Confused about attitudes to privacy

[rob-nikon]

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.

This is probably one of the arguments in the whole thread that stands up. I can understand where people get the idea from that they shouldn’t share images but feel many adhere to it without questioning or knowing why (in this case the OP did question and it’s taken 76 replies on here to get an explainable reason). the issue here is no just sharing pictures of children on social media but social media use in general. I know people who tag themselves everywhere (during normal routines and whilst away on holiday). I never understand it myself as it’s easy to build a picture up of their routines or how long they will be away for. Going back to posting pictures of children on social media I personnally think it’s not needed either with ‘friends and family’ either. It’s quite easy for some to have huge ‘friends’ list, many being people they have never since in probably 20 years since school or places they worked. In those cases they now have no control of who really sees it. There are other more private ways of sharing private images without the need to post them on social media where it’s actually never private. For me it’s either all or nothing regarding posting images of children on an public social media, there is no half way house with this on social media.

Going off subject slightly, I’ve heard from family who were teachers say children should never wear an item of clothing with their name in big letters across the front or back for similar reason to the above as knowing a child’s name potentially could make out it. For a similar reason dogs name tags shouldn’t have its name on it. My dogs tag has only my name and contact details as there is no need for someone to know it’s name. It’s easier for someone to pass off a dog if they know its name as it would respond more naturally to them. (That said many stolen dogs are sadly used as bait/fighting).

 

[Gremlin]

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

Was just giving you a reason why people blank out number plates, nothing more

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

It seems that most child abuse involves family members and close friends and work colleagues, the very people posters say that they do share their photographs with.

 

[TCR4x4]

Was just giving you a reason why people blank out number plates, nothing more

This really worries me.

I’ve decided to put gaffa tape over my number plates now as I don’t want my car cloned. Plus it saves time when editing as I don’t have to clone out all the numbers and letters.

 

[Byker28i]

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.

Which begs the question of what sort of images are you posting that someone would add "to their w*** bank."

 

[razor777]

Which begs the question of what sort of images are you posting that someone would add "to their w*** bank."

A question you can answer yourself if you put more than 15 seconds of thought into it - what you think is normal someone else has a completely different approach. You could post a fully clothed adult and someone somewhere would still get aroused by it and end up with a sticky screen.

No need to thank me for doing your thinking for you.

 

[twist]

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.

My point is parents assess risk differently, not just in this case.

 

[Byker28i]

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..

From my research and experience, this is informed information about rare incidents. It's extremely rare for random children to be targeted this way, it's very frequently family members or friends. Most grooming is done through chat rooms, social media, over the internet with the intention of getting the other party to provide photos of themselves, usually by pretending to be of the same age group. In extreme cases some try to get the child to meet.
But I must stress, these cases are extremely rare compared to cases involving family and friends who have easy access to the child.

 

[Byker28i]

A question you can answer yourself if you put more than 15 seconds of thought into it - what you think is normal someone else has a completely different approach. You could post a fully clothed adult and someone somewhere would still get aroused by it and end up with a sticky screen.

No need to thank me for doing your thinking for you.

Best you don't ever post any photos at all if you think people are sitting there creating a "sticky screen." as some have weird fetishes over cars, dogs, feet etc, but that would be a different field of research that I don't think would be interesting as a photographer.

I think you'll find from my replies I have put more than 15 secs of thought into it, over two and a half years of research, interviews etc, trying to understand the attitude to photographers over this issue.
This really says a lot about how the media stories and at times social media hysteria are affecting attitudes amongst what I would consider normally rational people.

 

[Byker28i]

Here we go 46 weird fetishes just so you can avoid posting photos of them as you think people are going to "get aroused by it and end up with a sticky screen."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/sexual-fetish_n_4144418.html

 

[razor777]

Best you don't ever post any photos at all if you think people are sitting there creating a "sticky screen." as some have weird fetishes over cars, dogs, feet etc, but that would be a different field of research that I don't think would be interesting as a photographer.

I think you'll find from my replies I have put more than 15 secs of thought into it, over two and a half years of research, interviews etc, trying to understand the attitude to photographers over this issue.
This really says a lot about how the media stories and at times social media hysteria are affecting attitudes amongst what I would consider normally rational people.

Yet you separated my other comment in the same post about building up a profile of a child by other meta data and that is the concern.

2.5 years of research - you mean you have checked google and asked the odd person over a 2.5 year period as opposed to 2.5 years resource utilisation.

As for rationality, it is no different from someone purchasing a 4.2L petrol turbo 25mpg car as opposed to the more "rational" choice of a 1.6D 70mpg. You either get the reason why people do it or you don't.

Interestingly enough however, if I am taking photos of other people's kids (majority being friends who post it themselves on facebook etc) and I ask do they mind if I was to publish them in a more public setting I will mention the pitfalls/potential issues and most people still say yes. It's all about different thresholds to people about what is acceptable and what isn't. Not so much a rationality issue.

 

[Byker28i]

Yet you separated my other comment in the same post about building up a profile of a child by other meta data and that is the concern.

2.5 years of research - you mean you have checked google and asked the odd person over a 2.5 year period as opposed to 2.5 years resource utilisation.

As for rationality, it is no different from someone purchasing a 4.2L petrol turbo 25mpg car as opposed to the more "rational" choice of a 1.6D 70mpg. You either get the reason why people do it or you don't.

Interestingly enough however, if I am taking photos of other people's kids (majority being friends who post it themselves on facebook etc) and I ask do they mind if I was to publish them in a more public setting I will mention the pitfalls/potential issues and most people still say yes. It's all about different thresholds to people about what is acceptable and what isn't. Not so much a rationality issue.

Wow! Just Wow!

Ok I'm out of this thread. I spent a long time over this work, have some detailed research on this project as to how it impacted photographers and from the photographers point of view. It started with the historical record of images of children leading to the modern day attitudes. I thought I could contribute to this as a specialist field of mine and with my wifes input as an early years specialist, however the luddites don't want to listen.

We should be challenging these ill informed opinions, get informed about all sides of the story so that we can try to plant a seed of doubt and get people thinking again, rather than regurgitating outrage from social media.

Oh and if you use Google, you'll find a TVR Cerbera 4.2 isn't turbo'd 25mpg would be great , and the search function on here will tell you it's not my only car.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yet you separated my other comment in the same post about building up a profile of a child by other meta data and that is the concern.

2.5 years of research - you mean you have checked google and asked the odd person over a 2.5 year period as opposed to 2.5 years resource utilisation.

As for rationality, it is no different from someone purchasing a 4.2L petrol turbo 25mpg car as opposed to the more "rational" choice of a 1.6D 70mpg. You either get the reason why people do it or you don't.

Interestingly enough however, if I am taking photos of other people's kids (majority being friends who post it themselves on facebook etc) and I ask do they mind if I was to publish them in a more public setting I will mention the pitfalls/potential issues and most people still say yes. It's all about different thresholds to people about what is acceptable and what isn't. Not so much a rationality issue.

This would be the ideal time for for you to take note of Healy's first law.

 

[razor777]

Wow! Just Wow!

Ok I'm out of this thread. I spent a long time over this work, have some detailed research on this project as to how it impacted photographers and from the photographers point of view. It started with the historical record of images of children leading to the modern day attitudes. I thought I could contribute to this as a specialist field of mine and with my wifes input as an early years specialist, however the luddites don't want to listen.

We should be challenging these ill informed opinions, get informed about all sides of the story so that we can try to plant a seed of doubt and get people thinking again, rather than regurgitating outrage from social media.

Oh and if you use Google, you'll find a TVR Cerbera 4.2 isn't turbo'd 25mpg would be great , and the search function on here will tell you it's not my only car.

Wait a second, you mean that 4.2 quote is actually the same engine size as a car you own? Pure gold - I can honestly say on my son's life I did not check your profile and look at cars - it was a pure example.

Seriously haha!

 

[Phil V]

My point is parents assess risk differently, not just in this case.

As a parent, I can tell you that you’re assumption is [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].

 

[razor777]

This would be the ideal time for for you to take note of Healy's first law.

Why because you don't like my opinion? You keep to your opinion I will stick to mine, there is no hole.

 

[twist]

As a parent, I can tell you that you’re assumption is b****x.

Opinions seem divided in this thread so you're full of s***.

 

[Phil V]

Q

Opinions seem divided in this thread so you're full of s***.

You’d have some credibility if you’d acknowledged you were talking about ‘some parents’ but the fact you used the peurile ‘you’d know if you were a parent’ stance points to an IQ in single figures.
Your reaction to my point here just proves it.

 

[twist]

Q

You’d have some credibility if you’d acknowledged you were talking about ‘some parents’ but the fact you used the peurile ‘you’d know if you were a parent’ stance points to an IQ in single figures.
Your reaction to my point here just proves it.

I asked if the OP was a parent, as it may help him understand their POV a little better.

 

[Phil V]

I asked if the OP was a parent, as it may help him understand their POV a little better.

And followed it with...

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

Which is objectively wrong, as you can see above all parents don’t have the same POV.

Which is the same point I’ve been trying to get you to understand from the start, but you’re somewhat tied into the Mumsnet b******t paranoia, and can’t see that there are also plenty of perfectly rational parents and grandparents.

 

[twist]

And followed it with...


Which is objectively wrong, as you can see above all parents don’t have the same POV.

Which is the same point I’ve been trying to get you to understand from the start, but you’re somewhat tied into the Mumsnet b******t paranoia, and can’t see that there are also plenty of perfectly rational parents and grandparents.

True, I could've worded that post better. If i was i wouldve been throwing paedos into the mix which I didnt. Are you saying that all parents that don't agree with your approach are irrational or that there are varying degrees?

 

[Faldrax]

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.

There is a difference between deciding not to do something, and telling others not to do something.

I choose not to post images of my children (or, indeed, of my family in general) to the internet at large - they are, in my view, things which are personal to me, so I restrict who can see them to people I know personally (but then I use 'social media' as a means to communicate and keep in touch with people I already know, rather than as an attempt to persuade the world to adore me ).

Other images I take - primarily of places and animals, I do share more generally.

But that's my decision, it's not something I go about telling others to do.

 

[Phil V]

True, I could've worded that post better. If i was i wouldve been throwing paedos into the mix which I didnt. Are you saying that all parents that don't agree with your approach are irrational or that there are varying degrees?

There are obviously varying degrees, but your attitude so far suggests you’re proud to be in the mumsnet camp.

Like you said, you could have worded it better. But you didn’t, and the words you chose give the impression that I responded to.

 

[twist]

There are obviously varying degrees, but your attitude so far suggests you’re proud to be in the mumsnet camp.

Like you said, you could have worded it better. But you didn’t, and the words you chose give the impression that I responded to.

Not at all, It's good to be concerned about my kids and avoid certain risks but they also need to learn for themselves and use common sense.

Varying degrees, which means not everyone is in the mumsnet camp.

 

[StewartR]

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?

Correct. Having said that, if you live somewhere like Australia where the spiders and snakes can kill you, then being wary of them is rational. But absent that justification (which I don't think was intended to apply here anyway), I can't understand it. It makes no sense whatsoever.

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.

Different subject entirely. I can recognise the objective fact that somebody has an irrational fear, and I can react accordingly. But that's not the same as understanding the fear.

Same with the subject in hand. I can recognise the objective fact that some people will be quite happy to publish photos of strangers and not happy to publish photos of their family. But I still can't understand it.

And unfortunately, 100+ posts into this thread, I still don't understand it. I don't think anyone here has advanced an explanation which stands up as rational. Sure, I appreciate that there are theoretical risks. But they're really miniscule compared to other risks which we routinely tolerate every day. For example, if you think it's unsafe posting pictures of your children online, then you should agree that it's even more unsafe letting them travel in cars. But I don't see many people making any such comparisons.

 

[Faldrax]

...Same with the subject in hand. I can recognise the objective fact that some people will be quite happy to publish photos of strangers and not happy to publish photos of their family. But I still can't understand it.

And unfortunately, 100+ posts into this thread, I still don't understand it. I don't think anyone here has advanced an explanation which stands up as rational. Sure, I appreciate that there are theoretical risks. But they're really miniscule compared to other risks which we routinely tolerate every day. For example, if you think it's unsafe posting pictures of your children online, then you should agree that it's even more unsafe letting them travel in cars. But I don't see many people making any such comparisons.

OK, it sounds as if, in part, you agree with me - IE You can understand that someone can have an 'irrational' fear, and what that fear is - it's simply that not suffering the particular fear you don't understand what having that fear is like.

Which is perfectly understandable and reasonable.

As regards not posting of pictures of children - as I mentioned in an earlier post, for me it's a simple case of wishing for a degree of privacy (though of course, once something has been shared, even with restricted settings, it has to some extent gone outside my control).

As a parent, I am aware of the conflicting requirements to 'protect' my children, and to also give them as wide a range of experiences and freedoms as possible.

It's a balancing act - they travel in the car, but wear a seatbelt (and, when younger, were in a suitable child seat).
They can help in the garden, mow the lawn, etc - but if the lawnmower needs filling with petrol, I'll do it - if I need to use the chainsaw to lop a large branch off a tree, I'll insist they are at a safe distance.
It's just the way things are - you have to balance each risk against the benefits taking the risk entails - and different people come to different decisions on relative risk / reward.

If we accept the premise that there is some risk (however small) in making an image of a child public online - then the difference between doing posting an image of your own child vs. that of a stranger is your personal link to the child - you simply do not have the emotional attachment to a strangers child that you have to your own, and that impacts your assessment of the risk, and so affects your behaviour.

 

[LC2]

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

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng9OqXvNaVY

ETA - Yes, I am a parent. I do share photos of my kids, but only interesting ones like Cosplay Conventions.
Most other photos I take of them would not be interesting to the world at large. (How many pictures of kids blowing out candles on a birthday cake does the interweb need?)

 

[swanseamale47]

I think a more interesting question is why is it only this counrty (more or less) that has this fear? Most other countries don't mind people photographing children playing for example. The US, China, Russia, all don't have the panic you'll get in the UK if you take a pic of a child playing, over here you get a lynch mob in 10 seconds flat.

 

[rackhs]

I think a more interesting question is why is it only this counrty (more or less) that has this fear? Most other countries don't mind people photographing children playing for example. The US, China, Russia, all don't have the panic you'll get in the UK if you take a pic of a child playing, over here you get a lynch mob in 10 seconds flat.

Does that make it right though?

In France, you can face a heavy fine or even a prison sentence for posting pictures of your kids online if they later decide to press charges when they are older and deem them embarrassing.

Social media and its impact is still being understood all over. Another example is posting location stuff when you are in holiday. Yes, we used to share this info with our family and close friends but now a lot of people seem to share it with the world. As such, people (the wrong sort) can target properties that are vacant. This is now leading to some insurance companies in the US to render house insurance void if you get broken into after publicising you aren’t there but instead in a beach for a week.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that social media as a whole is a new (in comparison to traditional communication) way of sharing information about so many things and we still are unearthing the pitfalls with it as well as the benefits.

 

[swanseamale47]

One reason I don't do "anti-social" media.

 

[viv1969]

I think a more interesting question is why is it only this counrty (more or less) that has this fear? Most other countries don't mind people photographing children playing for example. The US, China, Russia, all don't have the panic you'll get in the UK if you take a pic of a child playing, over here you get a lynch mob in 10 seconds flat.

I think you'll find the attitude varies wildly in the US...state by state, certainly in my experience.