Confused about attitudes to privacy

[GTG]

I'm sure its different in different countries and systems.
Capitalist systems for example were predicted at their beginnings to cause individuals to see strangers with deep suspicion and lack of trust. They were correct IMO

 

[-markie-]

I guess this is slightly related but I took our little boy swimming a couple of weekends ago on some water inflatable jet ski's. Everyone was taking pictures on iphones and the likes... that was fine.

One of the dads brought their DSLR and the lifeguards quickly came over and said he can't take pictures. He was told that he must go to reception in future and request a form which he must fill out, then parents will be asked if anyone minds before the session starts. Obviously everyone that was taking pictures on iphones put their phones away quickly.

 

[AMcUK]

I don't post pictures of my family on public sharing sites - as general rule - there are a few.
I post on Facebook but they are only visible to friends and family.
I do post pictures of people but rarely as the main subject and always in public places.

For me the crucial difference between posting pictures of family and friends and strangers is the implied relationship.
If you pop up in one of my pictures it will be at a public place and you're highly unlikely to be identified or to reoccur in more than one set of images.
I'm sharing where you were not who you are.

If I posted all the pictures of my daughter and my partner (that met my usual quality threshold) then a casual observer could get a detailed view of their lives.
As I'm posting the pictures not them, that would seem to me to be an intrusion on their privacy. I doubt they'd object but I don't want to make that choice for them.

I used to post family shots more freely but I changed my mind on this after a forum poster elsewhere shared some portrait shots of their partner - tasteful, fully clothed - and got some comments on Flickr along the lines of how lucky he was to have a hot wife and how the commenter had been "enjoying" the images.
Honestly I can do without that in my life.

 

[Byker28i]

Not true.
Some people become overprotective, the fact that they see that as normal is idiocy. And if it goes unchallenged we become a society that has lost all trust in the human race. It’s not a bright outlook.

I agree, which is why we have to challenge this when it's encountered, but we must make an informed argument. One doesn't expect to make immediate changes to all, but with most it's possible to plant the seed of doubt

 

[KIPAX]

I agree, which is why we have to challenge this when it's encountered, but we must make an informed argument. One doesn't expect to make immediate changes to all, but with most it's possible to plant the seed of doubt

hate to sound defeatist.. But pretty much a losing battle... I understand the reasoning to try but when people have it in there mind its difficult to change.. for every one you change 10 more are convinced the other way..

 

[Byker28i]

and how the commenter had been "enjoying" the images.
Honestly I can do without that in my life.

Sorry, what do you think the person commenting was doing. Thats says volumes about you.

We all enjoy seeing the images on here, part of the sharing process. We're proud of the images we produce and want to show them off, of use them to demonstrate an issue etc.
I enjoy looking at the images - that doesn't make me a pervert

 

[Phil V]

I don't think people were questioning your answer but just asking for clarification of your statement.

No; you said ‘you become overprotective’

I said ‘some people’ there’s a significant difference.

 

[MatBin]

I have discussed this with my wife, we now have a 2 yr old grandson and naturally enjoy taking photos of him, as we did our own children. We have shots of them (our children) both naked and clothed (it was nearly 30 years ago) and at the time taken on film and processed by Boots (or similar) which had a strict policy re nudity or depraved photos, or mail order which would have fallen foul of the rules regarding posting/delivering images through the postal system. We look back at those photos now and shudder at what some people would make of them nowdays, fortunately at the time online posting wasnt an option, although I doubt we would have posted them up had it been an option even then.
But, back to today's situation, we dont post our shots of our grandson online, not because we are scared of who will get hold of them but more because we feel the photos are only of interest to us, or our children, so we can mail or burn a CD or whatever a copy to them.

My wife is deeply suspicious of posting them online but I take a much more relaxed view, I assume very few people would want pictures of a fully clothed child and if they did, it in no way harms our grandson, EXCEPT and this is her point you cannot assume nobody will copy the photos maybe modify them in some way and for whatever reason get something from them that was never intended and she feels for that reason alone they should not be posted onto social media.

Matt

 

[Giblets]

No; you said ‘you become overprotective’

I said ‘some people’ there’s a significant difference.

I think you have quoted the wrong person there!

 

[ukaskew]

I have a 3 year and add some photos of him to Facebook/Flickr as I would do a picture of a car, animal etc. My parents do this too and I have no issue with it.

Given I run a business that's also my name I guess it would take anyone a few seconds to figure out my address and therefore where he lives, but as with everything in life that's a risk we have to weigh up. We send him off to pre-school three times per week in the care of others for a start.

I know a few people who will do all they can to keep any reference to their kids off of social media simply because they aren't comfortable with it, that's up to them though and entirely their choice.

I have wrestled with this issue a few times when adding wedding photos to my portfolio. I used to shy away from adding photos of kids from weddings, but I've relaxed on that more so now.

 

[swanseamale47]

I can see both sides of this but it has gone over the top in this country. Couriously people are always terrified when a DSLR comes out but seem to ignore everybody and his cat shooting on their phones, many of which now have pretty decent cameras. The phone quality is now good enough if someone has bad intentions. Chances are someone up to no good wouldn't draw attention to themselves by using a "proper" camera.

 

[jamesev]

I think the media has a lot to do with making people sceptical of people photographing children. In an age that is producing more throw away images than in any time in history most people wouldn't know how many photos of their children are posted to the web and web security, which has been blurred with caution over images. How often have you seen a photo on social media asking you to share this photo to show kids how quickly photos and posts travel via the web.

And you tend to hear about the bad stories relating to children photos as opposed to all the good ones these days.

 

[Steve Smith]

The phone quality is now good enough if someone has bad intentions.

What would those intentions be? It's just a photograph.


Steve.

 

[Byker28i]

What would those intentions be? It's just a photograph.


Steve.

Upskirt shots on escalator/tube trains is an obvious one I can think of that people have been prosecuted for, but then thats nothing about innocent photography

 

[Cagey75]

I've been sharing portraits and casual images of our girls for many years now, never crossed my mind really that someone was waiting to pounce as soon as I uploaded them. I post more general snap shots on FB, but my account is private/direct contacts only - so anyone who'd bother viewing those will be known to me anyway. More 'arty' images go to Flickr. When I choose to upload an image it's going to be one I don't mind anyone viewing. As other said, can't see many being interested in the boring family ones though, there's nothing technical or arty or interesting about them, which is why they go to FB, get viewed once per person and fall away into the old folder pile.

BUT ... people are free to decide whatever they wish for children in their own care. And one thing I have never done is walk up to strangers on the street and start photographing their kids. I might not be so pleased about someone else photographing mine so obviously either. If they happen to be part of a scene that is being pictured, fine. But the key for me is, the images of my kids online, were shot by me. It's not really anyone else's business why I prefer it that way, or that I upload any at all for that matter so I wouldn't go over explaining it.

 

[Denyerec]

I won't put anyone's photograph online without permission from them.

Simple as that.

 

[sk66]

its not easy to explain but its pretty common knowledge ...

... it's irrational but understandable.

I also agree that being willing to put stranger's images out there but not family is incredibly hypocritical... near offensive to me.

 

[Fuji Dave]

I have discussed this with my wife, we now have a 2 yr old grandson and naturally enjoy taking photos of him, as we did our own children. We have shots of them (our children) both naked and clothed (it was nearly 30 years ago) and at the time taken on film and processed by Boots (or similar) which had a strict policy re nudity or depraved photos, or mail order which would have fallen foul of the rules regarding posting/delivering images through the postal system. We look back at those photos now and shudder at what some people would make of them nowdays, fortunately at the time online posting wasnt an option, although I doubt we would have posted them up had it been an option even then.
But, back to today's situation, we dont post our shots of our grandson online, not because we are scared of who will get hold of them but more because we feel the photos are only of interest to us, or our children, so we can mail or burn a CD or whatever a copy to them.

My wife is deeply suspicious of posting them online but I take a much more relaxed view, I assume very few people would want pictures of a fully clothed child and if they did, it in no way harms our grandson, EXCEPT and this is her point you cannot assume nobody will copy the photos maybe modify them in some way and for whatever reason get something from them that was never intended and she feels for that reason alone they should not be posted onto social media.

Matt

Hi Matt, I took some photos of my niece and her children last year and she asked me not to put them on my FB group and I agreed with her. I then got talking to one of the members who was in the police for over 30 yrs, and he said it is a sad state what some pervs will do/alter a photo so I can see why your wife would be worried.

 

[StewartR]

... it's irrational but understandable.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. To my mind "irrational" is, by definition, not "understandable". YMMV.

 

[Kaolin]

Sure, I get that. But then I presume you don't do any 'street' photography, and you apply the same rules of politeness whether the photo is of a family member or a stranger?

In actuality yes, of all the photos I placed on Flickr 95% are natural history and the rest landscapes. Have never tried 'street' photography I honestly doubt I would ever post anything with a recognizable person. Finding pictures of myself on the web 'shared' and tagged by others really pulls my chain.

 

[HoppyUK]

I find all this Daily Mail/Mumsnet paranoia sad and depressing. It doesn't stand up to one minute of properly grown up debate, but it's not going away.

The world is full of lies, myths, half-truths and general nonsense, but if you hear something repeated often enough - no matter how daft - it eventually becomes truth and indisputable fact First principle of propaganda (also known as marketing ).

ps Along the same lines, why does everyone blank out car number plates? It's actually very hard to get an address for a car (unless you're a licensed trader, police etc) but the fact that my car is sitting on the drive is a bit of a clue. Illogical.

 

[Gremlin]

ps Along the same lines, why does everyone blank out car number plates? It's actually very hard to get an address for a car (unless you're a licensed trader, police etc) but the fact that my car is sitting on the drive is a bit of a clue. Illogical.

You've obviously never receive a summons for something you haven't done
It's easy to clone cars for one of a similar type, put false plates on and to all intent you are road legal,
no one ever realises until an offence is committed and the person who owns the genuine vehicle gets the fine
Happened so someone I know last year, she got endless parking fines from essex when she was no where near, a couple
of times she wasn't even in the UK, and before you go on about needing paperwork to get plates,, not everyone asks for them

 

[HoppyUK]

You've obviously never receive a summons for something you haven't done
It's easy to clone cars for one of a similar type, put false plates on and to all intent you are road legal,
no one ever realises until an offence is committed and the person who owns the genuine vehicle gets the fine
Happened so someone I know last year, she got endless parking fines from essex when she was no where near, a couple
of times she wasn't even in the UK, and before you go on about needing paperwork to get plates,, not everyone asks for them

With respect Ingrid, that's a good example of an illogical knee-jerk reaction.

If I wanted to put false number plates on my car from an identical model, there are dozens on the Auto Trader website. Just use the search function and it'll line them all up for you in seconds, number plates clear as day.

Agree that it's very easy for anyone to get false plates made up.

 

[Byker28i]

Hi Matt, I took some photos of my niece and her children last year and she asked me not to put them on my FB group and I agreed with her. I then got talking to one of the members who was in the police for over 30 yrs, and he said it is a sad state what some pervs will do/alter a photo so I can see why your wife would be worried.

Interesting. In my interviews I consulted with the local police about safeguarding policies and generalised criminality around this area.

There's very few instances of modified images, none from unknown children taken from the internet, they just aren't interested as there's several millions of images shared around without the need to change them.
Those few that are changed are usually heads etc attached to other images by family members or friends known to the family.

Even though the instances are very few, this perception is still around and is a common reason given, even though it's unfounded.

 

[Byker28i]

You've obviously never receive a summons for something you haven't done
It's easy to clone cars for one of a similar type, put false plates on and to all intent you are road legal,
no one ever realises until an offence is committed and the person who owns the genuine vehicle gets the fine
Happened so someone I know last year, she got endless parking fines from essex when she was no where near, a couple
of times she wasn't even in the UK, and before you go on about needing paperwork to get plates,, not everyone asks for them

Show plates - you don't need ot provide documentation but then they aren't legal as they haven't the details on them.
BUT, most of the time the criminal just walks around a car park looking for the right model/colour of car. It doesn't take long, which is why pool cars are most usually popular models, golfs, focus etc.

 

[Fuji Dave]

Interesting. In my interviews I consulted with the local police about safeguarding policies and generalised criminality around this area.

There's very few instances of modified images, none from unknown children taken from the internet, they just aren't interested as there's several millions of images shared around without the need to change them.
Those few that are changed are usually heads etc attached to other images by family members or friends known to the family.

Even though the instances are very few, this perception is still around and is a common reason given, even though it's unfounded.

I think he was on about it for the 80s/70s.

 

[Byker28i]

I think he was on about it for the 80s/70s.

Didn't sound like it, plus it would have been film then - even harder. Digital and the internet has made it very easy to share all sorts of media.
After all, the porn industry has driven most internet innovations, media delivery, payment collection, etc

 

[Byker28i]

If anyones interested in the history theres a good book called Pictures of Innocence by Ann Higonnet.

Taking the description: This book explores the images that are at once the most common, the most sacred, and the most controversial of our time, ranging from 18th-century portraits by Sir Joshua Reynolds to greeting cards by Anne Geddes, from the ambiguous photographs of Lewis Carroll to those of Sally Mann. Anne Higonnet traces the visual history of ideal childhood from the pictorial invention of childhood innocence in 18th-century portraits to today's best-selling photography.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pictures-Innocence-History-Childhood-Interplay/dp/0500280487

 

[Phil V]

You've obviously never receive a summons for something you haven't done
...

Loads.
And none of them contained my reg no.
And if they had, they’d have been no more believable.
So the relevance is???

 

[cosmicma]

if you consider the amount of selfies most teenagers ( in my experience more girls than boys ) post on social media sites i think it's a losing battle trying to minimise the amount of photos that are put into the public domain regardless of how protective you are

my lot are constantly putting selfies up on social media, i don't wholly agree with it but i don't stop it either even though i post very few photos of the children on any site and virtually non on social media, there is one or two if you look hard enough but compared to how many i take it's tiny

it's a sad state of affairs when people fear taking photos of their family because of public hysteria i take my camera with me every time we go on a day trip or holiday and i don't care if thats to a beach or a theme park or zoo
iv'e had the odd look and remark before now and my answer is to offer to show the photographs i have taken, i don't think iv'e ever been taken up on the offer to be honest

i don't post much up on social media not because of fear of what might happen to them it's because the only people really interested in them is the people in them or the people who know the people in the photos
there are sites like this where people will have an interest in the artistic merit of the photo but to be honest i'm not that good and most of my photos are a matter of record rather than having any artistic value to them

 

[jonoooo125]

I don’t post pictures of my daughter for the simple fact, who wants all their childhood displayed when they are older?

I had a job interview a few years ago and the interviewer searched for me online before offering me a job (he didn’t find anything as I don’t have any social media accounts) and I know because he asked why he couldn’t find anything about me, imagine if all your life was up for scrutiny.

It doesn’t affect anyone yet but it will start to

Also, if you would like to see the child, come see them, I can show photos on my iPad or print some off for older relatives and I email with a description of the photo to those who live further away, anyone who is interested has seen the pictures and I have full control over who has seen it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We have absolutely no control of who sees us or our children when out and about..
The chances of any one finding photographs,that we have taken of our family on line, are dwarfed by the avalanche of shots posted by them selves.
It is like you can't find the wood for the trees. Billions are added every day.

 

[razor777]

That's not the issue here though because all three are quite happy to publish photos on Facebook etc. So it's not really about copyright concerns.

Aha! Exactly. What reasons?

Sorry thought I answered this earlier.

1) I don't see why i should share photos outside of a boundary that I'm not party to. Same risk applies to Facebook but risk is mitigated with friends and family.
2) To prevent more unsavoury characters adding those sort of photos to their w*** bank. Tied in with a chance of identification (due to related meta information) that could result in something not pleasant.

 

[Faldrax]

We'll have to agree to disagree there. To my mind "irrational" is, by definition, not "understandable". YMMV.

So you are saying you can't understand someone who is scared of Spiders, or Snakes, or Walking under Ladders?

Everyone is different - and some people have 'irrational' fears - but that does not mean you cannot understand that they have such fears, or that knowing that someone has, for example, Arachnophobia, you can 'understand' their fear and so avoid playing pranks involving fake spiders on them.

For many people, when you have children you become somewhat over protective of them - if an acquaintance you meet locationally at the pub isn't there one week, you think nothing of it - if you child is 10 minutes late home you worry - it might be 'irrational', but that does not mean it is not 'understandable'.

 

[Phil V]

Sure, I wasn't having a dig at the OP, we all make our own choices but shouldn't be confused by choices others make until in the same position.

But lots of us ‘in the same position’ disagree. Frankly the argument you posited is at best naive and at worst puerile. If you’ve got a point, you should make it, if you can’t think it through, then don’t bother.

 

[HoppyUK]

So you are saying you can't understand someone who is scared of Spiders, or Snakes, or Walking under Ladders?

Everyone is different - and some people have 'irrational' fears - but that does not mean you cannot understand that they have such fears, or that knowing that someone has, for example, Arachnophobia, you can 'understand' their fear and so avoid playing pranks involving fake spiders on them.

For many people, when you have children you become somewhat over protective of them - if an acquaintance you meet locationally at the pub isn't there one week, you think nothing of it - if you child is 10 minutes late home you worry - it might be 'irrational', but that does not mean it is not 'understandable'.

Not the same thing at all. Lots of people are frightened of spiders, but they know it's irrational and that they'll never come to any harm. Consequently, they don't go around telling other people to be scared of spiders.

 

[rackhs]

I get that the OP was talking about someone else's grandchildren that are only 2 and my comments may not apply so much as they are more about slightly older children, but think it is still relevant as it is about sharing photos of kids (feel free to tell me it isn't ).

We have had a very respected police officer come and talk at our childrens' school. He also has his children there. He has been involved in some very high profile cases around these sorts of topics. He has talked to us about child safety online and sharing photos etc. and how they are used. People have mentioned pedophiles, but from some of the comments, it seems as though it is just being assumed that they are looking at the photos.

Where the photos get used a lot are for grooming. By looking at the photos, building up a profile of the child - what school they go to from school badges in photos, what they do in their spare time, what interests they have, who are their friends (a lot of these things that can be built up from the shared photos), the 'groomer' (no idea if that is actually the right term, sorry) is able to build up a backstory to use with the children. This may seem far-fetched, but it happens more than people realise.

This isn't an 'irrational fear' or 'scare-mongering', this is informed information. As others have stated, in this country you can decide what you want to do (isn't it France where it is now illegal to post pictures of your children up for fear of potential future repercussions in their life?) and I wish you all the best with whatever you decide after all, it is your choice, but making out that people are being too over protected against something that is very real whether we like it or not, feels just as wrong as those that criticise you for sharing them.

 

[wack61]

I guess this is slightly related but I took our little boy swimming a couple of weekends ago on some water inflatable jet ski's. Everyone was taking pictures on iphones and the likes... that was fine.

One of the dads brought their DSLR and the lifeguards quickly came over and said he can't take pictures. He was told that he must go to reception in future and request a form which he must fill out, then parents will be asked if anyone minds before the session starts. Obviously everyone that was taking pictures on iphones put their phones away quickly.

When my kids were about 10-11 we went to florida , stayed in a disney hotel, I'd taken a 300mm 2.8 with me to take some wildlife shots (not at the hotel) , they were in the pool playing so I asked the lifeguard if I could take some pictures of them, sure, you don't need permission , why wouldn't you be able to take pictures with a bemused look on his face , so I sat there for 15 minutes taking pictures of them laughing and enjoying themselves, nobody batted an eyelid , no angry parents, nothing
Didn't share them online as I don't do social media and who'd want to see them apart from our family but I don't have a problem with it

It's a British thing all this pedophiles on every corner, what do people think is going to happen, if a picture of their kids appears on the internet holding a balloon they're going to get hunted down

 

[Graham W]

If you had some perhaps you would understand their POV a little better.

A bit patronising?

 

[Graham W]

Re. the original post, it would have probably been worth pointing out that is is believed that most abuse of children occurs within the family, but given that the conversation was in a pub, it would probably have ended in a fight.