Facebook sued by Irish father over sexual photos of girl (12)

looksee

I would imagine it would be easy enough looking at the photos to tell whether she had taken them herself...or whether someone else took them. Sounds like a nice little earner for someone.

Twinkle-star15

mariaalice wrote: »

The girl is in care and had behavioural problems, I think this raise much bigger questions should people be saved from themselves when they behave in unhealthy and harmful ways.

If she was 16 and was still a young woman with behavioural problems and was posting in a very sexual way on facebook, would we say let her do as she wants as long as its legal, it don't matter that she is vulnerable and involved in destructive behaviour?

Er, no, because it's still distribution of child pornography, she's still underage.

This man is a total eejit, and I'm just praying that he knows that deep down, and is just lashing out for the moment. And with any luck the judge will throw this out of court because they don't have a case. What exactly did they want Facebook to do about it?

Next suit the father's starting is against a Nigerian General .

wyndham

some from the western provinces of Nigeria

Is that paedoland or is the solicitor just a big racist?

mariaalice

Re being 16 try telling a 16 year old you are still a child!!! what if she was 17 then?

This is a bit off topic but...I thought the the general pc consequence re 16 year having sex was as long as they are using a condone its cool.

Plenty of 16 year old's have sex so are you saying that 16 year old's haveing sex are children having sex? or are you saying a 16 year old posing sexually on you tube is child porn but a 16 year old having sex is a private matter?

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Re being 16 try telling a 16 year old you are still a child!!! what if she was 17 then?

This is a bit off topic but...I thought the the general pc consequence re 16 year having sex was as long as they are using a condone its cool.

Plenty of 16 year old's have sex so are you saying that 16 year old's haveing sex are children having sex?

You asked would we let her do as she wants if it's similar, as long as it's legal. It's not legal. End of story.

cruiser178

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Just no. He was unaware of what was happening. While he did not prevent it, he didn't cause it or post the pictures. The parents should be done for negligence, though.

She's a 12 yro child, it is her father's duty to protect her and be fully aware of everything she does on a social networking site. My daughter is 14 and on facebook, we have 2 loptop's in the house both of them do not leave the livingroom, her mother and I have her password and we check her page and messages every day. All that said I still worry but you got to let them grow up too.

LeeHoffmann

She's a 12 yro child, it is her father's duty to protect her and be fully aware of everything she does on a social networking site.

Is it just me that finds this a little unrealistic?
It's not like the internet is only available at home and you can't monitor them every single second of every day. Of course I think the issue here mostly with the parents, but maybe children shouldn't be allowed to upload photos and personal info to facebook? Now I'm not saying facebook should be liable for compensation etc - but it just makes sense, doesn't it?

mariaalice

While you cant save your child from everything, you can be vigilant.

cruiser178

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Is it just me that finds this a little unrealistic?
It's not like the internet is only available at home and you can't monitor them every single second of every day. Of course I think the issue here mostly with the parents, but maybe children shouldn't be allowed to upload photos and personal info to facebook? Now I'm not saying facebook should be liable for compensation etc - but it just makes sense, doesn't it?

Read my post again, I have passwords, I check page, messages every day. There is nothing she can do on facebook that I dont know about, why?, because it's my duty to protect her.

mariaalice

I know parents that wont let their children have face book unless they add the parent as a friend and there is no argument about it if thy want Facebook their parents have to be able to see their page, but as I said you can only do your best.

El Weirdo

mariaalice wrote: »

I know parents that wont let their children have face book unless they add the parent as a friend and there is no argument about it if thy want Facebook their parents have to be able to see their page, but as I said you can only do your best.

Well that doesn't really work now, does it? I'm friends with my mother on Facebook and she doesn't see half of what I post.

And I'm 34 with two kids of my own.

LeeHoffmann

Read my post again, I have passwords, I check page, messages every day. There is nothing she can do on facebook that I dont know about

I don't think its too much of a stretch to assume that kids can join facebook (and other social networks) without telling their parents. They could sign up with a nickname/fake name, right?

El Horseboxo

I work in an area that deals with the exploitation of children online and I'd be almost 100% certain Facebook won't be handing over a penny from this case unless they get some very sympathetic judge that favors the father and family. If it occurred under the supervision of the care facility there would be a very strong possibility of winning a case against them. But if the child wasn't exposing any sexual organs it's difficult to prove the nature of the photos unless there is proof of requests for photos via Facebook.

Laisurg

What a plank, worried about his daughters safety my arse, the one and only reason he's doing this is for money.
Surely facebook has all sorts of disclaimers, wonder when he'll find out he has no case :eek:

mariaalice

There has to a balance of trust as well with children, if I suspected they were sending a large amount of private msg then the parent has the right to check and to ask to be shown the private msg if the child refuses they you know you have a problem, remember you are parent and you are paying for the interned connection so use your power.

If a teenager want to find there way around something they will, but you can make it as difficult as possible and keep an eye on them

I don't think this guy has any chance of winning. There are over 500m Facebook users - out of these, how many would upload photos daily? You are looking at possibly millions being put up - how in the Hell are these meant to be monitored by Facebook? It's like suing the Post Office for a naughty photo being sent by snail mail.

Also I just checked my profile and there is a Report Photo option - why didn't anybody use this?

LeeHoffmann

why didn't anybody use this?

the answer is obvious

the girl has received sexually explicit text messages from adult men and that men asked her to post images of herself online...Among the 12-year-old girl's Facebook 'friends' are adults in Ireland, Britain and elsewhere.

her other friends were likely also kids - I think they're unlikely to report her

krissovo

Am I the only one who thinks Facebook should have a duty of care? As stated facebook has invested in recognition software so why not apply it to clearly underage kids?

There are so many ways around net nanny etc, I am technical but my son can bypass these systems and download music & movies. I have a powerful firewall but savvy kids can get round them.

Does it make me a bad parent that I want my kids to have certain freedoms within well defined boundaries? Does it make me a bad parent that my kids are technical enough to bypass these systems?

blaze1

Friends in western Nigeria?

They were probably looking for her to get her folks bank details than fapping...

cruiser178

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I don't think its too much of a stretch to assume that kids can join facebook (and other social networks) without telling their parents. They could sign up with a nickname/fake name, right?

What good is a facebook acc to a kid where they cant post pics, interact with their friends(im also very aware of her friends list and many of them are friends with my oh)also the nearest internet cafe to me is the city centre, about a mile from my house, she's not allowed anywhere near the city centre. I suppose you're right in some respect, you can't be with them 24/7 but you can make thing's very difficult.

LeeHoffmann

OK I guess the geography here could matter. I live in a small town in the suburbs of Dublin and there's an internet cafe here, and the town library has free internet.

Azureus

Alopex wrote: »

are sexually suggestive pictures even illegal for 12 year olds? and can they be legally defined? it doesn't say nudity so i'm guessing their was none.

will come to nothing i'd say

It said there were photos of her lifting up her top etc-Id imagine that'd be illegal from a 12 year old?
Still not the websites fault though-supervision and security measures on computers are par for the course if you dont want this kinda stuff happening. A child of 12 already with behavioural problems was more than likely attention seeking and unaware of the greater ramifications of her actions-its not facebooks duty to protect her its her parents/the care home depending whos guardianship she was under at the time of all this happening.

Tordelback

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

OK I guess the geography here could matter. I live in a small town in the suburbs of Dublin and there's an internet cafe here, and the town library has free internet.

I don't know the specifics of your library's free internet facility, but I use Tallaght library (part of South Dublin Libraries) a lot with my kids, and they can only log on with their library cards, which allows them very limited age-appropriate internet use. (It's a brilliant facility, by the way).

Kids will always find a way past age checks online - I can't imagine how Facebook could implement an involuntary age policy. Supervision has to come from the home, as far as it's possible.

Even if they did work something out, pressurised parents would actively subvert it. My wife works with young schoolkids, and has a Facebook page relating to that work, and it is inundated with friend requests from kids - which she naturally has to refuse. When she does, she gets told over and over that their parents allow them to use Facebook. So how do you deal with that?

roast

Jesus christ, people need to start monitoring their kids online. This is just fúcked up, and pure negligence on that cnuts behalf.

gbee

roast wrote: »

Jesus christ, people need to start monitoring their kids online. This is just fúcked up, and pure negligence on that cnuts behalf.

You don't seem to have read the thread ~ your conclusion is the obvious first impressions ~

krissovo

roast wrote: »

Jesus christ, people need to start monitoring their kids online. This is just fúcked up, and pure negligence on that cnuts behalf.

That is a no brainer, however its clear kids can bypass the home defenses. It is also clear Facebook has the technology to prevent this incident and many more like it.

If a kid has behavioral issues then no amount of parenting could control 100% of net use so Facebook given its status as the No1 Social Network has a duty of care.

Aishae

Regardless of the net nanny and supervising the net - a lot of kids still get online using their phone.

So it's very hard for a parent to keep tabs on the kid to make sure they aren't being exploited - or fighting like dogs online etc. But you can't blame the net for a lack of parental power. You still need to try.

My name is URL

Of course the parents/guardians should be responsible for their kid's actions, but FB still have some responsibility to ensure that stuff like this doesn't happen on their site. If an under-age teen is drinking alcohol in a pub it may be down to bad parenting but there's still an onus on the owners of the premises to ensure that it doesn't happen.

Helix

krissovo wrote: »

There are so many ways around net nanny etc, I am technical but my son can bypass these systems and download music & movies. I have a powerful firewall but savvy kids can get round them.

Does it make me a bad parent that I want my kids to have certain freedoms within well defined boundaries? Does it make me a bad parent that my kids are technical enough to bypass these systems?

no, but id argue that it makes you a bad parent that you KNOW he gets around them and you still let him use the net at home

gargleblaster

Or you could simply not buy or pay for smart phones for your child if they have behavioral issues.

And for miniature hackers in training, keep a closer eye and when they try anything funny, remove their privileges for longer and longer periods for each offense.

amacachi

My name is URL wrote: »

Of course the parents/guardians should be responsible for their kid's actions, but FB still have some responsibility to ensure that stuff like this doesn't happen on their site. If an under-age teen is drinking alcohol in a pub it may be down to bad parenting but there's still an onus on the owners of the premises to ensure that it doesn't happen.

Was it reported to them? In my experience they're pretty quick to react to stuff that's reported.

Phareon

Well I think it's the girls fault anyway.. I mean, it would be if any wrong had actually be done... :L

gazzer

Aishae wrote: »

Regardless of the net nanny and supervising the net - a lot of kids still get online using their phone.

So it's very hard for a parent to keep tabs on the kid to make sure they aren't being exploited - or fighting like dogs online etc. But you can't blame the net for a lack of parental power. You still need to try.

Kids shouldnt have mobile phones and especially not have android phones.

roast

gbee wrote: »

You don't seem to have read the thread ~ your conclusion is the obvious first impressions ~

I've read the thread, and posted my own opinion - others aren't going to change mine wildly from my first impressions.

krissovo wrote: »

If a kid has behavioral issues then no amount of parenting could control 100% of net use so Facebook given its status as the No1 Social Network has a duty of care.

I agree with this though, but shouldn't the child have been monitored even more closely, given she has issues?

purpleblaa

I agree that FB should have more security in place. Sure only recently I discovered that because I use FB on my phone, all of my phone contacts were stored on my FB account. Did I ever ask FB to do this?? NOPE!
So FB, in my eyes, has a lot of areas that they need to tighten up on.
As for the parents......I think if I had a 12 year old daughter, she would not have a FB account. If she did, it'd be one that I created for her with a password that only I knew. I understand she has behavioural issues, but still, I think this is his responsibility to ensure his child isn't posting pics of herself, or accepting almost 500 friend requests. Yes i know the child could just create a page on their own, but stricter monitoring would eliminate this.
I can't understand how kids these days all have phones by the time they're 7 or 8 and laptops by 10/12. It's insane.
To me it just seems like he's blaming someone else (even thought FB should have stricter measures) for something he should have noticed anyway.

gbee

roast wrote: »

I agree with this though, but shouldn't the child have been monitored even more closely, given she has issues?

I don't think the mechanism has been established, if we get to hear, it'll be through the court case ~ as a minor is involved, we will probably never find out.

TheMilkyPirate

Facebook, whose international headquarters are located in Dublin

I didn't know that.

El Weirdo

purpleblaa wrote: »

I agree that FB should have more security in place. Sure only recently I discovered that because I use FB on my phone, all of my phone contacts were stored on my FB account. Did I ever ask FB to do this?? NOPE!

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/10/in-the-book/

Do you also post statuses warning people not to add certain people because they're a hacker?

Aishae

gazzer wrote: »

Aishae wrote: »

Regardless of the net nanny and supervising the net - a lot of kids still get online using their phone.

So it's very hard for a parent to keep tabs on the kid to make sure they aren't being exploited - or fighting like dogs online etc. But you can't blame the net for a lack of parental power. You still need to try.

Kids shouldnt have mobile phones and especially not have android phones.

I agree. Unfortunately a lot of kids do get phones and a lot of the modern phones have Internet capabilities - stupid to give a kid one. I know a 13 yr old with a bloody iPhone of all things (which mysteriously got broken so the parents wil upgrade it)

123balltv

This is why I thank God my younger siblings are not on this crapbook
its dangerous

AnonoBoy

El Weirdo wrote: »

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/10/in-the-book/

Do you also post statuses warning people not to add certain people because they're a hacker?

Also If you ever post the name of your pet on Facebook it actually owns your pet and then you can never have another pet without getting permission from Facebook that's what I heard from my sister's aunt's friend's mother's cousin who knows someone who was once on the internet once so they must know what they're talking about.

Run_to_da_hills

If this was in the States the father would have a good chance of loosing the child to childcare for failure to supervise it and this would be proper order.

Why should an irrisponsible idiot like him try and spoil a good social tool for everyone else.I hope he looses the case and has to cough up all costs out of his arse pocket.

El Weirdo

123balltv wrote: »

This is why I thank God my younger siblings are not on this crapbook
its dangerous

No it's not.

AnonoBoy

123balltv wrote: »

This is why I thank God my younger siblings are not on this crapbook
its dangerous

Stepping outside your front door is dangerous.
Crossing the road is dangerous.


I thank God that I never let my younger siblings do these things.

baltimore sun

daughter is 12, way too old for peados, and priests have their own social media so she'll be grand

wild_cat

Right I started to use the internet around 8 years of age.

My parents didn't know anything and still don't know anything about computers. So basically I had free reign of what I did...

I used to mess about on ICQ - Which was well known for grooming. I never once up loaded a picture of myself or told any one my geographical location bar being in Ireland. Yahoo chat rooms... MSN chat rooms.. (my friend and I being proper nerds were displeased when these shut down)

When I was in 4th class I made my own website on homested...

None of my usage was monitored but maybe as it was a time before digital cameras and we didn't have a scanner I never had a chance to put a photo up. All I was ever told was "never give your address to anyone"... and I didn't....

There was talk of a net nanny being put on the computer after they heard about it on the news. I informed them not to bother as I would be able to get around it anyway.


If you're thick yourself don't be surprised if you give birth to thick children.

AnonoBoy

I bet Alexander Graham Bell got a lot of stick from parents back in his day.

The same moronic reactionary types can be heard echoing down through the ages....

"I don't let my children use moveable type/telephones/CB radios/the internet, IT'S DANGEROUS!"

Fighting Irish

hondasam wrote: »

I agree parents should monitor their children but it's to easy to sign up to FB.

it's easy to google "boobs" and turn off safe search too!

it's also easy to block websites on a PC, sp if the parent didn't want a child using fb then they could have blocked it!

wild_cat

123balltv wrote: »

This is why I thank God my younger siblings are not on this crapbook
its dangerous

Only if your siblings are thick.

Fighting Irish

123balltv wrote: »

This is why I thank God my younger siblings are not on this crapbook
its dangerous

dangerous if you're too young and unsupervised