Taking photos in local pool-have I over reacted?

[williwonti]

I don't think so but have a knot in stomach. Basically, glanced at man sat next to me (maybe 18/20 yrs old) and he'd just taken a picture of my son and no other child in shot. He then took a short vid and another picture which included his sister. We were waiting at side during their swimming lessons. It was done very casually and I didn't get any weird vibes. I think he was probably/hopefully messing with phone as that's how it felt. But there are posters saying no photography! Now, ordinarily i have no issues asking people to conform (think mother and baby space offenders) but he was with all family and i was on own with baby. I panicked a bit and then just told the instructor after to pls clamp down on it. She wasn't impressed and insisted on following him and asking him to delete any taken. I know i should have tapped him on shoulder myself and asked him not to but it didn't feel right. He did not know he was my son as i was sitting away a bit. I feel awful that he will have been stopped but thought of random nan with pics of my son would feel worse i'm sure. Did i over react?

I classify images of child sexual abuse. Some of the below may be uncomfortable reading for some, so I would like to label this post with a trigger warning.

I have yet to see a photograph of a child in a swimming pool classified as an illegal photo.

That said, I know that many paedophiles have large collections of these sorts of "innocent" shots alongside their illegal collections. The police term photos like this as "indicative", as in they may be considered indicative of a sexual preference for children alongside other evidence.

I've seen "pseudo" photographs of child sexual abuse. An editing tool such as photos hop is typically used to transpose a different head on to a photo of child sexual abuse. We often know the original photo so they are easy to spot. The "new head" is usually that of a child tv star, but some are of unknowns.

Pseudo photographs of child sexual abuse are rare. I don't have the stats to hand, but would estimate they are less than 0.1% of the illegal images seen.

From a personal perspective, I wouldn't be comfortable having a photo of my child freely available to others, knowing what a small percentage of the population would use it for. I have the cute bath photos, they are just taken in a private setting and stored offline. I know it wouldn't harm my child if someone masterbated to their photo, but I still wouldn't like it to happen.

I know the OP wasn't talking about bath shots btw. I don't own any swimming pool photos as I am a rule follower, so that wouldn't have been a good example for me to use for illustration.

We asked once if we could take one photo when I took DD for her first time swimming and they refused. I even asked if I gave my phone to life guard could they take one photo then give phone to DH, again they refused.

I was a bit miffed but understood. The lad who did it shouldn't have. And you said something and it was right

Of course I know what you can do with photoshop but it still doesn't explain why my child is harmed by it.

If a paedophile took a photo of my child dressed, photoshopped it onto a naked child's body and masturbated over it, how does that harm my child?

If you are that worried about someone masturbating over the photo of your child in the swimming pool what about someone who is just imagining your child and masturbating thinking about her, aren't you just as worried about this?

My point is not to welcome paedophiles masturbating (there is no evidence either way on whether harmless sexual relief of harmful fantasies either prevents or encourages their realisation) but to show that we are focusing on the wrong thing. Nothing bad will happen to my child if she is photographed by anyone, even in the unlikely event that she is photographed by a paedophile. And if a paedophile targets a specific child, preventing him from taking photos of her is useless.

It is much better to focus on educating and empowering children, believing them when they speak up and giving them a way out of abusive situations than spending time on the nonsensical photography issue.

It's not about paedophiles though - it's about an expectation of some sort of privacy when you are in an undressed (therefore vulnerable) state. I'm not a child, but would be very uncomfortable with someone taking photographs of me in my bathing suit - I'm sure many others would feel the same.

To be fair up until now the thread has been about pedophiles.

As for expectation of privacy your argument sounds a bit odd. When you attend a public swimming pool you know you will be in a bathing suit and other people will be there, do you expect them to avert their eyes as you walk past? Because if there is an expectation of privacy in a public area then this is what they should do. I also do not agree with you about the vulnerability argument. While you may feel vulnerable in a swim suit that is not a general expectation, people who go to a swimming pool expect to be in a swim suit and see others in a swim suit so the vulnerability claim doesn't make much sense. No one is inherently vulnerable naked, e.g. on your own, naked in your bedroom you are not inherently vulnerable.

you are ignoring the fact that there are notices posted in swimming pools, gyms, change rooms etc saying NO PHOTOS> These notices are there for good reason.

These notices are there for good reason.

What is the good reason?

We shouldn't take photos in pools.
Why not?
Because there are notices up saying we should not take photos in pools.
But why are there notices up?
Because we should not take photos in pools.

Do you see the problem? The mere presence of the notices does not guarantee they were put up for good reason.

I've never seen a notice in a changing room telling you not to take photographs btw. I think it's fairly obvious why you shouldn't. I always see other women walking about with mobiles but I don't think they're taking pictures of me. If I was famous though, I wouldn't get changed at the gym; I'd go straight home to shower because I think some people would be tempted to take a sneaky pic. A newspaper would be very unlikely to buy it, but that wouldn't stop stupid people trying.

I was a competitive swimmer and my parents and my friends' parents took lots of pictures of us. So did the local paper and we stuck them in a scrap book. They presumably wouldn't be allowed now.

Many people do feel vulnerable in swimsuits boob but they overcome their anxiety in order to go swimming, especially if their children really want to go swimming. Those individuals would feel even more vulnerable if a strange somebody was on the poolside taking photographs of them without permission.
I know that I force myself to go swimming in order to take my children and I hate being seen in a swimsuit so I only ever wear a shorts style all in one swimsuit and I get into the water as quickly as possible (even though I am a size 10). I would be mortified and angry if somebody took a photo of me wearing my swimsuit and I would feel the same if somebody took a photo of my children wearing their swimsuits.

I think the wrong question is being asked. It shouldn't be 'Why can't you take photos at a swimming pool?', but rather, 'Why would you want to take photos of children you do not know, in particular, when they are in a state of minimal dress?'

I wouldn't be happy if people were taking photos of specifically me without me knowing. I mean, if you want my photo, why would you do it surreptitiously, without asking? By not doing it above board, it does make you wonder if there is something less than wholesome about why the photos being taken. Why would it be any different for children?

I don't worry so much about photoshopping etc, but I do worry about somebody targetting my children. It's a limited number of people go to swimming classes at the same time every week. Kids often attend in school uniforms. Names would be overheard. It'd be very easy to pick up kids names, parents names, know what car someone drove, have a good idea where they live based on school uniform. Normally this is of no concern, but then you start wondering, why does this person also seem to need a photo of my child. Again, it's just not quite right.

I also think it has to do with respect. When children are at swimming classes, they are learning. Would you mind if a complete stranger walked into school and decided to photograph just your child, or if a parent decided they needed to get some photos of their kids at their desk at school? That wouldn't be right either. So why is it okay in a pool?

"Wished I'd handled it slightly different" why? You seem to think that it would have been preferable to confront him yourself, instead of leaving it to a neutral third party. Why is this?

lamnot I am sorry you feel vulnerable in a swimsuit but I don't quite see why that imposes obligations on others to behave in specific ways when you decide to wear one. If you felt vulnerable being glanced at and still chose to go to a public swimming pool would you expect there to be notices saying "Glancing at lamnot is prohibited"? And while I appreciate you feel this way why are you projecting these feelings on your children? Being mortified at being photographed in a swimsuit is one thing (one unfortunate feeling that you may want to seek counselling to come to terms with), but it doesn't justify being mortified at your DCs being photographed. There is nothing wrong with their bodies, in swimsuits or not, and you should not be making them feel as if there is something wrong.

squig if someone was targeting your DCs in order to cause them harm, why do you think that stopping them from taking photographs would keep them safe? He wouldn't need to overhear names or look up photographs, he would just need to follow you home. He would not need to come to the swimming pool he could just use a lense to photograph them from a mile away. Luckily the chances of this actually happening are miniscule, which is exactly my point, a lot of concern about something that is extremely highly unlikely to happen in the first place and would not be prevented by the measures being taken even if it were to happen.

squig you should not photograph someone who is learning? What a bizarre claim! I am often photographed and even better video taped when I train in my hobby as it really helps see my mistakes and improve. Plenty of parents take a first day at school photo of their kid at the school and that doesn't seem weird to me either.

If you felt vulnerable being glanced at and still chose to go to a public swimming pool would you expect there to be notices saying "Glancing at lamnot is prohibited"?

What an odd thing to say. I go swimming knowing that I will get into the pool as quickly as reasonably possible to minimise my feelings of being exposed. I can do that knowing that a stranger isn't going to photograph me because photographing people in the pool area is banned. A quick glance is very different than a stranger taking a photograph of me.

But all of it does with consent Booboo. You agree to being filmed whilst training. On the first day of school, learning isn't taking place. Disrupting classes to randomly photograph children is disruptive, and certainly not of any benefit to them.

The issue here is surreptitiously photographing children. I'd have no issue with staff members photographing my children during a class, as it would be planned, and consent provided. I'd have no issue with those photos being used for promotional purposes. I am not okay with people photographing my kids without being up-front about why they want to.

I don't think not letting people take photos would keep my kids safe if somebody was targetting them. But that doesn't mean I would let then photograph them. Wanting to photograph children you have only a passing acquaintance with, for no professional reason, is not usual. It is, in fact, quite abnormal.

lamnot it's not an odd thing to say, it is an analogy. If photos should be prohibited because you feel exposed, then glancing should also be prohibited because you feel exposed. Remember the original question was why are photos prohibited, to which you replied that you feel vulnerable.

squig in competitions I am photographed without consent being obtained. There is nothing about photography which makes it inherently opposed to learning, nor is consent to being photographed related to the act of the photos being taken, it has to do with the use of the photos afterwards if that use is problematic. Wanting to photograph children is in no way abnormal, this hysteria is making it sound abnormal especially as no one can identify a good reason behind it. There are many good reasons for wanting to photograph children swimming, e.g. they are cute, they happen to be next to your kid, there is a wonderful reflection of light on the water, there are part of a great composition, you are practicing your photography skills. Plenty of countries in the world have no prohibition against photographs in pools without being populated by abnormal human beings!

Boob - I can go swimming safe in the knowledge that I won't be photographed by some random person. Being glanced at it something I can handle, being photographed is a step too far. If photography was freely allowed in pool areas then I wouldn't go swimming.

Fair enough and you have my sympathies but none of that is an argument for prohibiting photography in pools, after all some women are embarrassed by being glanced at while at pools but we don't prohibit glancing.

It might not be a reason to prohibit photography in pools but it is prohibited sk I go safe in that knowledge and I expect the rules to be adhered to. If they change the rules then I can make a decision not to go swimming but whilst the rule is no photographs then I expect it to be enforced. I can't think of any good reason why a total random stranger would want a photograph of either myself or my children in our swimwear anyway. If you can think of a good reason (and not just because they want one) then I am happy to consider that reasoning.

I was a competitive swimmer and my parents and my friends' parents took lots of pictures of us. So did the local paper and we stuck them in a scrap book. They presumably wouldn't be allowed now.
You can, but have to register all your details at the start of a meeting and get permission to take photos. (In line with ASA child protection guidelines). Pretty much anything for the press has club shirts over swimming gear or are of swimmers in the water. We have lots of photos of DS swimming, but very few of anyone else. I'd feel pretty uncomfortable with his photo being taken by people with no connection to him.

I called to try and speak to the instructor who went off to confront him today but she was not working and is going to call me back tomorrow. I need to know what happened. Will update. And JapaneseSlipper..i guess i generally deal with things head on snd direct, so this is unusual for me.

There are many good reasons for wanting to photograph children swimming, e.g. they are cute, they happen to be next to your kid, there is a wonderful reflection of light on the water, there are part of a great composition, you are practicing your photography skills.

And all of those situations can be accounted for to their parent. But to surreptitiously photograph children without their parent's knowledge or consent is wrong. And to specifically photograph a child with whom you have no connection, without their knowledge, or a responsible adult's knowledge or permission, is wrong.
If it makes any more sense, I also have the same issue/concerns with street photographers, so it is not limited to randomers at a swimming pool.