Posting photos of children online- unsafe or just paranoia?

YogiBear

I've seen a number of groups on Flickr that warn of posting photos of children? How unsafe is this in relation to pedophilia? How exactly could a photo be used in a negative way? Are particular types of photos more unsafe than others or what are the general rules about this sort of thing?

magicbastarder

i think the worst that could happen is someone taking the head off a child and photoshopping it into a pornographic photo, but in general, if the kid isn't your own, be very wary about posting it online - parents can get very protective of their kids.

bradnailer

I took a few shots of kids at the St Patrick's day parade I thought they made good shots, I figured their parents had them in a parade so! public arena. I don't think I'd take shots outside of that type of situation without permission.
I friend of mine told me he was out with his two girls and a photographer asked if he could take their picture, he didn't let him. Some guy wanted to take a shot of my son playing with a kite last weekend we let him.
I've seen a few shots on pix.ie of oriental girls with sort of a anime look to them, I thought they were a little odd and not really proper.

sineadw

Ugh.. I hate this topic. Not that its a bad thing to post about, but the fact that its even a topic

I have two sons. I have pictures posted of them on both Flickr and Pix.ie. They 're portrait shots and I happen to be very fond of them (the photos, and the kids). I thought about making them private, but then what's the point of posting them.

I think it depends. If the picture is something a child is doing innocently that could be construed in a different manner - a particular pose or running around half dressed or something - then I wouldn't. That's common sense. You'd be surprised at the stuff people post of their kids though.

The way I see it, if I followed the 'don't post ANY pictures' logic through then I'd never let them out of the house. There are paedophiles in the real world too! Obviously though if they're not your kids then i wouldn't without express permission.

Oriel

What's the difference in posting a photo of a child and posting a photo of an adult?
If some pervert is giong to find something titillating in it, surely that's a fault of the person and not the subject? You can justify a carpet ban on photos of children just because of a few oddballs. As long as they don't find out where the child lives, what odds?

magicbastarder

i don't post photos of people online anyway - i always make the assumption that people don't expect their portrait is going to be put up on the public web, and it's too much hassle trying to get permission from them.

i've a private area of my site which can be accessed via password, which is where i put the portraits.

Hugh_C

Oriel wrote: »

You can justify a carpet ban on photos of children just because of a few oddballs.

Huh?

run_Forrest_run

I have posted many pictures of my child on flickr because it is a good way for friends and family living far away to see her.

I think it is sad that we have to worry about things like this but these sickos are a minority and why should the rest of us be denied the benefits of the internet and all it has to offer?

If I have taken pictures of other kids I will not put them up on flickr because with kids I would want permission from the parents etc.

Hugh_C

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

I have posted many pictures of my child on flickr because it is a good way for friends and family living far away to see her.

I have three kids and there's buckets of pictures of all of them on flickr. I keep an eye on who has faved them and check out their other faves. If I deem it unsuitable judging by their other faves, then I block them. Simple as that. It has happened a few times with one of my kids in particular.

I am also relatively untraceable in that my surname doesn't appear and although not impossible, would be hard to trace, therefore my kids are not easily located.

I sleep easy at night.

Paulw

Pure paranoia. I think it's a case of society gone mad.

I have photos of kids on my FlickR, and no idea who the kids are. They were in the right place at the right time for a lovely photo.

YogiBear

Yeah that's what I was thinking but I'd read some really BEWARE posts on flickr so I wanted to know was there something to be aware of.

Oriel

Hugh_C wrote: »

Huh?

You can't say "That's it, nobody's allowed to post photos of children." just because a few people (the perverts) out of millions will see them for something other than what they are.

Eirebear

Paranoia IMO

If i want to take a picture of a child who is with their parents ill generally ask the parents permission...in the exact same way as i would if i was wanting to take an adults picture, with a quick gesture of the camera in order to get their atention.

But even if i didnt ask permission before taking the shot, i would have absolutely no issue in posting the picture because i myself have nothing to hide in my reasons for taking it.

Muineach

I have a good chuck of family photo's (nephews/nieces)on flickr but I mark them all as private, so only people that I send the link to will have access.

Paulw

YogiBear wrote: »

Yeah that's what I was thinking but I'd read some really BEWARE posts on flickr so I wanted to know was there something to be aware of.

Have you got an example of such post?

Covey

Total paranoia.

Kids, not known to me, are probably the second most taken subject I take. Obviously you offer the dame respect as if taking an adult.

Very rewarding photography and I have had no problems at all.

T.

Hugh_C

Paulw wrote: »

Have you got an example of such post?

Actually come to think of it, I think I read a warning somewhere about people stealing photos of kids to set up false accounts on some google offshoot - can't remember what it's called - kind of the bebo equivalent from google.

thebaz

Oriel wrote: »

You can't say "That's it, nobody's allowed to post photos of children." just because a few people (the perverts) out of millions will see them for something other than what they are.

agree , why should a few warpt minded people spoil the unwarpt visual wonders of life , which include children , for the masses . I have 2 kids myself, who i love dearly , so i am aware common sense is also required.

PaulieC

I have 3 kids myself and I post pictures of them to both Pix and Flickr. My opinion is that as long as they are 'standard' pictures - i.e. kids in normal situations, dressed etc. then there is no problem with posting the images. I assume there are enough other sources of 'material' for pervs on the internet that they wouldn't even have to bother looking on FlickR...

AnCatDubh

Have thought about this a little and am still weighing it up in my head. I think it is an irrational fear that people have. The reason I describe it as irrational is that when you compare the actual risk of something bad happening as a direct consequence of having your photos online - it is relatively low risk, however such consequence is catastrophic. If you were in the risk management business and this was a business risk, you would probably monitor the situation but take little action as the risk of it happening is so remote.

In fact maybe we have more to worry about by who's living in your neighbourhood than who's looking at you flickr stream. Having said that your children are in the physical realm which means that you can control (to a large extent) the environment that they inhabit. Given the emotional involvement that we all have to the little ones, we are kept satisfied in the knowledge that with our children we know (or at least we think) that we can keep them safe from such bad things as are going through peoples minds as they read this thread.

Switch over to the virtual world of the internet (flickr, etc.) where in reality we don't have much control over who accesses the representation of your children (image), and that's a very scary thought. You've just lost control and consequential safety. This also explains why there is a certain amount of comfort to be derived from keeping your children's image private, or family & friends only. In so far as you are still in relative control.

Consider this hypothetical scenario. You've just taken some wonderful photos at the recent St. Patricks Day parade. Not surprising they include images of children parading and in viewing from the crowd. Smashing images. You don't know the subjects. They are in a public place and parading so no presumption of privacy. Legally you don't have any worries.

Would you be happier to post pictures of these parade pictures than to post pictures of your own child / children.

I haven't done the research but i suspect the answer to the large part is that yes you would be happier (or perhaps less concerned) posting pictures of the parade including children not known to you. What's the reason? Again I haven't done the research but my thesis would be that at a deep personal level you experience no threat by posting the parade pictures with unknown children however you experience the anxiety of the 'what if..... happens' when considering your own children. This isn't particularly selfish but the natural human reaction of a parent to protect their young. It happens all throughout the animal kingdom - sorry to say that in this regard as a society we haven't really raised ourselves out of the lower animal classes on this one.

And as for me? I post them, but am in the category of allowing family and friends only to view. I recognise it as irrational but it is such a powerful emotion.

Does this all make sense?

rahtkennades

Oriel wrote: »

You can't say "That's it, nobody's allowed to post photos of children." just because a few people (the perverts) out of millions will see them for something other than what they are.

+1.

I don't generally take pictures of people, but if it's a good picture, why not show it in public.

People generally seem to think that it's the 'dirty mac' brigade that they should be afraid of. I think that reading a newspaper any day of the week will prove pretty effectively that the fear should be within the household or close by, not from random strangers with a camera.

YogiBear

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Does this all make sense?

I don't have kids myself but I do have a number of nieces/nephews and if anyone were to use their photos & edit them or misrepresent them in anyway... well there would be hell to pay :mad: . But as you mentioned "risk" AnCatDubh, I suppose its a case of where do you draw the line & there are probably greater risks in the real world of physical harm that would worry me personally more.
Does anyone know is it possible to put a privacy like "friends only" on Pixie? I must have a look at the uploading options properly the next time, I know Flickr have a good few options.
Not a very nice topic really but I wondered why after reading it on flickr a few times about not allowing photos of kids in some groups. Tnx!

Covey

YogiBear wrote: »

Does anyone know is it possible to put a privacy like "friends only" on Pixie? I must have a look at the uploading options properly the next time, I know Flickr have a good few options.

All there under Albums/Share Albums.

congo_90

Actually this is a good topic. I have thought about this myself from taking photo's As a general rule of thumb I avoid taking photos of children who i don't know. Bear in mind i'm 17 and my friends are between 16-19 so technically when i post pictures on say Bebo, it's a similar situation because I haven't asked permission from the parents.

I think posting pics of children (if they are yours) on the likes of flickr is harmless, provided the pictures are innocent. ie; pictures where the child isn't dressed etc. There is no harm in putting up nice portraits etc.

sunny2004

I would never post a photography of my child online, under any circumstances !

Just my 2cent..

nilhg

I saw this thread this morning havn't had time to reply till now, I have always posted pictures of my kids online (flickR) and also have done the same with their friends if they were here for parties or the like.

I look at it this way, any direct risk to the child is miniscule,and I feel that if I give in to any slight nervousness about this, then where should I stop, can I let them go on school trips, scout camps, off to football matches, cycling down the road to their grandads house, out the night of their leaving/junior cert results, ect,ect.

I think if you are sensible and keep an eye on things for any suspicious behavior, then you will be fine on flickr/pix.

I wonder how the folks who are still nervous of their kids on flickr will get on when they get to camera phone/bebo/myspace age....