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.

I don't really care if my reasoning stands up to your scrutiny, because your approval, believe it or not, is not something I'm interested in.

I also enjoy how you have attempted to insult me because I'm "thinking of the children". I'll wear that.

You accuse me of having a simple-minded approach. That's because the answers are clear to anyone with a modicum of sense.

You compare identifying the location of a child in care to his/her abusive birth family with a vested interest in harming the child, with a suggestion that it's on a par with "banning kitchen knive or cars" - now that's surely simple-minded in the extreme.

You mention that these incidents are rare. I suggest you read adoptionuk's rather in-depth research on this very topic. These incidents are daily. Just because they don't happen in your world, doesn't mean they don't happen.

Still - you have your dangerous job (by choice) and you've assessed all the risks, and you have a lovely photography hobby with your happy family. So fuck the rest of us.

Goodnight all

"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. "

Generally speaking concerning legislation and contractual documents, "personal use" usually means "non commercial". I've yet to see any definition of personal use that would preclude posting that content on a social networking site.

" 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."

Well seeing as I actually make some (not a lot to be fair but then this isn't my day job) income from my work I wouldn't say depriving me of an income to be a trifling inconvenience.

The analogy is quite apt though. Someone is suggesting that I stop a perfectly legal and permissible behaviour to minimise an already tiny risk. If that is fair then why not ban cars - they present a far greater risk to society than any number of photos might.

Cars are dangerous, but serve a purpose. so we minimise the risk. we have abs and seatbelts and car seats and we dont drive on the pavements and we have speed limits and headlights and we try very hard not to run people over.we minimise the risk using compromises that we dont notice because they are part of the nature of the beast.lets not ban photography - lets just realise that to some people there is a risk. and lets minimise it

this could be interesting
Sorry for the slight hijack just saw this and thought some people here might be interested

LookToWindward, if you are a professional photographer, as you appear to be suggesting, you'll be aware of the steps that need to be taken before pictures obtained in these circumstances can be used. You'll also be aware of the fact that consent to use thse pictures publicly can be withdrawn at any time. Won't you?

looktowindward - I'm genuinely interested in this.

If I happened upon your website and saw a photo for sale that had my ds on it, and I contacted you and asked you if you would remove it because (for eg) it identified a location (street name, or recognisable town) - what would you do?

"LookToWindward, if you are a professional photographer, as you appear to be suggesting, you'll be aware of the steps that need to be taken before pictures obtained in these circumstances can be used"

If you're referring to model release then you've got the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid. They're a contractual document concerning business use around publishing work. They say nothing about ownership or copyright of photographs. And I'm not a professional.

here

For example I feel its safe to say that release was not signed in these two very famous examples.

here

and here

"You'll also be aware of the fact that consent to use thse pictures publicly can be withdrawn at any time. Won't you?"

Completely and utterly incorrect.

Really? Not in school situations, I think you'll find.

Sterry are you referring to The Best Practice ideal which is what the RSPCC advocate? ie ask permission of both guardian and child, that document that they provide is not a legal document and has no standing but most professional photographers I have met [cousin is a journalist so I have met a few] seem to abide by it in relation to children.

"If I happened upon your website and saw a photo for sale that had my ds on it, and I contacted you and asked you if you would remove it because (for eg) it identified a location (street name, or recognisable town) - what would you do?"

To be honest, it depends. On how you asked, what your reason was, how much I like the photo, if I've ever published it elsewhere, what kind of mood I'm in.

I'm less inclined to do it now to be honest because I'm so sick of this attitude that photography is something to be distrusted.

And if there's one thing guaranteed to make me say no then its a "high and mighty" demand that I remove something. A polite request makes me much more understanding...

Anyway, bed calls. Good night.

"Really? Not in school situations, I think you'll find."

Can you elaborate? It's been a long time since I did any work in a school but unless something major has changed, an agreement between a school and a photographer is a contractual one and can vary depending on the requirements of both parties.

A model release is the standard way to do things and it certainly doesn't support what you've indicated above.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

There's no legislation that would support what you've claimed either IIRC?

You seem to be contradicting yourself now. But the link applies to US law in any case. UK law, as I've suggested already, needs clarification. I think a courteous thoughtful approach isn't beyond most of us.

Windward - on-one on here has been high and mighty except you

Your agenda - you are a photographer - is of course your own. But stop constructing straw dog arguments based around your assumption (yours and MrManager) that we are all obsessed about paedophiles

"won't someone think of the children"

Oh do stop going on about paedophiles

Exactly, your view is that you, Niceguy should be able to choose for me.

Oh, and "paranoid bettys".... Patronising much ?

The way I see it is, the whole furore surrounding photos on FB is because somebody might post a photo of a child. This photo may be seen by someone who then may share that photo with someone else who might be said risk to child.

Yes you are right, it may happen. Just like I got in the car this morning and someone might have crashed into it. Or I might have crashed into someone or it *may have even spontaneously exploded.

Where do you draw the line? My point is that the ones who seek to ban all photos because the above situation may happen have the line all wrong.

If it is all about child protection, why are the paranoid bettys not campaigning to ban cars. Last year 120,000 children were injured in road accidents. Or does that not matter because no-one could see them on Facebook?

Ok, could some one answer me this the so please, Why can publications magazines/papers etc blur the faces of Celebrities children on request or not and I as a parent would not be afforded the same right/courtesy. Looktowindward and Niceguy I agree that parents should be allowed photograph their own children for whatever use they want but why would you feel that you could/should have the same right over mine? I know what you are saying about the law etc but as I actively remove my DC from class photo's and now the Christmas concert/nativity surely you see that they are being denied a wonderful experience because parents want to video/ photograph the actual play not their DC?

Nobody wants to ban cars - some campaign to have them driven more carefully. Which is what (to use your metaphor) we are talking about here, regarding FB.

Smug Terry

niceguy2 - many birth families where children have been removed, will actively trawl through school websites and facebook accounts to find details of their birth children. Some of them make it their full-time job.

All they need is a little way in, and therein lies the problem.

Comparing it to being killed by a car is just not the same thing. It is about minimising the risk if we can, and respecting the privacy of children where it has been requested.

Is that so difficult?

I'm out now