Photographs of Children in Public

The J Stands for Jay

toe_knee wrote: »

Parents don't know if you are a paedophile or not. Some parents don't even want to have photos of their own kids online. That's up to them. Why is this such an issue?

I don't understand what people think paedos would do with the pictures.

Poncke

me0w wrote: »

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

Whats the difference with a photo being taken? The parents are still there with the kid, arent they?? They can inspect the photo, and they will get a copy, for free. What is the difference??

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

What if she goes to a friends house and posts all those photos on twitter or instagram? How do you control that?

May I ask if your child has a Facebook account and possibly is younger than 13? Or any other social media account?

Dont reply if you dont want to.

Because I am just wondering, The minimum age to open an account on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Kik, and Snapchat is 13 years.

Any parent who has a child under 13 and is making a fuss about photos being taken needs to consider that having an account on social media could be far more dangerous than me taking a photo of your kid at Halloween, when the parents are even present.

She's only 8 and won't have any social media accounts for many years yet.

Pawwed Rig

Poncke wrote: »

Any parent who has a child under 13 and is making a fuss about photos being taken needs to consider that having an account on social media could be far more dangerous than me taking a photo of your kid at Halloween, when the parents are even present.

Or the photographs that their friends post etc etc. It is unreasonable in this day and age to think any child isn't somewhere on the internet where the pictures are uncontrolled.

amdublin

McGaggs wrote: »

I don't understand what people think paedos would do with the pictures.

I really don't understand this either. Well you think of the length and breadth of the internet and all the awful things that are there for a pedophile why would someone who gets their sexual kicks from children (oh jesus) want a photo of a child innocently playing on the swings. The whole point of pedophilia is want they want is Not Innocent.

Poncke

Whispered wrote: »

The pics I put up on Facebook for example, of my baby boy, are ones that shouldn't cause embarrassment in future. Ones that I have chosen to share. I have none of him crying, looking scared, being upset etc. They're also not for commercial purposes. .

Think again

from the Facebook TOS:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Poncke

me0w wrote: »

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

How do you tell they're not laced with poison?

amdublin

me0w wrote: »

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

Who the heck inspects their kids Halloween sweets??????????????


Next you are going to tell me its because bad people give kids drugs instead of sweets. What kind of drug dealer is going to waste their stash on kids instead of selling it or taking it themselves?????


Seriously!!!!!!


Ps. Are you American? (Calling sweets "candy")

ShaShaBear

Personally for me it has absolutely nothing to do with the "paedo" aspect of it, but rather how that image is going to be used. Will I see a photo of my child accompanying some ridiculous message on the internet? Will her image be used for promotion of a product or way of life that I am not aware of? Will it be stolen online and used by some stupid Facebook group fishing for likes to pretend the child has gone missing somewhere only for me to be accosted on the streets (this has happened locally to me already, not parental paranoia).

Perhaps a photographer has taken a picture of my child and shown it to me. Perhaps I don't like it, or I believe it could be taken negatively out of context. How do I know that the person has deleted it at my demands? If I have a complaint as to the use of the photo when I somehow spot it somewhere, how do I get it removed from all sources? How do I complain to the original photographer?

Poncke

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Or the photographs that their friends post etc etc. It is unreasonable in this day and age to think any child isn't somewhere on the internet where the pictures are uncontrolled.

Exactly, queue the examples found on Shutterstock

amdublin

Poncke wrote: »

How do you tell they're not laced with poison?

Good point.


I'd assume the only need for inspection is if your child is allergic to something. Why would anyone else "inspect" and as you have pointed out "be able to actually see anything".

Whispered

Doesn't "subject to your privacy settings" mean that if I have my privacy settings on so that certain people only can see the images, that's the way it stays?

Either way, it's still me who chooses the picture that goes up there.

Poncke

amdublin wrote: »

Ps. Are you American? (Calling sweets "candy")

I think it is because I called it candy, I am not native Irish.

amdublin

Whispered wrote: »

Doesn't "subject to your privacy settings" mean that if I have my privacy settings on so that certain people only can see the images, that's the way it stays?

Either way, it's still me who chooses the picture that goes up there.

Yes. But I'd assume that it won't stop anyone (in the group you share it with) downloading it, then uploading it without your privacy settings.


I'd assume. Could be wrong.

ShaShaBear

amdublin wrote: »

Good point.


I'd assume the only need for inspection is if your child is allergic to something. Why would anyone else "inspect" and as you have pointed out "be able to actually see anything".

I know of a few children locally that got stones covered in chocolate too. Some people would rather be cruel than simply not answer the door.

ShaShaBear

amdublin wrote: »

Yes. But I'd assume that it won't stop anyone (in the group you share it with) downloading it, then uploading it without your privacy settings.


I'd assume. Could be wrong.

Correct. I have very few friends on Facebook, and have my privacy settings to friends only so that even if someone on my friends list shared it, only people I have already shared it to will be able to see it. However, if they save it to their device and upload it to their own page, they can do whatever they like with it and share it to anyone.

Whispered

amdublin wrote: »

Yes. But I'd assume that it won't stop anyone (in the group you share it with) downloading it, then uploading it without your privacy settings.


I'd assume. Could be wrong.

Ah ok. Well I have a small group of people I know personally, they would have no reason to use an image commercially. Of course there is a very small chance of it happening but one I feel sufficiently at ease with

Oh just to edit: I'd have no problem with an image being used commercially btw so long as I was ok with the product etc. Again mainly to try avoid any future embarrassment for my son.

amdublin

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I know of a few children locally that got stones covered in chocolate too. Some people would rather be cruel than simply not answer the door.

Seriously! Think logically about that.


So cruel that they went out of their way to:
Think up this stupid idea
Go to shops and buy chocolate
Go outside and pick up the "right size" stones
Melt chocolate
Cover "right size" stones in chocolate
Give out to children


Seriosuly? You seriously think that sounds like something a "cruel" person would do? To me it sounds more like a psychotic lunatic who should be locked up.


Thinking about it logically it is the most far fetched and stupid thing ever that someone would actually do that.


Seriously just think about the logistics of it - it is much more than "just not opening the door".

CabanSail

There are Public and Private spaces. In Public you do not have Privacy, as the term implies. There are laws that cover harassment, stalking and anti-social behaviour, etc.

ShaShaBear

amdublin wrote: »

Seriously! Think logically about that.


So cruel that they went out of their way to:
Think up this stupid idea
Go to shops and buy chocolate
Go outside and pick up the "right size" stones
Melt chocolate
Cover "right size" stones in chocolate
Give out to children


Seriosuly? You seriously think that sounds like something a "cruel" person would do? To me it sounds more like a psychotic lunatic who should be locked up.


Thinking about it logically it is the most far fetched and stupid thing ever that someone would actually do that.


Seriously just think about the logistics of it - it is much more than "just not opening the door".

Again, I said I know. Factually. Not as in heard whispers. I know.
I only took my daughter to the houses of people I know very well and trust. It eliminates the need for inspection, which most certainly is there.

The J Stands for Jay

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Personally for me it has absolutely nothing to do with the "paedo" aspect of it, but rather how that image is going to be used. Will I see a photo of my child accompanying some ridiculous message on the internet? Will her image be used for promotion of a product or way of life that I am not aware of? Will it be stolen online and used by some stupid Facebook group fishing for likes to pretend the child has gone missing somewhere only for me to be accosted on the streets (this has happened locally to me already, not parental paranoia).

Perhaps a photographer has taken a picture of my child and shown it to me. Perhaps I don't like it, or I believe it could be taken negatively out of context. How do I know that the person has deleted it at my demands? If I have a complaint as to the use of the photo when I somehow spot it somewhere, how do I get it removed from all sources? How do I complain to the original photographer?

I think all of us, and our kids, are running the risk of becoming the next Bad Luck Brian or Scumbag Stacey. look at the guy who was caught by RTÉ news falling on ice. He ended up on an ad for meteor. Probably didn't get paid either.

Far more likely than whatever the outcome of this supposed paedo photography threat is.

thebaz

as a parent and photographer I see both sides , I don't believe paedophiles looking for obscenene material would wander the streets with a camera , they would be more devious to obtain there obscene material , changing rooms, hidden cameras etc - no expert on this , but I believe most abuse occurs from family members and those close to the child - so abusing photographers or fear of photographers is misplaced hysteria - like any group of people thers bound to be a few bad apples -its a shame really that photographing children playing has become such a no no - there part of life just like the elderly , the rich or unemployed - then again the over-saturation of photography with Facebook and instagram , has made real street photography , near impossible today.

amdublin

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Again, I said I know. Factually. Not as in heard whispers. I know.
I only took my daughter to the houses of people I know very well and trust. It eliminates the need for inspection, which most certainly is there.

You know as in it happened to you? Or know as in it happened to someone you know? As in a heard whisper?


Was the police called on this person that went out of their way as per my list of tasks to get to the point of creating "chocolate covered stones"


Seriously, I wonder did they get the stones from their front garden? Or the beach? Or maybe they bought ones from a garden centre, just to get that exact right size!
And did the "Inspector Parent" identify this before the child ate them? I wonder how they did it because "chocolate covered stones" would probably look like regular sweets.

The J Stands for Jay

CabanSail wrote: »

...taking photo's illegally...

I'm struggling to think of situations where it actually is illegal To take pictures. But still so many people think it's illegal to take pictures of anyone.

Diamond Doll

amdublin wrote: »

You know as in it happened to you? Or know as in it happened to someone you know? As in a heard whisper?


Was the police called on this person that went out of their way as per my list of tasks to get to the point of creating "chocolate covered stones"


Seriously, I wonder did they get the stones from their front garden? Or the beach? Or maybe they bought ones from a garden centre, just to get that exact right size!
And did the "Inspector Parent" identify this before the child ate them? I wonder how they did it because "chocolate covered stones" would probably look like regular sweets.

I too am finding it quite a stretch to believe this.

Surely it would have been in the news - assuming the same chocolate covered stones had been given out to every kid in the area who called at the door - or was it just that one child in particular was targeted?

I'm not suggesting that anyone is lying, but could it be that there was a very hard sweet in the centre that someone mistook for a stone?

ShaShaBear

amdublin wrote: »

You know as in it happened to you? Or know as in it happened to someone you know? As in a heard whisper?


Was the police called on this person that went out of their way as per my list of tasks to get to the point of creating "chocolate covered stones"


Seriously, I wonder did they get the stones from their front garden? Or the beach? Or maybe they bought ones from a garden centre, just to get that exact right size!
And did the "Inspector Parent" identify this before the child ate them? I wonder how they did it because "chocolate covered stones" would probably look like regular sweets.

The child bit into one and cried because it hurt her tooth. The mother checked it and discovered the issue and proceeded to check the sweets her other child had procured to find the same issue. They were in a large housing estate and the child cannot remember which house she got them from. But yes, as it happens - garda were informed and are investigating as it is obviously a serious matter.
And if you really must know, I was there when the child bit into the "sweet", so when I said I know, I actually meant I know :rolleyes:

Not that it's relevant, since it has nothing to do with photographing children, but your tone was starting to irk me, so I thought I'd clear that up.

maryfred

I don't have children. But if I did I wouldn't like pictures being taken of them without my consent. I do have a friend who is a photographer. His opinion:he wouldn't take pictures uninvited in a setting where it wouldn't be expected i.e. in a park or on the street.
I can't understand the mentality of "it's not against the law so I can do what I like". If it's upsetting or angering someone,then just don't. Regardless of the law. What's the fascination with taking pictures of kids that you don't know anyway? TBH I'm finding the defensiveness of some people on this thread a bit disturbing.
Finally I'm on my phone so can't check now, but whoever posted about a picture of a clothed child being used as a means of sexual gratification and not seeing this as a problem as the child in the photo isn't being harmed. I have no words for how f**ked up that sounds to me.

Diamond Doll

ShaShaBear wrote: »

The child bit into one and cried because it hurt her tooth. The mother checked it and discovered the issue and proceeded to check the sweets her other child had procured to find the same issue. They were in a large housing estate and the child cannot remember which house she got them from. But yes, as it happens - garda were informed and are investigating as it is obviously a serious matter.
And if you really must know, I was there when the child bit into the "sweet", so when I said I know, I actually meant I know :rolleyes:

Not that it's relevant, since it has nothing to do with photographing children, but your tone was starting to irk me, so I thought I'd clear that up.

Can you be certain that it wasn't just very hard toffee? Or maybe some sweets that were several decades out of date that some old dear decided to hand out, completely innocently?

I'm just amazed that it seems to have only been this one family involved, that there isn't a massive uproar over this. Are you saying this only happened last night? I'm very surprised media haven't caught onto it.

amdublin

ShaShaBear wrote: »

The child bit into one and cried because it hurt her tooth. The mother checked it and discovered the issue and proceeded to check the sweets her other child had procured to find the same issue. They were in a large housing estate and the child cannot remember which house she got them from. But yes, as it happens - garda were informed and are investigating as it is obviously a serious matter.
And if you really must know, I was there when the child bit into the "sweet", so when I said I know, I actually meant I know :rolleyes:

Not that it's relevant, since it has nothing to do with photographing children, but your tone was starting to irk me, so I thought I'd clear that up.

This all happened last night? That is good to hear the gardai are investigating and hopefully we will see someone get arrested for this. There will surely be the evidence of this person's purchases as evidence.


Or it happened last year?


Ps. yep my tone was intentional. I didn't believe it. It's a ridiculous story to think that someone went out of their way and took all those steps.


But am taking you at your word you witnessed it. You might have to go court? I look forward to reading in the news the outcome of this.

BabysCoffee

Wow there is some paranoid parenting going on. What with candy inspections and no photograph rules! Talk about wrapping your kids in cotton wool.

Presume the paranoia will be passed on from parent to child. No wonder children are so stressed these days.

Cotton Wool kids by Stella O Malley is a worthwhile read.

ShaShaBear

Diamond Doll wrote: »

Can you be certain that it wasn't just very hard toffee? Or maybe some sweets that were several decades out of date that some old dear decided to hand out, completely innocently?

I'm just amazed that it seems to have only been this one family involved, that there isn't a massive uproar over this. Are you saying this only happened last night? I'm very surprised media haven't caught onto it.

Probably because when I said it happened locally, I mean locally to me. I live in a very, very small town and I am not at all surprised it wasn't reported yet. We are sure it was not hard toffee. When washed, they looked like they came from gravel from someone's decorative garden if that makes sense. There are a few very unsavory sorts around the estate in question, so it actually surprises me none. And I can't say that they were personally targeted as I've not heard of other children having the same issue. That's not to say they haven't, though.

ShaShaBear

amdublin wrote: »

This all happened last night? That is good to hear the gardai are investigating and hopefully we will see someone get arrested for this. There will surely be the evidence of this person's purchases as evidence.


Or it happened last year?


Ps. yep my tone was intentional. I didn't believe it. It's a ridiculous story to think that someone went out of their way and took all those steps.


But am taking you at your word you witnessed it. You might have to go court? I look forward to reading in the news the outcome of this.

Okay...?

amdublin

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Probably because when I said it happened locally, I mean locally to me. I live in a very, very small town and I am not at all surprised it wasn't reported yet. We are sure it was not hard toffee. When washed, they looked like they came from gravel from someone's decorative garden if that makes sense. There are a few very unsavory sorts around the estate in question, so it actually surprises me none. And I can't say that they were personally targeted as I've not heard of other children having the same issue. That's not to say they haven't, though.

You sure had a night of it last night having to deal with this. And having to wash the sweets and all that. Did the guards take this all away as evidence?


This must be big news around your small town, everyone must be talking about it? I am sure this news will spread and it will be in the media soon. Would you think about letting your local paper know yourself?

Diamond Doll

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Probably because when I said it happened locally, I mean locally to me. I live in a very, very small town and I am not at all surprised it wasn't reported yet. We are sure it was not hard toffee. When washed, they looked like they came from gravel from someone's decorative garden if that makes sense. There are a few very unsavory sorts around the estate in question, so it actually surprises me none. And I can't say that they were personally targeted as I've not heard of other children having the same issue. That's not to say they haven't, though.

The idea that someone would cover a stone in chocolate and give it to a child is really not believable, at all. There would be a very real possibility of killing the child. As amdublin outlined, there are numerous steps involved, and if the child were to die or were to suffer serious harm as a result (very possible), it would probably be quite easy to identify who had done it.

I'm not accusing you of any mistruths. I just think it's very probable that the adults there misinterpreted the situation, possibly due to prior bias/paranoia.

ShaShaBear

amdublin wrote: »

You sure had a night of it last night having to deal with this. And having to wash the sweets and all that. Did the guards take this all away as evidence?


This must be big news around your small town, everyone must be talking about it? I am sure this news will spread and it will be in the media soon. Would you think about letting your local paper know yourself?

I'm going to make the assumption that you seem to be trying to poke fun and rub in that I am apparently some sort of liar. That's fine - I'm on this thread to discuss the issue of the public photography of children. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure if the parents involved wish for it to become public knowledge, then it will. Not interested in derailing the whole thread because you have a bee in your bonnet, so that's it from me.

CabanSail

maryfred wrote: »

Regardless of the law. What's the fascination with taking pictures of kids that you don't know anyway?

All above were candid street shots. Just a few quick examples.

amdublin

Cool pics Cabansail!

BabysCoffee

If true the chocolate covered stones sounds like a Halloween prank - quite amazing that the child even got to bite it though. I would have thought the parent sweet inspectors would have got to the home made looking sweets before they entered the mouth of the child. Sounds like a parental fail to me.

Poncke

We're going off topic now

Dr.Internet

It's ok for the children to call around and eat the sweets from the "peado", no problem there. But if a picture is taken of the child in a halloween outfit all hell breaks loose? People are strange

Stop sending your children round to the "peados" looking for free sweets then!!

Whispered

There are reasons other than fear of paedophilia to not be happy about someone taking pics of your children. It appears hysteria works both ways and makes conversation quite difficult.

maryfred

CabanSail wrote: »

All above were candid street shots. Just a few quick examples.

I'm assuming you're attempting to make a point. I fail to see it.

maryfred

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I'm going to make the assumption that you seem to be trying to poke fun and rub in that I am apparently some sort of liar. That's fine - I'm on this thread to discuss the issue of the public photography of children. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure if the parents involved wish for it to become public knowledge, then it will. Not interested in derailing the whole thread because you have a bee in your bonnet, so that's it from me.

amdublin I find your attitude to be beyond belief and totally immature. It's something I've noticed about you in other threads as well. You really seem to try to belittle anyone who offers an opinion contrary to your own. As a mod, I'm sure you'll exact your revenge for my speaking out. Have at it.

Dr.Internet

We loved the misery porn of the dead boy on the beach, I suppose his right to privacy is non-existant.

The J Stands for Jay

maryfred wrote: »

I'm assuming you're attempting to make a point. I fail to see it.

These are the interesting pictures of other people's kids you asked for.

Tasden

Dr.Internet wrote: »

We loved the misery porn of the dead boy on the beach, I suppose his right to privacy is non-existant.

Plenty of people I know were just as disgusted as i was at people and the media circulating the image so no, "we" didn't love that misery porn.

byhookorbycrook

I am always intrigued by some people getting in a knot about photos online. The same people who send letters to Santa to the local papers with the child's name, address,photo and age.

amdublin

maryfred wrote: »

amdublin I find your attitude to be beyond belief and totally immature. It's something I've noticed about you in other threads as well. You really seem to try to belittle anyone who offers an opinion contrary to your own. As a mod, I'm sure you'll exact your revenge for my speaking out. Have at it.

I'm not a mod on this forum. I'm just a regular poster like yourself. Feel free to report any of my posts you have an issue with. I've reported this on the basis of you attacking me rather than attacking the post.

Tiriel

No need to make this personal. The thread is for discussion, please respect others opinions.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

Plenty of people I know were just as disgusted as i was at people and the media circulating the image so no, "we" didn't love that misery porn.

Why would you be disgusted about the circulation of that image?

First of all it was news, people have the right to know and the image caused people in power to take action. Hence Europe commited to increase the intake of refugees.

I get more disgusted at the vulture paparazzi hunting down Britney Spears than at media reporting important events.