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 just had to point out that the phrasing "hardly a minority" was inaccurate. And 1.6% has to be a high overestimate, 0.16% is closer to reality.

I have to highlight the Recognition and Needle-In-A-Haystack problems, too, for those worried about child protection.

I would not recognise DC if I didn't lay eyes on them for 3 years. I know my facial recognition systems are terrible, but I am impressed that other people's are presumed to be so good. Most toddlers look so alike, even the best facial recognition software can't completely accurately recreate what an 11yo would like from a picture of them before 5yo. Have to guess at things like hair colour, skin tone, and hair style, for instance. And that's with the highest resolution perfect presentation pictures for the starting and end points (full face, high Megapixels, etc.) Not that the best such age-enhancing facial recognition software is easily available, anyway.

On top of that, there must be literally billions of pictures of children anyone could access on the Internet. Probably 10s of millions that could easily be traced to the UK. So for a would-be-child-hunter, there's a huge amount of info to sift thru (the Needle In The Haystack).

Maybe the potentially Hunted Children would be even safter from being found online if we put even MORE pictures of children online (lacking easily identifiable info). Make the Haystack even bigger and more complicated, iyswim. This could be the best way of all to keep such at risk children safe. Complete opposite of current fashionable policy.

I'm not sure that it's right to bring into it the children on the At-Risk Register. Most children on the at-risk register are to some extent still accessible by their parents, from what I can tell. Some are still in their parents' custody, and most it's believed to be in the children's best interests (mental health) to maintain some links with their parents (so their parents do know, at least roughly, where they are).

And, a third point, to be blunt (but keep in mind I have family experience -- relatives who gave up children for fostering/adoption, so I am not out to condemn them all at all):

People who can't look after their own children properly are often very hopelessly disorganised in their lives (this is why they are not suitable parents). They are among the least likely people to be able to get hold of and use that very best facial recognition software, or to sift thru the Haystack. They are the least likely to know how to use modern technology, and to be able to afford it, too. They are least likely to have the organisational skills to observe the clues and put them together well enough to find somebody, or even to find change in their pockets for the bus fares or otherwise figure out how to get where they think the child might be.

nanny state!!! in the newspaper the other day , there was an article from the government activley encouraging parents to photo and film school productions and also stated it was not illegal to do so, if you are on a public beach any one could be photographing your kids and you wouldn't know about it.I know facebook is not 100 private even if you have all the settings, but someone would still have to search under your name or aomeone who is linked to you as a friend to know the photos were there. I think some people clearly have too much time on their hands!!! I personally have loads of photos on my face book page of my kids and other friends / family children, its a fun way to share your news

ragged surely they don't need facial recognition software to recognise their own child and often it is someone other than the disorganised (although I dispute this as some abusive parents are very organised to hide their actions) parents who sees photographs on the internet and brings them to the parents attention.

tootyflooty I saw the report and I also read the reply from a law firm that stated publishing photographs on facebook does NOT fall under personal use

When it comes to Facebook and other social networking sites... that's where you would need consent from the parents of kids in the photos.?
Tariq Sayfoo Data Protection specialist

Ragged I cant agree with that. The face recognition bit yes, I would. But the whole internet thing no.

IME birth families may not have sheets on the beds but they WILL have a laptop/pc and be very involved in social networking sites.

Not the MOST chaotic of them all, they would struggle to keep a roof over their heads but the majority are not in that extreme catagory.

My DS's birth mum has a presence on just about every networking site and is online a large part of the day. She is not unusual. Its something that comes up often on training/social days with other adoptive parents.

She cannot hold a job down, she is only functionally literate and she has few social skills, but boy does she know her way round the internet.

Must just be my relatives who are so technologically inept, then :)

I couldn't recognise my own DC if I didn't see them for a few years, especially if I last saw them as toddlers. I must have very bad facial recognition skills, though.

I was thinking realistically an individual could scrutinise a maximum of 3000 images a day sustainably (day in day out, assuming no other paid work or similar that needed doing every day -- facial recognition software would be slower, probably). On Facebook alone I guesstimate that there are ~100million relevant pictures (24 million UK users having 5 pix each).
So that would take one person 3333 days to search all the images on Facebook -- about 9 years. That's assuming they could gain access to all the pix in "Friends Only" areas.

And Facebook is only getting bigger and bigger.

That's only Facebook, what about pix on Blogs, MN profile, other Social Networking sites, family websites, etc.? How long would it take to search all those? Even if you had several helpers with equal enthusiasm and time?

Make the haystack even bigger and the needles will be even more impossible to find.

I think its getting easier in some ways. If you have no information at all -yes I agree with you about the haystack thing. But nowdays birth families have bits on information (often from court records in error). If you have a bit of a name (and the majority of adopted children keep their birth names) and an area it doesnt take that long to get a short list.

As more and more kids are going on the interent there is also the problem of them seeking access to birth parents without the knowledge of their parents.

Its only going to get worse.

ragged it isn't even a case of searching the internet the risk is that children can be found purely by chance and yes it is a very small number of reported occurrence but surely a single child put at risk is reason enough not to publish if specifically asked not to.
Has anyone thought that the school made this request because there was a child taking part who falls into the at risk category?

"When it comes to Facebook and other social networking sites... that's where you would need consent from the parents of kids in the photos.?
Tariq Sayfoo Data Protection specialist"

Can't be bothered to argue all the points raised here but I wanted to address the above as its complete horseshit.

You absolutely do not need permission of parents or anyone else to publish photos that you have taken either in a public place or with permission of the property owner.

The photographer owns the copyright and can do as they please with them. No permission or agreement is needed. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

I say this as police officer and photographer.

And publishing to Facebook or other social networking site - or indeed on the internet full stop would be classed as personal use under the terms of every contract I have ever seen.

Just curious, what is the worst that can happen if the photos get into the reach of someone undesirable?

Do you seriously think that a paedophile/child murderer will "fancy" one particular child so much after seeing their picture that they will hunt them down?

If this is seriously true, there is nothing you can do to keep your children safe! Short of putting all children in full length burkas and keeping them on a leash!!

Theres a big difference between careful and paranoid...

"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."

The children of celebrities are usually pixelated due an informal voluntary "agreement" with most of the media in the UK. Basically the expectation is that children of celebrities etc are more at risk due to the high profile of their parents.

However it is an a voluntary agreement and not everyone adheres to it.

shirleyhyypia Fri 17-Dec-10 17:45:51

Just curious, what is the worst that can happen if the photos get into the reach of someone undesirable? hmm

A child can die

As people keep repeating the risk isn't from random paedophiles taking a liking to a random.
The main risk is from people who know /have known the child!

Paranoid.

Also paranoid that people who know the child might spot the untagged photo on an entirely different persons private profile.

Read the DM much

Involved in child protection much?

Nah, thought not.

So you work in a profession that justifiably makes you paranoid. That doesnt prove me wrong though.

No I work in child protection and personally know a family who had to flee of our area because of a photograph on facebook ... because of people like you

People like me?

Ah I see. As a normal parent who wants to share moments of my childs life with my friends and family, on my private profile, it is my fault that there are nutters in the world?

Get a grip.

And you can guarantee, can you, that Facebook will not default to other settings? Or that every single one of your friends won't leave their profile open on a computer that isn't private? You can personally guarantee this?

Yes people exactly like you who don't thing about /care about the consequences for others as long as you can do as you like.
Put pictures of your child on your private profile but don't put other people's children at risk!

Of course I cant.

But can you guarantee that the person developing your photos in the shop is always appropriate? Or that they arent the violent ex partner that a family has escaped from?

No, because there's nothing you can do about that. But there is something you can do about putting pictures on Facebook - don't put other people's children on just in case, since you can't possibly know the implications if you do. It's called being responsible.