it indicates that society as whole too - does not consider the banning of public photography to be a price worth paying to reduce this risk because it is extremely small.

You know, I used to be quite flexible about taking down photographs but to be honest I'm so sick of hearing complaints that I'm not "allowed" to do what I want with my shots that it's pretty much a point of principle now.

If you do not want you or your children to be caught in my shots then don't go out in public. Simple as that.

LooktoWindward do you not feel some flexibility and common-sense is needed, I have removed my Dc from the equation by not having them there at the school concert as the school would have had a policy of no photo's if we had not and I agree that is not fair. All I would ask/want is that no pictures of my DC were put on a public forum, the chances of them being photographed on the street etc is tiny and if I saw someone I would ask them not to photograph DC. There is a policy of no pictures being taken at our local leisure centres and our child's play centre.
I do agree that people should not be stopped from taking picture in public areas etc but that is very different from the way FB can be used to narrow down a location, a school and that is my problem.

We're not discussing photographs taken in a public place, though, are we? We're talking about somewhere that's specifically identifiable, where parents are invited guests at an event, and perhaps permitted to take pictures under certain restrictions. It's a mite hysterical to equate this with banning all photography in public places.

"We're not discussing photographs taken in a public place, though, are we? We're talking about somewhere that's specifically identifiable, where parents are invited guests at an event, and perhaps permitted to take pictures under certain restrictions. It's a mite hysterical to equate this with banning all photography in public places."

And it's this "certain restrictions" caveat that is ridiculous. Once that picture (copyright issues aside) is taken it is owned by the photographer and it is entirely up to them to decide what to do with it.

Either let people take photographs or don't. Anything else is unworkable.

"Most school event photos, taken by most amateur photographers are just that - snaps of a school event. Surely they are of no intrinsic value at all, and most could be allowed to quietly disappear".

Tell me - what are your family photographs worth to you? Why is that most people chose to save their family albums when asked?

"If I saw you taking photographs of my children in the street, I would ask you to stop, and I would be very angry if you didn't. I know I have no right to stop you, but surely as a society people should be courteous to each other? Or is that really too much to ask."

It isn't discourteous to take someone's photograph. It's only this recent "peado behind every corner" attitude that has even made this an issue.

"And if you actually sold pictures of my children without my permission and made money out of it I would be furious. I don't know if I could legally do anything about it, but I would surely try."

If that photo is taken in a public place then there is nothing - not a thing - you can do. I suggest you never go to a public sporting event in case you end up in the back of a paper. That's why it's called "public"...

And I do make a little money from my work so I guess some people must like them...

"If someone chooses to foster a child from a difficult background then that decision carries a degree of risk"

Shame that the child from that ?difficult? background has no choice in their history of rape, violence, abuse and neglect, that your precious photographs might just contribute to identifying their new and safe location.

Rights? You?re talking about rights?

What an arrogant, insensitive, uncaring despicable viewpoint.

LookToWindward, so you're suggesting we shouldn't allow any photography at school at all, because a minority have your kind of fuck-you atttude?
FWIW, the latest update from the Information Commissioner states that school photography can be permitted provided that the pictures are for personal use only. I'm hoping there will soon be some kind of clarity about what steps can be taken if those pictures end up on social networking sites.

"What an arrogant, insensitive, uncaring despicable viewpoint."

Tough. Everything carries a degree of risk. My job in inherently more dangerous than most. My decision, my choice. I don't expect society to revolve around me.

If someone chooses to foster then that is a good thing, but that decision carries a degree of risk. It is unreasonable to expect a wholesale change in how society functions in order to appease a risk that is statistically negligible.

If society deems that such a change is necessary then fair enough but it would take a brave politician indeed to make such a fundamental change society as to redefine "public" and "private".

"LookToWindward, so you're suggesting we shouldn't allow any photography at school at all, because a minority have your kind of fuck-you atttude?"

No I'm suggesting that schools either pander to the tiny risk of problems that photography can cause and ban it full stop or simply allow it without trying to micromanage what is a perfectly legal and normal behaviour.

"FWIW, the latest update from the Information Commissioner states that school photography can be permitted provided that the pictures are for personal use only. I'm hoping there will soon be some kind of clarity about what steps can be taken if those pictures end up on social networking sites."

1. I would love to see the legislation that the IC plans to draw on to support that.

1. Publishing your own photo to a social networking page or otherwise personal web site would still be well within the realms of "personal use" by any definition.

"Shame that the child from that ?difficult? background has no choice in their history of rape, violence, abuse and neglect, that your precious photographs might just contribute to identifying their new and safe location."

Tell you what then, let's ban newspapers, local news - in fact any broadcast television, all camera and mobile phones. They can all contribute to "identifying their new and safe location."

We could ban cars as they facilitate transporting criminals?

What about paracetamol - some people have terrible - sometime fatal reactions. Lets ban them shall we? Only safe way I suppose. It would be arrogant, insensitive uncaring and despicable otherwise wouldn't it?

Looktowindward- either you are being deliberately obtuse or you're not intelligent enough to digest these well-argued, well-reasoned posts. I don't care which.
My previous point was (in case it wasn't quite clear) - it's nothing to do with a foster carer's choice and the risk it carries. It's nothing to do with the foster carer at all. It is about the risk to the children, who have had no choice - and whose right to safety you and people like you have such little regard for.

These incidents are not isolated or negligable - they are real and happen often to the thousands upon thousands of vulnerable children in our society. A society who ought to have a moral coding running through their core, but clearly also house persons with very poor and ill-informed "arguments"

You have taken a simple question and turned this thread into a crusade for your rights as a bloody photographer, and are trying to make out that the rest of us are bleeding-heart liberals, for wanting to stand up and be counted as supporters of the vulnerable.

I know you will sleep easy tonight - and lucky you.

LooktoWindword, You just said it Your choice to accept the inherent danger, My DC never made that choice,their mother did and that choice could have had a tragic out come for them.
Given that the past was not their choice, their dangers from that past are not their choice ,Why is your choice more important then their safety?
Why are your ideals more important then the children's right to a safe and secure future?
Yes it was our choice to foster them and we are aware of the dangers, but it is also our right to protect them, Given your ideas on your rights as a photographer how do you suggest I keep them safe from the possibility that they would be very identifiable and traceable through a school picture? All I want is for their school pictures not to be on a public forum.

"All I want is for their school pictures not to be on a public forum."

Then to be blunt, if its that important don't let them appear in any school photographs.

And I actually think what Jolyon posted is actually very sensible.

"*No pics during the actual performance, but at the end photos can be taken. For children for whom child protection is an issue, or parents do not want their child's picture to be put on facebook etc, then they are removed before the photographs are taken, and group photographs are taken of children whose parents are happy that there are free access (The justification for this is that whilst they may request pics are not put on facebook etc, they cannot control what parents and other people do etc. EG, the OP may have emailed the pic across to her mother, who may then have put it up on facebook). Once the pic has been taken, there is no control over what happens, the school cannot guarantee that it is not put on any websites etc, so if you're not happy for your child's pics to be on these places, then their pic is not taken."

I'd dispute your definition of personal there, LookToWindward. I've seen no end of 'private' pictures of total strangers posted in all innocence on FB, and sent to me by friends who know I don't have an account. God only knows why they think I'm being deprived, but there you are.
And don't make ridiculous comparisons. It's surely a trifling inconvenience not to post a handful of your pictures online. 'We could ban cars as they facilitate transporting criminals', ffs. Start thinking clearly, please.

"It is about the risk to the children, who have had no choice - and whose right to safety you and people like you have such little regard for."

And the risk to a child appearing in my photographs on my website is far far far far far less than the risk to them I cause simply by driving to work.

And yet we don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

Your argument is a simple minded "won't someone think of the children" and once that is removed simply doesn't up to scrutiny.

Looktowindward I have already said that Jolyon suggestions were great and I would back them but your arguments have not really been supportive of them or not in a way that I could see, also it is her second approach that the school take the pics not the parent that I would prefer. You seem more concerned with your 'rights' the a solution