Poll: Pictures of your kids on the web

jaggiebunnet

A while back I started restricting access to pictures of my kids on the web (pix.ie flickr.com etc) even though I had no reason to do so. My question is how many of you think there is a reason to restrict and why? I can't answer why I do it still - I guess it just makes me more comfortable knowing who is looking at my kids, in saying that my sisters post pics of theirs with mines so it really doesn't matter.

Thoughts?

shrapnel222

i post mine in flickr for all to see, and if i think it's sensitive material (like naked baby, kids in bath etc, then it's on private for friends and family only), but i don't put them in any groups or put tags with baby etc. there are billions of baby shots out there easier to find then mine, so i refuse to be paranoid about it.

jaggiebunnet

Yeah i guess it is paranoia - there is no source for it, nor is there any ongoing justification for it..it's very weird i think and yet it made me restrict access, I totally agree with you shrapnel - I have no logic for it which is why i have been pondering opening up their access just wanted to get other folks views on the subject.

Tupins

Slightly off topic but still related - how many people still take nude photos of babies and young children?

To my mind there is absolutely nothing sexual about babies or children and some of the cutest pics of babies are taken in the bath. However, I was recently taking some pictures of my little niece in the bath (4 months old) and my sister (who incedentally is not the child's mother but an aunt like me) insisted on putting a face cloth between the baby's legs to 'cover her up'. I found it a bit sad really that she felt she had to do that and the photo looks a bit weird in my opinion - kind of draws attention to something that I'm sure most people wouldn't have even thought of anyway.

Is it so wrong nowaday's to take nude photo's of small children? Or am I being completely naive?

stovelid

Although I have only posted them for friends and family so far, it wouldn't bother me. It's only a picture, and you or your child will be unaware /unaffected by any transgression surrounding it.

di11on

I think our children, even though they are small, deserve their privacy. They didn't ask for their pictires to be displayed to the world.

What if your children posted pictures of you on the internet without asking? How would you feel? I know it's not 100% the same, but it does illustrate a point. Just because they can't speak or they don't realise the implications, do we have the right to put them out there?


Sharing pictures with friends and family is obviously a different matter entirely.

That's one reason, I believe. It's a nasty world out there. It really scared the bejeebies out of me when I heard that Madeleine MCann was possibly specifically targeted by an international paedophile ring. Putting pictures of your children on the net brings no benefit to them but potentially exposes them to additional unecessary risks.

With identity theft and employers' and the media's increased use of social networking sites to research into peoples lives - what is the benefit of putting this information about you and your family out there?

A friend of mine's boyfriend was a contestant on a reality TV show. The day after the first programme was aired, she was horrified to see a full page spread of her in a national newspaper. It wasn't even her particpating in the show. Imagine, if you become newsworthy for whatever reason, instantly the international media has pictures of your kids.

These are some of the reasons I don't publish unrestricted pictures of my children.

littlebug

I agree with Dillon. I don't put photos of my kids on the net as I don't feel comfortable not knowing who is looking at them. Over the summer they frequently got tourists cameras shoved in their faces (without asking) which drove me nuts and I find myself doing image searches of the particular place we were just in case anyone has had the cheek to put their pics up :mad: Some people think I'm weird and I should be glad people think my kids are cute and where's the harm etc but you just never know IMO.

barbiegirl

On facebook, the only place I post photo's, I restrict every album to friends only but some of my wedding ones also had friends of friends. Family ones I'm particularly careful with.

PauloMN

jaggiebunnet wrote: »

A while back I started restricting access to pictures of my kids on the web (pix.ie flickr.com etc) even though I had no reason to do so. My question is how many of you think there is a reason to restrict and why? I can't answer why I do it still - I guess it just makes me more comfortable knowing who is looking at my kids, in saying that my sisters post pics of theirs with mines so it really doesn't matter.

Thoughts?

I'm exactly the same as you. On my pix.ie, I have open access to all general photos, but ANY of my kids are family/friends only.

I personally am happier to keep photos of the kids - and any family shots in general - to people I know.

In a way it's a shame I suppose, but I'm just uncomfortable with the ease of which digital images can be copied and manipulated by anyone, and being online you have no control over that unless you restrict access. I'm sure nothing would happen of course, but the thoughts of pictures of my kids being misused is enough to have me keep them private.

jaggiebunnet

Thanks all - seems to be fairly balanced on the yays and nays, i think i am going to leave it as is for the moment - I guess the question is does anyone other than friends and family need to be seeing photos of my kids and the answer is no.

Quackles

I have no control over who looks at him when he walks down the street either - I have no problem putting up pictures of my wee man (he's too gorgeous not to share, and my favourite model ). I'm sorry, but paedophiles have enough material out there to satisfy themselves without lusting over photos of fully clothed toddlers. I also would have no problems taking photos of him in the bath etc, but I wouldn't put them online. I did have a video of him playing ben 10 and accidently smacking me in the camera on youtube, and my husband asked me to take it down, he wasn't comfortable with that. Fair enough, down it came.

The world would be a little darker if no-one put pictures of their little miracles online

jaggiebunnet

another good point Quackles, some of the best pics i take are of my small fella...he loves the camera and the camera loves him...

di11on

Quackles wrote: »

I have no control over who looks at him when he walks down the street either - I have no problem putting up pictures of my wee man (he's too gorgeous not to share, and my favourite model ). I'm sorry, but paedophiles have enough material out there to satisfy themselves without lusting over photos of fully clothed toddlers. I also would have no problems taking photos of him in the bath etc, but I wouldn't put them online. I did have a video of him playing ben 10 and accidently smacking me in the camera on youtube, and my husband asked me to take it down, he wasn't comfortable with that. Fair enough, down it came.

The world would be a little darker if no-one put pictures of their little miracles online

The difference between your little ones being out on the street with people being free to look at them and putting pictures of them online is that one is momentary and the other is permanent.

For me, it's not so much that people could see my kids online, it's more that once this information is put out there, you have no control over its propogation. As an example, when I hand my credit card over in a restaurant, sure, people can see it - but I wouldn't let someone take a picture of my credit card allowing this information to be propogated on the internet and misused. You're allowing information about you and your family to be catalogued on the internet.

Imagine if someone types "Quackles" into google, and there in the top 10 results is your facebook profile. One click and there's pictures of your whole family circle. Dramatising this a little to make a point, imagine you won the lotto tomorrow and someone wanted to kidnap you kids for ransom... how hard would it be to get their pictures?

shrapnel222

di11on wrote: »

The difference between your little ones being out on the street with people being free to look at them and putting pictures of them online is that one is momentary and the other is permanent.

For me, it's not so much that people could see my kids online, it's more that once this information is put out there, you have no control over its propogation. As an example, when I hand my credit card over in a restaurant, sure, people can see it - but I wouldn't let someone take a picture of my credit card allowing this information to be propogated on the internet and misused. You're allowing information about you and your family to be catalogued on the internet.

Imagine if someone types "Quackles" into google, and there in the top 10 results is your facebook profile. One click and there's pictures of your whole family circle. Dramatising this a little to make a point, imagine you won the lotto tomorrow and someone wanted to kidnap you kids for ransom... how hard would it be to get their pictures?

although i perfectly understand what you're saying, i think someone/anyone can do the same with di11on, and you might not have photos out there of your kids, but you have an IP address from which you can get an address and then get pics of your kids etc. If you have ever posted anything anywhere online, then you can be found. I agree about network sites like facebook, bebo etc...and wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, although FYI, you cannot look at anybody's photos on facebook unless you are one of their contacts.

noby

shrapnel222 wrote: »

FYI, you cannot look at anybody's photos on facebook unless you are one of their contacts.

You can also group your friends. I have a group called Family, which is just that (brothers and sisters). I tend to put the kids photos in there.

I'm not as paranoid as some others, but it does give some semblance of control over the photos.

babyboom

I would imagine that nobody outside of my own family would have the slightest interest in looking at pictures of my kids. I, obviously, think they are the most gorgeous kids on earth but I don't expect other people to think so, so why put pictures of them up on a public forum? Apart from paedophiles, why would anyone else want to see pics of someone else's children?

Quackles

di11on wrote: »

The difference between your little ones being out on the street with people being free to look at them and putting pictures of them online is that one is momentary and the other is permanent.

For me, it's not so much that people could see my kids online, it's more that once this information is put out there, you have no control over its propogation. As an example, when I hand my credit card over in a restaurant, sure, people can see it - but I wouldn't let someone take a picture of my credit card allowing this information to be propogated on the internet and misused. You're allowing information about you and your family to be catalogued on the internet.

Imagine if someone types "Quackles" into google, and there in the top 10 results is your facebook profile. One click and there's pictures of your whole family circle. Dramatising this a little to make a point, imagine you won the lotto tomorrow and someone wanted to kidnap you kids for ransom... how hard would it be to get their pictures?

Maybe I'm just innocent, but why would they?? Besides, whether I do or I don't put pictures of the kiddo online, I have a website. I link to it in my signature, click on that and you know my surname and the small town I live in. There is no-one else in the town with that surname (they're all luckier than me, I guess), so it wouldn't be difficult to find out exactly where I live from that. Even if I didn't post it on the surname, a simple whois on the domain name gets you my real name and contact details. It's like putting your telephone number in a directory - instantly you're making your personal details available to the outside world. (stalkers, that's not an invitation)

I know you were dramatising and I'm unlikely to win the lotto, you need to buy tickets for that.. I've never googled Dolores McNamara and I still know what she and half of her family look like - not having a bebo account can't save you if you're going to be in a position where people would care enough to put your family in danger.

delly

Both myself and wife love to take pictures of our toddler, with the count heading towards the 2000 in 17 months :eek:

In saying that tho', there's not one of them on the 'net. I work in IT and the web features in my work on a daily basis, but I think i've developed a bit of a tinfoil hat attitude over the years as a result of seeing to many strange things and people out there.

mountainyman

Kids have a right to privacy too.
There is one picture of child0 online on a friends blog from years ago. I feel theat they have a right to privacy and it doesn't have anything to do with pervs.