To think some people are just too damn paranoid?

[FairfaxAikman]

Our local paper did the annual "kids going back to school" photo spread this week.

They asked parents to send in pics of their DC on their first day with a chance to have them printed in a keepsake edition, and many parents obliged via their Facebook page.
However some miserable sods people (all women for some reason) questioned the wisdom of this, with one calling it "a shop window for predators".

AIBU to think that's OTT - surely if someone is going to abduct a child (a very rare event in itself) then they would just hang about outside a school, not peruse the local rag?

and the other point is that photo won’t just be in the print edition. It will be in the online edition, it will be in the public domain forever (even if the paper takes it down there are companies out there already archiving everything that goes online, it will be somewhere). Same goes for all these endless Facebook images.

Now let’s imagine your kid goes on to be in some way high profile. The daily mail will be able to click a button on some facial recognition software and scrape the internet for every image ever of that person.

It’s already happening. Someone gets wrongfully arrested for a crime, daily mail pulls a load of images off Facebook. And they aren’t picking the nice ones of you handing out food to the homeless, they are pulling some picture of you looking irate with the headline “even on their first school day you could tell X was a psychopath” and even if you are subsequently cleared the damage is done.

I’m fully aware this post proves OPs point entirely that we are too paranoid and I’m going to get fitted for a tin foil hat shortly. But we are in the Information Age. Personal information has never been more valuable and it’s increasing in value all the time. People should be a lot more aware of the information they are putting out there, particularly when it’s not your information, it’s your child’s, and they will be an adult and may have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.

Didn't happen when my offspring were at school but frankly I wouldn't have wanted their pic plastered over FB. Were in local paper once for an event but no real, identifying details.

I don't think anyone is being unreasonable to object.

Paedophiles aren't generally known for being interested in images of kids fully clothed

You're wrong, actually. They have been hacking into British school websites and taking the class pictures.

It is very sad that children and their successes cannot be celebrated publicly as a part of the community for the fears that somebody might perve over a perfectly innocent photograph.

Yes, such photographs can be used by estranged parents with no-contact court orders to identify where their children are and potentially snatch them, but surely these situations are quire rare and should not govern everybody's public life.

YANBU, OP.

I was in the paper as a kid, loved it when I was in there for whatever reason. But there wasn’t an Internet then, I was just tomorrows chip paper. Now that photo is being logged and archived by some press agency in the hope they can sell it on 20 years from now.

I agree the risk of them being snatched off the back of it is infinitesimally small, but personally speaking the upside is too low for me to bother with the tiny risk of the downside.

I’m not even saying that if 11 year old Lucy smashes the record for the u16 cross country she shouldn’t be in the paper.

She should, it should be celebrated and the photo could well inspire others. But “going to school for the first day”.....when Facebook will literally be rammed with the same photos in a couple of weeks time, does that really need a bloody supplement to celebrate it? Of course not, they just want your marketing info

@Usernumbers1234 - you think the paper doesn't keep the images? Another of our locals is actually selling prints from its archive to be public - and they don't ask if the photo is of you. I was able to track one down of my Great great grandfather for my grandmother.

Are you the only person in Britain who is unaware of the problems we're having with paedophiles stealing images of children on the internet?

Stealing fully clothed images - what are they doing with them? Genuinely interested

They have been hacking into British school websites and taking the class pictures.

Why would you hack into a website when you can view it and right click the image?

No op, I didn’t say they don’t.

I said “even if they don’t” somebody else will. I know papers keep archives, that’s basically what they do, archive history.

My point was that even if the local paper was interested in protecting you or your child’s privacy, there are companies out there scanning all of these images in ready to sell on to the wider media should they ever be of interest.

But they can't just sell them - there's a thing called copyright and that stays with the picture taker, who can challenge use or demand recompense/removal

New year, only people who attend my kids school can access certain areas of websites. You would need to hack into it to be able to right click school photos, the pictures aren’t on the welcome page.

Op of course they can just sell them. You put it in the public domain, you have no copyright.

The daily mail isn’t asking for permission or paying for the Facebook images they already steal and put all over news stories.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6085983/Swingers-ball-turned-violent-property-director-objects-partner-helping-man-SOCK.html

DAILY MAIL
WARNING

You think he’s given permission or been paid for all those Facebook photos of him? Of course not

You put it in the public domain, you have no copyright.

This is complete and utter fallacy - copyright is not removed because you post it online.

With specific regard to FB the t&c say You grant them a licence to use it but copyright still remains with the photo creator.

Ok - then why are those photos of the swinger all over the daily mail? How’s his copyright holding up for him?

And you are technically correct, but if the image is public domain and it’s used in “news reporting” which unfortunately enough The daily mail and the sun can still claim to be, then you have no copyright.

You can’t “sell” rights to someone else’s images. But the archivists get around this by selling access to a database of public domain photos that can be reproduced in news reporting, not selling the rights to the photos.

I don't know more about it. These were primary school records - names and pictures - that I wouldn't assume were available to just anyone entering the website. Make no mistake, paedophiles are interested in all and any pictures of children.

The absolutely vast majority of paedophiles abuse children they already know. It’s vanishingly rare for children to be abducted by strangers. Furthermore, most schools have procedures in place to prevent paedophiles turning up and pretending to be little Jimmy’s uncle.

So yes I agree, a lot of the panic is unfounded and demonstrates that people don’t really undertstand the risks

I don't give a shit if most sexual abuse is perpetrated by people already known to the child. It's vastly unlikely that you'll have a car accident taking your child to school but you still buckle up. Online sexual grooming (and stealing images of children online, just to have them) are growing problems. I'm astounded that anyone would try to minimise them while trying to sound knowledgeable.