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.

You could never get your pictures developed?

Just in case

I didn't say that. You said "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?", and I said No, I couldn't guarantee it. Then I explained to you why it's different.

shirleyhyypia the school requested people not to put photographs of other people's children on the internet for a reason. As altinkum has said we ask parents to wait and take photographs they want to share after vulnerable children have been removed from the group to protect them or to take photographs only of their own child.

The way I see it, not getting your photos developed would stop the risk, so there is something you could do about it, so what exactly is different?

Sorry that you have to be patient. I'm clearly so stupid that I dont understand how the internet being a big evil scary thing is different to the whole world being potentially full of danger.

This has been an interesting thread - I would probably have thought what's the harm, but many of the posters have explained situations i wouldn't have thought of and it makes a bit more sense know why folk are against their kids being on sites like FB.

Think how you would feel if schools stopped inviting parents in to share those special moments because they couldn't guarantee other children's safety

Clearly

I was patient because you read my reply incorrectly.

I don't think it's actually possible to explain to you why Facebook poses wider, real risks that are completely within your control, and why posting pictures of other people's children is irresponsible.

Unfortunately, you aren't the only selfish, stupid parent I've ever come across, and you certainly won't be the last. Post away.

I and other parents had issues with parents in the sidelines at the pool and gymnastics taking photos with telephoto lens and such but the thing is, is that you can't guarantee these people are the parents of any children there. I don't like my child being in strangers photos to be honest. I don't know what is going to happen to those photos or who has access to them.

The bottom line is that the school asked parents to respect other parents and children's right to privacy and not post pictures on the internet. Simple, plain, rightful request. You went against that. No matter that you have 'security' on your settings, (which on the internet, anywhere, is really a joke, lets be honest) you decided you were above that, and posted. I think the individual that complained should've have come to you first though. That was unreasonable. Just blank out peoples faces. Simple to do with any photo program that would come with the camera's downloading CD.

Anyway.....
You have to have permission to publish photos on FB dont you? If you find a picture you dont think should be there you can report it. e,g if someone posted a picture of your child you can report that they dont have permission and FB will eventually delete it.

shirley you havent read the thread have you?
Daily Mail - haahahahahahaa HAH!

I think legally you could take action under privacy law if someone published pictures of your child

'I think legally you could take action under privacy law if someone published pictures of your child'

I know that you can't. There are no such "laws".

Try Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Try Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Please state exactly what section of the HRA prevents publication of pictures taken in public or with the permission if the property owner.

Even better please point to case law where publication has been removed or forcibly taken down due to the HRA.

Rights of victims would offer protection
and I haven't suggested that it would prevent taking pictures with permission

"Rights of victims would offer protection "

No it wouldn't. In fact, after doing a little reading the "right to privacy" as stated in article 8 of the HRA is usually acknowledged to apply to situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not only does article 10 of the HRA (freedom of expression of the individual) guarantee the provision of public photography, the only instance where article 8 of the HRA has successfully been used to prevent the publication of photographs was the 2008 Mosley / News Group Newspapers case where it was argued that as the photographs has been taken on private property without the consent of the owner there was in fact a reasonable expectation of privacy.

www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/QBD/jul0.9.htm

As loath as I am to quote wikipedia:

here

"In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes, and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks."

As I've said, I'm a police officer and a photographer. I know what I'm talking about. You - to be blunt - don't.

You have no right to prevent the taking or publication of a photograph of you or your family as long as that photograph is either taken in public or with the permission of the land or property owner.

Guess I'd better not take photos of the snow in my street, or my kids playing in it then, just in case I catch someone elses kids in them.

Or on any sort of day trip. Or holiday. Or photos anywhere in public at all. Screw the law abiding public, everything should be altered just in case of the violent thugs and weirdos.

And I definitely shouldnt invite kids round to my house for a party or anything, I havent known my DH for his entire life, maybe hes someones psycho ex

Which seems to be why the police prevent a parent from taking photographs at a school nativity as reported in the media.

The only reason why the police would ever prevent a parent from taking photo at a school would be if the school had asked parents not to. As a private space they are entitled to do this and this is entirely as per what i have said above.

Wow, when I first read this I thought, what;s the big deal? But you guys have totally made me think about pics I put on social sites. I restrict to friends only but I never thought that they could download it and put it somewhere else (without any bad intentions) and the pics of my kids appears somewhere totally unrelated. Scary stuff!

You know, calling someone ?paranoid? for wanting to protect their child is laughable.
The majority of people probably don?t have anything to worry about.

Some of us do. It doesn?t make us paranoid, it just means that we want to keep our children as safe as we can, and there are certain sensible steps that we can take. Some of these steps require us to appeal to the goodwill and respect of people around us.
This thread has demonstrated that whilst there are some genuine and caring people in the world, there are also many who value their own rights and the letter of the law above helping out a fellow (worried) parent with something that they are justifiably concerned about.
What a shame

"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." OP was asked not too, but did anyhow. That's why she was "formally reminded of the need for internet security," even though that actual legality is slim and the officer is clearly not as versed in the law as LookToWindward. I understand wanting to post your pictures of your children on whatever social networking site you use as most have family and friends all over the world and it makes it easy to keep abreast of the family, but you must respect that other parents simply are not comfortable with having their children's image used however it may be possible.

"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". This statement makes me feel as though the OP has previously had discussions with this 'friend' about subjects as this and this 'friend' is merely making a pissy point opposed to a legitimate complaint.

"You know, calling someone ?paranoid? for wanting to protect their child is laughable.
The majority of people probably don?t have anything to worry about."

If someone worries about something that they dont need to worry about (your words), is that not paranoia?

(păr'ə-noi'ə)
n.

1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

definition of paranoia

With respect, shirleyhypia, you don?t know what I have to worry about within my personal situation.
I don?t need a dictionary definition of the word paranoia, thank you.
You have also misquoted me - my words were that the majority of people ?probably don?t have anything to worry about? - but ?some of us do?

You may not have read an earlier post from me, regarding my DS?s biological brother was tracked down by his (extremely violent and abusive) birth family, using photographs that they saw on the internet, and his safety and that of his foster carer?s was so greatly compromised that he had to be taken back into the care system and sent to a new placement, and the foster family was forced to move house.

This has direct consequences for my family and for my child. This is not a commonplace situation, I grant you, but it is not paranoia when the threat exists.

And all this aside, if anybody asked me nicely not to take photographs and publish them on the internet of their child/family/property, whatever for whatever reason, then out of common courtesy and respect, I would refrain from doing so.
I don?t get what the hardship is to people, and I don?t know why people seem to be going to such great lengths to imply that people like myself (who have legitimate safety concerns) are paranoid over-protective parents with nothing better to do with our time,
I don?t know your personal situation, but I am assuming that you have no child protection issues within the family you care for (apologies if I have made a leap to assume that) - if that is the case, then you are very lucky. And so are your children

"out of common courtesy and respect"

And therein lies the problem - some people just don't have an ounce of either.