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.

Technical glitch, BPB. I've asked for it to be removed.
Isn't a worldwide license to use the pictures in practice the same thing as ceding control over what happens to them?

It only brings everyone to their own profile, not yours, so don't worry about it.

BPB

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

So they get a license that they can sell to anyone they like, with no royalties to you, and you can only withdraw that license if the photos are never shared with your friends. Hmm.

It's not even my profile! One of DS's sons must have been using the computer. Am I BU to have a quick peek?
Sorry, back to topic.

Sons? Friends, even. Maybe I'll get back to the kitchen now.

ragged you asked Maryz, how would this parent/sibling find a link to your DD?

We have a case locally where a mother had left an abusive parent and moved 250 miles with her children to start a new life someone did exactly what the OP did and by pure chance a relative of the abusive partner saw the pictures and told him. The result was the family have had to pack up and move again for their safety. Yes the chances of it happening are very remote but would you want to take the risk and put a child in danger?

MrManager paedophiles are pretty low down on the list of concerns

MRZ: I was asking specifially about finding a Facebook link to Maryz's DD. Approaching them physically in person is a different matter, I'll easily concede.

BonniePrinceBilly is probably right, though, if you desperately need to keep your DC hidden then you keep them out of situations where they are likely to be imaged and those images widely reproduced beyond your control. It's the safest way forward.

Sorry I wasn't clear the father's relative found the photographs on facebook and brought them to his attention. An unfortunate coincidence brought about by people acceptiong friends requests from people they don't know well in real life and one that could have had a disastrous result

ragged so you think children who are at risk (many who have suffered in their short lives) should be locked away from the world and not allowed to take part in school nativities or go to parties or sport's day or all the other things that make memories as they grow? Or should adults act in a responsible manner and not post photographs containing other people's children on social networking sites?

In our case we have adopted a child from within OH's family.

Birth mother actually knows where we live but that is not the main issue. Given a photo of DS in school uniform she could track down where he goes to school and turn up outside the playground. She would probably be removed quickly but not quick enough so she couldnt get a few 'they hate you and stole you from me' type comments in first.

She also has a presence on just about every social networking site in existance. Ones you wouldnt even have heard of. Without exception they feature photos of her in soft porn poses and are highly sexualized. She likes to post details and photographs of her children along side photos of her with her tits out. This is why she is no longer allowed access to photos of DS.

If someone posted photos of him on FB it wouldnt take long for her to get hold of them.

As mrz says, peados are not really my concern. But I would rather not have photos of my son next to a woman with her legs spread and the caption Mother You Would Like to Fuck.

FB is becoming a massive problem for families involved in adoption and fostering.

"'if you desperately need to keep your DC hidden then you keep them out of situations where they are likely to be imaged and those images widely reproduced beyond your control. It's the safest way forward.'

For the child though it can be very unfair as they deserve the chance to live a normal life and the Christmas carols or school play is part of normality for them. Adults need to grow up and respect the rules on this or work for it to be changed or to gain understanding on why they are so.

Its got nothing to do with photos.
Its got nothing to do with child protection.
This is 'AIBU?' not 'Am I Being Legal?'

The school (of which you are a govenor FGS) asked you not to do something and you did it anyway.
You got found out. Maybe you're embarrassed and now looking for some kind of defence.

So they get a license that they can sell to anyone they like, with no royalties to you, and you can only withdraw that license if the photos are never shared with your friends. Hmm

Mrmanager, the part of the T&C you have copied above does not prove your point!

The permission you give facebook wrt your photos is to share them with who you tell them to. I.e applications, games within the facebook environment etc . They do not share/sell/give away your photos to anyone. If they don't have this permission, then games & applications can't use your information.

You are giving them permission to share your pictures as you instruct. This was made very clear a couple of years ago during a huge 'privacy settings' overhaul!

Thecoalitionneedsyou - I don?t know about documented cases, but my son (who we have adopted) has a biological brother who was seriously abused by his birth family. He was fostered by a family who lived a few miles from birth family. His photograph was published on his school?s website and in their newsletter, and the birth family saw this, and waited at the school gate for him. I won?t go into any more details in case of identification, but his safety and that of the foster family were greatly compromised.

Many adoptive families live within the same county as the birth families. It is not too far a stretch to imagine that someone might recognise a child, particularly if their name or features are distinguishable.

The trouble with school photographs, as Maryz has stated, is that children are readily geographically identifiable, and some birth families do try and actively seek their removed children in this way.

When we adopted DS, one of the conditions of the adoption was that we do not publish photographs of him anywhere (in paper or digital form) until he is older and not so recognisable to his birth family. We are also not allowed to go into the city where his birth family live. I would hope that my request to his nursery (and in the future his school) that NO photographs of him be published in any way - including on Facebook - would be respected.

Niceguy2 - I shall certainly not remove my son from school activities where he might be photographed, when there is a protection policy in place, Adopted children have plenty of other trauma in their lives without being ostracised and isolated. The very real threats that adoptive parents have discussed on this thread, are not stupid or mythical. You are obviously very fortunate that you don?t live in that fear of being identified.

when the entire country, every supermarket, every corner shop, post office and newsagent has CCTV , photographing all of us all day long whether we like it or not, I can't see the harm in a few innocent school photos.

I sympathize with the adoption story and can see the logic in this.

thefirstMrsDevere - It seems to me that if she know where you live the issue of publishing photos is a bit moot :(

mrz/sterryerryoh - thank you for providing some examples - this does establish that it's not only possible, but does happen. The next thing that needs to be done is to quantify the risk.

It's a complicated thing to do to balance risk against freedom.

"Presumably you are an adult, what are you doing on facebook?"

I have cousins of almost 60 on FB!

nitsparty the issue has nothing to do with parents taking photographs of their child's nativity it is about posting photographs containing other children on social networking sites and unknowingly putting a child at risk by revealing their location.

Sterry, I have every sympathy for your situation. I do and I understand where you are coming from.

But do you not see the total irony in your own argument?

So YOU have an issue with photos being taken. Like I said, totally understandable. So instead of protecting your son by removing him from the activity, instead you prefer to ensure everyone else is banned from taking photos. Why? Because there's always going to be a risk of someone sneaking a quick snap and it falling into the wrong hands yes?

But you want to ensure your son doesn't miss out on growing up so you choose to balance this risk with the fact the school has a protection policy in place yes?

Well that is all everyone else wants. The freedom to choose like you have. The point is that your freedom to make that choice has come at the cost of everyone else's.

Like I said, i sympathise with your situation and can also see your logic. But I can also see other people's logic too. Like myself. Yes you are right, I am fortunate. I tell myself and my kids all the time we are very fortunate. We live in a country where we have freedoms. And with that freedom comes balance. All I'm arguing for is a modicum of common sense. Why should I and 200 other parents be denied something as innocent as taking a few photos of our kids and sharing said snaps with our friends? Blurring out others in the background simply is not a reasonable solution.

If we wanted child protection bar none then the logical choice is to make cameras illegal. I mean if they exist in theory someone could take a picture whilst you walk down the street yes? If you don't support that then you therefore must admit there needs to be a balance somewhere yes?

Not really coalition. In our case is more what she would do with the photographs. Also can you imagine how parents of the other children in any photo would react to their child being on one of the websites I described ?
She does know where we live but she doesnt know where he goes to school and this is a big issue for adopted children or those in care. If she turns up at my house she has to get past me, if she turns up at the school she has a good few minutes to cause mayhem before she is carted off.

For other more 'traditional' adoptive families the issue is even more worrying.

It seems no matter how chaotic many birth families's lives are, they are still very internet savvy and I know my DS's b.mum is all over social networking sites.

(sorry for all the long sentances and crap grammar/spelling - teething baby)

I started to read this thread, but then a couple of Daily Mailers appeared, wittering on about political correctness gone mad, and kids wearing goggles to play conkers (which, incidentally, is not a true case - it was a headmaster taking the piss!). I couldn't cope with reading that - I already have to bleach my eyeballs whenever I visit my mother and see her digesting every word of that hateful paper like it's gospel.`

I work in a school, and am responsible for ensuring that photographs are taken in a responsible manner. As someone mentioned earlier with the reference to the women's refuge, there are a million and one reasons why a parent would not want a photo of their child to be on the interenet, from the horrible cases of domestic abuse to the celebrity families trying to maintain some semblance of privacy for their children.

Just because your circumstances are different you have absolutely no right to jeopardise the safety of other people's children (or your own for that matter). And I'm not just speaking to the OP here, but to anyone who thinks that they should take a stand against "political correctness gone mad".

The main reason I have to ban all parents taking any photos is because so many have the mentality of "oh, but I'm special / better than everyone else / have a better understanding of security / insert other crap excuse here", and then promptly stick their high res, digital pics, showing the faces (and sometimes even names) of other children on their unprotected FB page. So because of those fools I have to ban everyone, and then hire a professional photographer and carefully control the use of his photos.

Does this perhaps explain to you why the school has to take this job so seriously????

*Niceguy2 - you do have interesting points, and I do see that there has to be a balance. I don?t have an issue with people taking photographs- but (with a smidge of a reference to the OP) I have an issue with those photos being taken and then published, when there is a protection policy in place,

The nursery that my son attends has asked me if I am happy for him to be photographed and those photographs to be used in publicity - I have said ?no? to this. They have a protection policy in place, and this is one of the reasons I sent him there. If there were no policy in place, then I would take other steps to ensure that my son was protected, - which would include removing him from activities which would compromises his safety. In my earlier post I did specify that I would NOT remove him from activities when there is a protection policy in place as I would hope and trust that the policy would be adhered to - it wasn?t adhered to in the OP.
My post was pointing out one of the many reasons why these policies exist. If they exist, they should be adhered to. If they do not exist, then it is up to the parents (like me) to ensure other measures are taken.

In my case, it is not so worrying. We adopted our son when he was 4 months old, and he doesn?t have an unusual name. chances of identification are slight. But they exist.

I am not asking anyone to stop taking a few snaps and sharing them with friends and family - the risk is minimal and as others have said, there are bound to be photos of my son taken in public places that I am not even aware of. But sites like Facebook are a potential minefield for adoptive families, and it isn?t really affecting people?s human rights too much to request that they don?t publish photographs of other people?s children on the internet.

I don?t think that photographs should be banned in school, and I don?t think anyone should be denied the pleasure of taking photographs of their children. Of course not. However, if there is a policy in place, I would hope that other parents (and particularly school governors) would adhere to it, and understand that there may be very valid reasons for it.
If we are given a promise by a school or other institution, surely it?s fair to expect that it actually is adhered to?