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 know, Feenie, it makes me sad to read some of the posts on this thread.
Way back before I even started the adoption process - way back before I even thought about it, if someone - anyone - had told me that they preferred that no photos of their child were distribute or published either because of child protection issues, or if it was just their personal preference that photos of their children don?t appear online or published somewhere, then I would have always respected that.

I am quite shocked at the amount of vitriol and the lengths that some people are going to, to demonstrate their rights as photographers and what the law states and bang on about who owns what in terms of hardware/photos of someone?s image/public and personal freedoms etc.

To my mind, none of that really matters - it?s a no-brainer to me. If just one child is compromised over something as simple as posting a photo on line, then that is one child too many.

Maybe it is my inalienable right to take a photo of your child and post it on my facebook page, but you can be sure that (for dozens of reasons) I won?t do it.

It's a cliche, but people are so very aware of their rights, but not of the responsibilities that come with them.

but sterry, im not talking about your personal situation, you said the majority of people, and i quoted you on that, not on the "some of us do" bit. surely you agree that for a family that do not have any problems, worrying about who could possibly see innocent pictures of their children on the internet is paranoia? i never said that victims of DV etc are the paranoid ones.

but they are a minority. and although you can reduce risk, it will never go away.

Yet you're apparently not willing to reduce that risk by not posting pictures of children who aren't yours.

I wouldn?t say that anyone worrying about their child was paranoid, because I don?t know their personal details, and for all I know, anyone who expresses concern over this issue may have a legitimate reason for not wanting their child plastered all over the internet.

I know countless people post photos of their children all the time, and I know that countless people suffer no problems whatsoever as a result of this. That?s great. You want to post photos of your own kids then post them.. You want to ost photos of other people?s kids (with permission) - then post them.

But if you have no permission, or if someone has expressly requested that you don?t, then don?t post them.

Nobody has to tell me why they?ve made that decision - I?ll assume they have a reason, and I?ll respect it. Yes, I have no doubt that some people are overly paranoid about this issue, just as some people have irrational fears about all sorts of things. But there are many, many families where there are real threats to safety - so I will always assume that there is good cause.

It's safer that way

But as i said earlier, where do you draw the line? Can I not take pictures in public at all that may contain other people?

I mean, from a DV escapee POV, it wouldnt even just include children. It could be anyone!

It?s not about not taking the pictures.
I am only speaking form my own perspective, and perhaps I wouldn?t be quite so vocal if I had no child protection issues to worry about.

Where I personally draw the line is if my child is photographed in a place that shows his geographical location (ie school, recognisable town etc) and then that photograph is published either on a school website, a social networking site or in a magazine. As a poster stated previously, some birth families can be quite adept at tracing small pieces of information about where the children may be located, and I know of several incidences personally where birth families have trawled the internet (schools in a certain town, for example) to try and find some evidence. Some (definitely not all) birth families make this their sole occupation.

Equally, it only takes someone who knows someone to identify certain people on face book, for example.

This is what concerns me, and why I won?t let me DS have his photograph taken at nursery.

If a stranger took a photo in a town centre and my DS happened to be on it, this is about as random as it gets. This would pose no greater risk to my DS then to any other child.

So the line, for me, is anything identifiable or where the parent (me) has specifically asked that the DC be removed for good reason

Adopters and foster carers receive training in this field, and we can usually sensibly assess any situation, with regards to our own DC, and make informed judgements. I suppose all that we?re asking is that it is respected, rather than tutted at

Sorry for typos in previous post - I think it still makes sense

in that case i accept your explanation, thank you for not speaking to me like im stupid just because i disagreed!

fwiw, i have never purposely disobeyed someone telling me not to put pictures online, so its all theoretical for me anyway :)

TBH Shirley it?s fairly hypothetical for me too - DS was very young when we adopted him, so chances of recognition from birth family is very slim now he?s a chunky toddler. I just think it?s that my situation makes me more aware of it.

I do like a good debate on MN that doesn?t descend into a name-calling fest! Thank you to you too!!!

you actually made me PROPER smile then. think its a lovefest rather than a name-calling fest, lol

Note: I didn't start this thread & haven't violated any requests.
I think it's useful to try to quantify the real risk.
We (Society) allow loads of things where several children out of millions might be at risk.

Anyway -- related question.
Is there a FREE computer programme to easily blur out faces in a digital clip (MOV format)? We so rarely would want to do this I don't want to have to buy any software.

We have an extremely charming video clip of DS in Xmas play. It looks best showing him with his 3 fellow angels, dancing to Slade in their shades. I want to email it to my dad but how do I blur out the other faces most cheaply?

ragged I would suggest showing granddad a video of the nativity isn't the same as posting it on a social network site and doesn't pose the same risks.

Unless he forwards the email to my uncle who forwards it to my cousin who thinks it's so cute it belongs on Utube. If I want to be totally secure, I need to blur faces out before letting the clip go to other people's computers.

Or you could be really radical and ask them not to publish it on the internet

MRZ: I can ask but I can't make sure of what happens, they might forget, that bit of text might get cut off when image is forwarded, whatever.
Just like I could post the same video to a Friends Only area on FB, with the same request about not copying or commenting or passing it on. But it only takes one person to ignore that request to create a situation that so many find unacceptable.

Anyway, I've found a a load of free editing packages. It will take a lot of time to research and figure out, and I'm terrible at downloading and installing software, will probably break something else on the computer if I try, but I will give it a try anyway.

You can ask just as schools ask and hope people are as responsible as you

In which case, why can't OP just put that same message (please don't "reproduce, copy, download or comment on these") next to her Friends-only-Access pictures that she started the thread about?

because she was asked NOT to put them there in the first place ...

I was only asked to not "publish" any pictures of DS's Xmas play.
As many have discovered recently to their peril, intended-as-private emails can easily be published. I am not so sure about it being a private medium any more.

Presumably OP can't transmit any images of other people's children by email, either -- email is, of course, on the Internet.

I wonder how that works if you have something like a Truprint account for printing photos out? I guess that she'd be in violation of the rules to do that, too.

IMO there are far too many variants, outcomes, complications and worries to legislate for this kind of issue, in the context of legality (in terms of on-line photos albums, emails etc) Facebook is a particular and intensely popular minefield, which is why it is highlighted often in these child protection issues. It is probably the most likely place for photographs to be shared and viewed by unintended recipients.
I think that best practise would be for people to be educated on the potential risks to some families, understand where there may be fears and act accordingly.
Sending an email to an uncle abroad (if it contains a photo of children who may be at risk) who may or may not forward it on to someone else he knows, is not the same as posting it on a popular online forum. The risk is incredibly minimal, but it exists, so if the sender/owner of photograph KNOWS there is a vulnerable child on the photograph, then they can take steps to avoid publishing. If not, then just send the darn thing! It is just a case of making an informed choice.
We can?t protect every child from every possible cause of harm ? we can?t wrap one another up in cotton wool, and we can?t ban everything ?just in case.? Public publication of photos of children who are known to be vulnerable is abhorrent. Sending family snaps by email to friends and relative is part of life?s rich tapestry. The two things are different
I?m not sure what more we can ask for, other than (as I have already said) respecting the wishes of families at risk.