Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Daily posts of baby on FB

283 replies

shebird · 22/07/2015 16:46

A family member had a baby 6 months ago. Since the day baby was born she posts at least 3 photos and sometimes videos of baby together with updates on baby's weight, sleep and how much she's has expressed Hmm I thought this might have dwindled out as baby got older but it's not looking likely.

I'm aware that I can hide her posts and I am not having a moan about how annoying I find FB. My concern is for the child's privacy. We are not talking the odd cute photo here, pretty much all of this child's life to date has been documented on FB. Do children not have a right to have everything shared online or AIBU?

OP posts:
Ilovecrapcrafts · 24/07/2015 11:12

I agree with a lot of this but do believe that whilst employers check FB very few HACK in to look at private stuff. Even fewer check employees parents.

It astonishes me that so many people don't have private FB but it's common sense to lock it down.
Of course the real worry is FB changing it's privacy policy and making previously private stuff public

rabbitstew · 24/07/2015 11:36

Miggsie - so you would hack into someone's private profile on Facebook to see if they post photos of their baby to friends? And would do the same to their parents' profiles, to see if their parents posted photos of them as babies? And you would then judge them as immature??

rabbitstew · 24/07/2015 11:40

You realise that talking to strangers on mumsnet could be viewed as immature and risky behaviour, too?

EllieFAntspoo · 24/07/2015 18:09

You realise that talking to strangers on mumsnet could be viewed as immature and risky behaviour, too?

Do you mean talking to a stranger about any subject is 'immature'? If I talk to stranger in a shop about the weather, that's immature?

Or did you mean posting personal information online for all to see in a public forum would be classed as immature by the previous poster's interpretation?

EllieFAntspoo · 24/07/2015 18:11

I agree with a lot of this but do believe that whilst employers check FB very few HACK in to look at private stuff. Even fewer check employees parents.

They don't need to. For the companies who need such services, there are professional consultancies who provide that information.

Ilovecrapcrafts · 24/07/2015 21:22

Ellie- I'm suggesting they wouldn't hack into a website for moral reasons, not technical ones. Can't see, say the NHS or BT paying a consultant to hack into facebook to check up on new hires and their parents.

wiltingfast · 24/07/2015 21:32

Plus Ellie, no one is interested in the baby photos on someone's parents' fb page, seriously.

Plus there is simply nothing scandalous about people's baby photos.

Not even the PMs.

Nor the Pope's.

Or the next CEO of Microsoft.

Not even the kardashians Grin

What jobs are you thinking this might be an issue for? I'm baffled.

EllieFAntspoo · 25/07/2015 06:43

I'm suggesting they wouldn't hack into a website for moral reasons, not technical ones. Can't see, say the NHS or BT paying a consultant to hack into facebook to check up on new hires and their parents.

Because there are moral issues in the world of business? And the NHS is well known for doing the right thing and not the wrong moral thing? Secret removal of body parts and burning foetuses to heat hospitals not ring any 'moral' bells with you? Yes, we can all speculate on the 'moral' position the NHS may take when it comes to their staff and the public.

Besides, the NoW did not hack into anyone's mobile phone or listen to anyone's voicemail messages. They paid a company for information and read transcripts.

Consultants produce reports of the suitability of job candidates. The buyer of those services doesn't give a shit where that information comes from. They care only about its accuracy in helping them make a decision, and if they do a good job screening out the duds, and have done so in the past, everyone wins. Except of course the idiot with the online footprint the size of Lady Gaga.

EllieFAntspoo · 25/07/2015 07:02

There are two distinct issues, and people conveniently focus on one and ignore the other...

The first, and the one being focused on, is that of the photos themselves and that of outing and normalising social openness in a child's life. You can encourage it and post a few picures of baby every day for for here until eternity. All that does is produce a mass of photos and paint an image of said persons background, home environment, social standing and likely value system. No biggie so long as said child and parent understand where this is going for them in the future.

The second, is that of personal security. From a litany of photographs and the accompanying text, a person can garner the most intimate personal information. DoB, Place of Birth, Mother's Maiden Name, First Pets Name, details of all their relatives and siblings. You can bury your heads in the sand and pretend it is not important, but if a single individual can do that with a single comprehensive FB feed, imagine what a small group of individuals can do both access to data from more than one source.

Besides, who really cares? If a bank account is hijacked, or an entire identity cloned, who really gives two hoots other than the muppet who was lazy about their own privacy in the first place. It's more of a learning experience for those stupid enough not to protect themselves, than anything else. The only difference here is that a child in not deciding to compromise their own security, the parent is deciding to do it to them.

Lioninthesun · 25/07/2015 09:07

I had my phone and cards stolen recently whilst shopping - I had my hand on the trolly and turned to get some veg (so says cctv) and she nipped in and had it in a flash. The police said they had to hand it to her, she was very good and went on to get 3 handbags in the same shop within 30mins.
She targeted me, and the other women and got what she wanted. The policeman said he would usually talk about security and how to avoid these thefts but considering the variety of people and ways she stole he couldn't really offer anything as he could see I didn't leave the trolly once, merely turned my head.

I had to cancel everything. My bank then decided not to believe who I was because they asked security questions. Yes - there were the normal ones which I think are outdated and will be passed over soon - but what I failed on was my balance and the fact I called the account something slightly wrong (I recently changed it and forgot). Of course I was saying my balance from a couple of days previously and attempting to remember if anything else had gone in/out. For all I knew she had spent £££ and that was why I failed. I was trying to see if she had attempted to use the card to tell the police which shop she had been in so they could access the cctv and trail her, which they had asked me to do. I couldn't access my online bank because I needed my card for the reader. I was locked out of my account for 2 days. I could still however go into town with ID and get money over the counter.

I also had this happen to me when I was 19 and someone stole the only credit card I've ever owned which was connected to my mortgage. He ran up 3k. I got it back because the bank knew it wasn't me.

My points are:
a) If you are targeted IRL or online there is probably little you can do - they will find a way to get what they want
b)Even if they get your bank card/details and get to work, there are back up options to have access to money to live on
c) Although it is emotionally stressful and frustrating, no actual harm came to me or my dc
d) Money taken out of any account by theft will be reimbursed
e) Online accounts are far harder to hack due to the number of card readers and special pass codes needed - hardly information anyone is going to put on fb.

Still not getting your point about why parents posting pics of their children would be used against them by some huge unsmiling consultancy agency who will doubtless have their work cut out for them in 18 years time filtering through 100's of applicants fb (if it still exists), all of their parents posts and extended family posts to see if Junior gets drunk on weekends.
FWIW your neighbour is more likely to know all of the information you seem worried about.

WhyStannisWhy · 25/07/2015 09:11

I regularly post pictures of DD and posted a lot more in the early days. We live two hours away from the nearest family so it meant they got to see her growing up, and I'm the first of my friendship group to have a DC as I did it quite young, so I had lots of excited classmates wanting more and more pictures over the summer holidays Grin

Lioninthesun · 25/07/2015 09:19

I do get your point about building up the child's security by protecting the obvious questions online. I don't honestly think there is much you can do to protect then; their online presence starts the minute they are born - sports centre cards with our addresses on for family discounts, library cards ditto - neither of these systems are very secure and could provide information for most of the children in the country I imagine.
I get that posting about Fluffy the new hamster could possibly be giving a security question away, but it also might not. Your kids identity could have been cloned after a library hack where they can see mothers maiden name, address, selection of books the child likes to read and possibly link to the school library, thus knowing first school etc.

Lioninthesun · 25/07/2015 09:23

In fact several places also scan birth certificates and passports - library and her school for starters - so, if hacked, they'd have access to that number, a pic, a copy of ID etc. No one is likely to have a scan of their own or their kids passport/bc on their own computer, so far better for hackers to target something else, surely?

captainproton · 25/07/2015 09:43

DH is a victim of identity fraud, he moved out of a rented property in 2011, of course he must have still been getting junk mail to that address. He had a debt collector after him for a phone and catalogue debt that had not been paid. He signed up to experian and they found out someone was claiming to be him still living at the old address after he moved. A little digging online reveals you can buy very good fake utility bills with whatever name you like to take as proof of address.

Also your details can be bought and sold from things like the electoral register or whether you donate to a charity.

rabbitstew · 25/07/2015 09:58

I suspect EllieFAntspoo deliberately feeds the neighbour false information, in case said neighbour turns out to be a spy or a blabbermouth. The best course of action in life is never to tell anyone the truth about anything. The walls have ears.

Yes, of course the more information someone has about you, and the easier it is for them to find it, assuming everything you have said about yourself is true, which often isn't the case, the easier they will find it to pretend to be you. However, to get access to your money, they don't actually need much information at all. Besides which, your most sensitive and accurate information is held by notoriously leaky services, like HMRC, the NHS, the Passport Agency, banks (which have been known to leave client details lying about in rubbish sacks outside their premises), the General Register Office etc, so identity theft really could happen to anyone who is known to live here legally. You only really have to give your information to an organisation once to have increased your risk that this information will find its way into the wrong hands.

The ideal identity theft, of course, is of someone who is already dead, as then you don't have to risk bumping into them. Whoever it happens to, it's an awful thing to happen and there is little point being smug and pretending they deserved it, because actually, it can happen even to those who think they are being careful. So yes, do think about what you are telling people online, but don't think that by being careful you are therefore safe, because you aren't, and if you worry about that fact too much, you will spend your life in a state of paranoid anxiety.

wiltingfast · 25/07/2015 10:07

Glad to see you've dropped objections to baby photos Grin

The security questions issue is more valid point but unless you go around lying all the time that info is fairly public already.

Still fb is an obvious target as it's all in one place. Might take the dob's off. Can't do much about the rest.

EllieFAntspoo · 25/07/2015 11:46

Incidentally, the EU has issued (months ago) a warning to European citizens that if they wish to protect their privacy they should leave Facebook. Now I don't know about you, I don't tend to believe much of the bullshit published by Governments, but for the rabid brandishers of government published statistics and proclamations among us, there's your own data source telling you to get the fuck off Facebook for your own safety.

Still, if a person can see someone's FB account, and work out where they live, when they were born, where they were born, etc. his most of the key data points, That person could pretty easily fuck up your life and bring you a world of grief for a few years.

It may not have happened to you, it may never happen to you, you may be protected by the magic internet fairies, but are you really going to roll the dice and gamble on your kids safety in the same way? And do you honestly believe you know for certain how people will or will not be judged by society and employers twenty years from now?

shebird · 25/07/2015 12:08

This has certainly raised more issues about security than I had considered. I guess we all need to be mindful of how much information is out there and do our best to limit this without total paranoia.

I am still not happy about oversharing photos and details of my DCs daily stuff online. I don't buy the 'it's only a baby' thing, might as well say 'it's only a puppy'. This little person won't always be only a baby and my concern is about our young people growing living their lives online subject to 'likes' and 'comments'. I feel a bit sad for kids of celebrities photographed out and about going about their daily business(although I'm aware that in some cases this is staged) and this is just a micro version of this everything's out there, look and me I'm so fabulous please like me world we live in these days.

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 25/07/2015 12:13

I don't think many people over twelve or under 30 use Facebook anymore.

Posting daily pictures of your new child is completely understandable and probably pretty common. Why wouldn't you? You've just had a baby, you are probably obsessed - I was.
It's harmless.
Posting stuff about older children is more of an issue. I rarely post stuff about DS2 because he has SN and cannot voice an opinion. I only post stuff about DD if she is happy about it and I have a very small FB presence.
My eldest son is fiercely private and, understanding this about him, I rarely refer to him on line at all.
I'd like to because he's fucking awesome but he won't let me Grin

If the op was talking about unusual information or about posting personal details about an older child I might agree but as it is I think this is nonsense.

Pagwatch · 25/07/2015 12:17

Yes - and that x-post confirmed I don't agree.
It's a baby. It's just human nature that some want to share every moment, burp and giggle. Most of us resist the urge but lots do not. One of my friends posts loads of pictures of her young dc. It's joyous.

My FB is for my friends. If I really want to sneer at what they are posting I defriend or hide them.

rabbitstew · 25/07/2015 12:17

The EU warning was with respect to EU citizens protecting themselves from US security services. I don't think US security services are interested in the bowel habits of babies. Also, they spy on the EU all the time - absolutely none of our data is safe, regardless of what the law says. And the EU spies on its own citizens all the time, too - it's just that it doesn't make this fact as public as the US does (or its rogue spies do...) about its own snooping. If you are so bothered about this, EllieFAntspoo, I really don't understand why you have an e-mail address and use the internet. You are leaving your trail all over the place.

sherbetpips · 25/07/2015 12:21

We had a lady at work who used those wrap carriers, she even set up a sling exchange, every friggin day was her and baby with the same gormless expression in a sling wrap. Even when it was nearly two. Had to unfriend.

EllieFAntspoo · 25/07/2015 12:50

rabbit Like I said, no one can protect us from a Government if they were gunning for you. I was merely making a point as to the hypocrisy of some who brandish government statistics and proclamations, and selectively ignore those that don't suit their agendas.

My primary concern for my children's safety is making sure their names, dates and places of birth, our address, my maiden name, and details of their lives are not published and stored online in the public domain for eternity.

I cannot stop that information being available to my Government. It is required by law, but I can stop that information being available to anyone on FB, and I can choose not to provide that information to Amazon, Boots, Bounty, etc. You cannot stop your person information from being sold to anyone with a computer and the willingness to pay, and you have no legal mechanism to protect your privacy online. So the ONLY tool you have is to prevent the data being placed in the first place to the best of your ability.

Now, you may not give a shit. That's your choice. But to decide you don't give a shit about your children's right to privacy. That's a little morally questionable.

There is clearly a difference between posting a photo or two on your FB account, and displaying half a dozen a day on a blog about their life.

I really have no horse in this race. I couldn't really give a F if someone else's kids have problems in later life due to indiscretions online. I choose to leave those decisions for my children to make for themselves rather than predetermining their public persona for them from birth.

Pagwatch · 25/07/2015 13:02

I'm still struggling to understand what damage could possibly be done to a child in later life by their parent posting pictures of them in a cute baby grow at 6 months old or even mentioning that they filled three nappies that morning.

rabbitstew · 25/07/2015 13:30

EllieFAntspoo - no, you came on here to crow about the idiocy of someone telling the world how often she is expressing milk for her baby... yet you have failed to come up with a single reason why that is dangerous information. Not all information is dangerous information, yet you saw fit to preach as though you are the only person in the world who isn't an idiot.