|
|
You did the right thing by making those photos private, and they should stay that way, along with not posting them to groups that are Public, including those that are Invitation Only where you have to send a FlickrMail to the admin responsible (and also add that admin to your contact listings), and including those that are invited photos only groups.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You'll find a lot of discussion on this topic. Some people prefer to keep their children's photos private, others don't consider making their children's photos public to be a form of endangerment. It's really a matter of your personal comfort level.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What Lu said.
Every parent needs to determine what their comfort level is for what they share online. While there may be instances of people reporting or concerned about creepy use, we have built in tools likes "Block" that can pull stuff out of favourites and maintain a high priority queue -- "Report Abuse" where our members can communicate with us if they would like further review.
Otherwise, there are millions of members who have shared all manner of photographs without incident and it's unfortunate that the actions of a few (the creepy people) are spoiling it for the rest of us.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rolii:
a lot of my contacts publicly post pics of their children with no apparent issues, and I've never had a problem with posting pics of my teenager. but I've been told that certain groups are magnets for creepy types, so it might be a good idea to avoid posting to groups.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow, there really are different ways of looking into this. I would, by all means, like to have everyone enjoy the pics I have of my children, but not to the point where I'll have to put up with some kind of online harassment or some dude setting the pics of my kids as his (or her) favs together with God-knows what other stuff he or she might be keeping in there. On the other hand, what real "danger" is there? I doubt my family or I will have any kind of real trouble if some waco out there takes an interest on my photography. i don't know, man. Public? Private? Decissions, decissions...
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rolii - one other thing to consider is the issue of "security" when it comes to your photos being copied and used elsewhere. Given that what is seen can be taken, you may want to think twice about making your children photos public for merely that issue - you never know where your photos might end up once they're "out there" in public.
If you do make them public though, I'd highly recommend not using generic tags such as "kids", "child", "girl" or "boy", etc. Those are tags that frequently attract the wrong kind of attention.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm going to second FlyButtafly's tag suggestion. We have some kid photos public (but also lots private) , because we have family all over the world with differing amounts of computer knowledge. When I used to tag with "baby" "kid" "party" etc... I used to get some faves by folks who had no photos to share and only faved kids. Now I don't use tags except for the photos I want others to find. Yes, they're public and creepy folks can find them, but I haven't made it simple for them. We decided that the trade off of being able to share with our extended family are worth it.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But it is important to be aware, that if your photos are public, they are public and viewable to the entire world, to anyone with internet access. They show up in Google images searches, since they're on the global internet, as well as most other search engines.
Flickr has features to keep people from visibly harassing you. But your images are viewable, copyable, usable, without your knowledge, to anyone with an internet connection. And Flickr can't do anything about that, if you make the photos public. Once you post anything online, you no longer have control over it, and photos will float around the net for years (see the recent stories of college kids posting their drunk exploits online and then having the photos come back to haunt them at job interviews.)
So as long as you're aware that people that you do not want looking at your kids pics, may be looking at them, copying them, trading them, and posting them online elsewhere. It may not constitute a "risk" or a "danger". But it sure is icky.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rolii, the pictures of my kids are all public. I don't post the kind of pictures that I wouldn't post of myself either (private bits showing), for the rest of course I know paedophiles can and will see the pictures. But by seeing the pictures they will not touch my children.
What I don't like is when the occasional 'creep' makes a favorite out of my kids' pictures to be added to their other all-porn favorites. I just block such people.
I'm not going to let these concerns spoil the fun to me because the chances that anything bad happens to my kids are a thousand times higher in real life...
In other words, I don't think you will be harrassed. If your photos are not provocative, it's very unlikely. But there are no guarantees of course.
Casa de Woof, if a person with no photos has pictures of kids as favorites, chances are they have set all their pictures as private...? Well, it also depends on what kind of pictures, of course.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
here is another reason why we are a family in the flickr community "we help each other: I sent this generic flickr mail out
please look at the profile and make sure you are okay with this person..NO PHOTOS IN THE PROFILE...also....the groups that this member has joined are OUR GROUPS...they have not joined any perverted groups but he has gotten into our kids groups.
I am not okay with this person. Look at the faves and groups.
thanks
from a concerned flickr member for our kids,
moorz84
aka: mary
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
NO PHOTOS IN THE PROFILE...also....the groups that this member has joined are OUR GROUPS...they have not joined any perverted groups but he has gotten into our kids groups.
Interestingly, I know someone who has no publicly-visible photos, and a list of child-oriented groups. They're a parent, only really post photos of their kids and home life, and keep them set to family&friends.
She's been accused of being a pervert so many times she keeps a form letter handy for it, linking to the photos she's posted in the group pools, which are visible to people in the pool (many of whom share the same concerns), but not via her profile if you casually check that.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's what I mean, now that so many people are afraid they set all their pictures to 'private' and then accuse others who set all their pictures to 'private' of being creeps... Don't let panic overcome you!
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"What I don't like is when the occasional 'creep' makes a favorite out of my kids' pictures to be added to their other all-porn favorites. I just block such people."
What a strange head in the sand approach. You're apparently fine with all the "creepy" people viewing and copying your photos that you never know about?
I'll keep my fear mongering to a minimum, and not argue the "no harm" opinion, in spite of a growing technological march towards all photos being geotagged and accessible on 3D maps, literally pointing the way to every place your kids were and are. Ok a little fear mongering.
But set that all aside for a moment, posting pics of your kids online as a perfectly safe activity, and still your view makes no sense. If you have a problem with the occasional "creepy" person viewing and favoriting your pics, why do you not have a problem with the ten creepy persons who are doing it in secret?
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's an idea: keep all of my kids' photos elsewhere (smugmug, for instance; or better yet: in my hard drive) and share here the pics that perverts won't care about!
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Bottom line, all that's important, is if you want to share photos here that YOU care if perverts care about. It's your comfort level that matters, I guess. You've probably got years before your kids resent you for putting their embarrassing pics online. Or before you start harping on them for posting their embarrassing pics on MySpace. circle of life.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Photos of your children are boring. Except for those who know your children. So there is no reason to make them public.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes there is. If they are private, then non-tech-savy family members (and others) have to become flickr members to see them. That rules out lots of my family. They will follow a URL, but won't sign up for a service.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Anna & Martin - it sounds like you want a Guest Pass. It sends out a URL so whomever you send it to can see private photos.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What a strange head in the sand approach. You're apparently fine with all the "creepy" people viewing and copying your photos that you never know about?
Problem is that the abusers tend to be the ones that are known to you. IE they are the very persons that you are sending out guest passes and making F&F.
OTOH there are random viewers that 'like' photos of kids. What they do with the photos is one thing and whether they put your kids in any danger another thing entirely. But having your kid's photo in amongst a load of BJ and anal sex faves photos is a bit off putting. One thing knowing it can happen another thing to actually see it happen.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Photos of your children are boring.
yes, and very useful for helping pervs skip over my kid pics. ;-)
no frilly panties, only boring shots of emo teens.
boring is the best defense.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If I understand what's going on here, the original poster is asking if photos are safe online, and the gist of the answers is that the photos are not safe because they're subject to secret abuse by some raving pervert somewhere without us ever knowing it. Therefore, we have to keep our photos private. We _must_ protect our photos.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Civilized Explorer:
that would not be my gist, no. mine are boring and public.
but I'm not parent to a six-year-old cutie with pics showing her frolicking in a ballet tutu. those parents get to make whatever privacy call they want.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow! I just stumbled upon this topic as I was looking for help as to how to keep "pervie" guys from trying to add me as a "contact". (It happened again this morning. I don't know this guy, he's not in any of my groups, and when I checked his profile there were 20+ groups that were ALL pornographic, even some of the names were extremely obscene - What this guy does in his own time is his business, but why harrass me??)
Anyway, that was off-topic -- Guess I just needed to vent . . .
I am fascinated by this topic, however. I have pics of my kids on-line, and I'm fairly new to Flickr, so I hadn't realized the risk I was taking until these weirdo's started coming my way out of the blue. After reading all of your comments, I can see there are good points for both sides of the issue. As for me, I am going to change all of my photos of the kids to "private" -- Atleast for now. I need some time to really think this over. Just the thought of these disgusting people having access to pics of my kids is repulsive!
Thanks to Rolii for posting the subject!
I really like the response from "dbthayer":
"no frilly panties, only boring shots of emo teens. boring is the best defense."! :-)
I'm in in agreement with that comment.
While I would classify most of my shots as "boring" to someone who doesn't know them, you just never know.
It's most unfortunate as I also have very much enjoyed sharing my photos with family and close family friends. I'll keep watching this topic to see what others have to say. In the meantime, this is quite a lot to think about.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There are settings on each photo to allow family and friends to view them without making them public,
You can continue to share all of your kids photos with family and friends by making them private, and then allowing that level of access.
You will have to make each individual a contact, and then a member of the family, friends, or friends and family level.
However, to do that, the people have to have a Flickr account, unless you send them a guest pass.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
My pleasure, Scorpion! I'm going to do the same thing: keep my kids' pics private for a while, at least 'til I know my way around flickr and get a more accurate read on how dangerous, disturbing or uncomfortable it really gets when the photos of your 1, 3, 6 and 8 year olds are being used in who-knows which obscure and unphathomable way!
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Basically your family photo of little Tracy or Wayne is unlikely to get 1000+ views unless there is something else going on.
Don't post public photos of your kids in a state of undress, 'hoochie momma' style fashion, or in some sexualized pose, no matter how cute you may think it is.
I don't think normal photos of kids in the park or family outings attract much attention, but check who favourites you kid photos and watch out for increasing view counts.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have some public photos of my niece and nephew and they're among my least-viewed and "least-interesting" (at least according to Flickr) photos. I can barely get my family to look at them! So I won't be terribly concerned when we have our own kid this spring, and I won't let a few bad apples spoil my fun of showing the entire world the most beautiful child known to mankind :-)
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What you and I may think of as a boring picture a pervert might very well consider as his or her favorite, don't you think?
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
When the story broke about the apparent abduction of Madeleine McCann earlier on this year the press here in the UK were full of warnings about the dangers of posting even innocent images of children online, not only here on flickr, but anywhere.
Those press reports made it clear that if you are a parent and you post images of children, apparently innocently playing around say on a beach or swimming etc then the weirdo pedophile brigade will be on them like a flash. So it would be wise not to post any images like this.
But, more insidiously apparently normal images of our children put them in danger. Why? Because pedophiles and pedophile gangs, who have tentacles worldwide, hunt online to find targets to abduct and abuse. So by posting images of children online you are potentially making them a target for such sick criminal elements.
Previously we had had hundreds of images of our children online because we wanted to share our joy with other parents and extended family, but we decided that we don't want to risk our children to the rampant dangers of pedophiles online. After reading about these things and seeing reports gravely concerning reports on television at the time we removed every image of our children from the internet.
Since that time we have often read parents expressing real concerns about dubious activities of individuals and groups here on flickr and this endorses our decision and we are glad we took it.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@F-2
Personally I wouldn't let give the UK press the time of day. Complete and utter bullshitting, scaremongering, wankers the lot of them. There was something in the inline version of the Mirror the other week about the loss of those CB records being a charter for all paedophiles everywhere, fucking tosh.
Today, kids are locked in at home, they hardly ever go out or explore their environment. The village I live in has a number of kids living in it, in my own road there are about 10, but you can go month after month, without seeing more than a couple.
Totally different from when I was a kld living in Pimlico London, when I'd travel the entire city on the tube. Go off fishing on the Embankment at Kingston-upon-Thames, days in the South Kensington Museums, at age 10 I used to go to a Chess club that met on a Saturday afternoon in a wine bar around the back of St Paul's. The only problem we ever knew of was when a mate got felt up in the Saturday Morning Cinema in the Kings Road, and 20 yo son of neighbour used to expose himself. I doubt level of threat has changed much since the late 60s.
pedophiles and pedophile gangs, who have tentacles worldwide, hunt online to find targets to abduct and abuse
They frequent chat rooms and pose as other kids to befriend them, groom them, and meet them in real-life. How does a photo on flickr facilitate that? It does not!
The problem with photos on flickr is that someone might use the photo for icky purposes.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The point made, especially in the ITN report, was that pedophiles will find images of children online that they then target and abduct. Apparently parents are being careless about their location making the job of such pedophiles much easier.
I really do believe that there is a real danger to posting images of children online and we took the decision to remove the images of our children. We were not blinded by the sensationalist reporting but simply felt that the fact that more and more pedophile gangs are being exposed all the time and the internet has simply made their activities much more rampant.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rolii:
What you and I may think of as a boring picture a pervert might very well consider as his or her favorite, don't you think?
going beyond the hypothetical, it's not difficult to detect unusual behavior on a photo. fortunately, perverts find my photos boring too.
F-2
frankly, I am far more concerned about friends/relatives, and people who see my child in the neighborhood and at school than anonymous 'pedophile gangs' roaming the internet.
press reports, grrr...if we are to believe Rupert Murdoch and co., only attractive young blondes from well-to-do families are ever abducted by sick criminal elements. greta van-what's-her-name and her ilk are the last place I will seek guidance on protecting my son from harm.
but more power to you for doing whatever you feel is necessary to protect your children.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The point made, especially in the ITN report, was that pedophiles will find images of children online that they then target and abduct. Apparently parents are being careless about their location making the job of such pedophiles much easie.
It's my understanding that "stranger danger" is more fear mongering than fact and that 97% of instances of abuse/harm/etc., toward children come from people who are known to the family.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
but more power to you for doing whatever you feel is necessary to protect your children.
What dbthayer said. There is no one right answer for everyone.
It's important that everyone (not just parents) think about what they want to share publicly and privately. The internet is still quite nascent and how we live online (either by sharing photos, blogging, etc.) is something that everyone should have a think about
[edit "how we live online is something that everyone should explore, be it through photographs, blogs, etc." --> "how we live online (either by sharing photos, blogging, etc.) is something that everyone should have a think about", previous version wasn't expressing what i was tring to get at -- I need more tea]
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 54 months ago.
|
|
|
There is a DoJ report on the subject that confirms heather's statement. Strangely younger kids are most likely to be abused by older kids.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf
BTW I wasn't aware that the McCann kid was abducted because the parents had posted her photo on the internet. That must have been some ITN investigation.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 54 months ago.
|
|
|
BTW I wasn't aware that the McCann kid was abducted because the parents had posted her photo on the internet. That must have been some ITN investigation.
The alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann in Portugal was reportedly not the result of online posting of her image/images. But it is claimed that person/persons had been watching children, including Madeleine McCann, on that resort/area just prior to the alleged abduction.
Following such claims the press at the time investigated the matter and produced reports regarding the activities of pedophile gangs and where they find out about children they abduct. The online possibility was reported on at the time as being one such avenue pedophile gangs pursue.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The point made, especially in the ITN report, was that pedophiles will find images of children online that they then target and abduct.
I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support that view. Did ITN give any sources? The FBI reports in the US indicate that most child abuse is at the hands of family members and persons in a position of atuhority over the child (child care provider, priest, sports coach). And by most, it's in the 90% range.
If anyone has any resources that show supportable numbers regarding children harmed as a result of having their photos online, I'd be interested in learning more.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
...There is no one right answer for everyone.
It's important that everyone (not just parents) think about what they want to share publicly and privately. The internet is still quite nascent and how we live online (either by sharing photos, blogging, etc.) is something that everyone should have a think about.
Exactly the point and I agree entirely. Nobody should tell other parents what they should do regarding this matter. It is up to parents to make informed decisions.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support that view. Did ITN give any sources? The FBI reports in the US indicate that most child abuse is at the hands of family members and persons in a position of atuhority over the child (child care provider, priest, sports coach). And by most, it's in the 90% range.
If anyone has any resources that show supportable numbers regarding children harmed as a result of having their photos online, I'd be interested in learning more.
The ITN report my wife and I watched stated that pedophile gangs use a number of ways to locate young children to abduct. Pedophile gangs were said to harvest images online and share these among themselves, many of these images are entirely innocent. Unsuspecting parents are usually unaware that the images of their children are being abused this way. Thats the gist of it. We watched this report some eight months ago and I have just brainstormed what can be remembered with my wife.
This report really freaked the pair of us out. I do not regard ITN as sensationalist reporters. As I stated previously it was strong enough for us to remove all the images of our children.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 54 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm a criminal defense attorney. There is no such thing as a "pedophile gang." Wherever you heard that is just trying to create fear and hysteria. Pedophiles don't work together to get children. You shouldn't believe everything you see on television or read on the internet.
Will perverts find your child's photo - possibly. Will it arouse them - maybe. Will your actual child be in danger because his/her photo is on the internet - no more so than there in danger when you let them go to school, to a friends, anywhere we're they're not in your immediate care. Especially if you take care not to put any GPS or other identifying data on your photo.
Unfortunately, children will be abducted. This will continue to be the case even if their photo is not on the internet. The internet makes it no more or less likely that your child would be abducted. (Which is an entirely different issue from someone finding a photo of child to be sexually arousing.)
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
RubyMae edited this topic 54 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm going to do the same thing: keep my kids' pics private for a while, at least 'til I know my way around flickr and get a more accurate read on how dangerous, disturbing or uncomfortable it really gets when the photos of your 1, 3, 6 and 8 year olds are being used in who-knows which obscure and unphathomable way!
The fact is, if you make your kids' photos public, you will probably never find out in what ways your photos are used. Whether it's people copying them to make fake profiles on Orkut (there was a huge rash of that going on; people are still battling to get their kids' photos off there) or pedophiles linking them on boylove sites or diaper fetish sites.... and I'm not making it up; I've come across flickr accounts which were full of photos taken from sites like that (one guy was so stupid he actually put the url of the website in the tags - apparently he was trying to advertise it or something) - and there was one site which had dozens and dozens of text links to photos on flickr, all of boys between the ages of 1-10 in all sorts of different situations - everything from full-frontal nakedness and urinating, to fully-clothed, closeups of their faces, etc. You *never* know what kind of photo someone is going to get "off" on. And you mostly never know when someone takes your photo and uses it elsewhere. It's just too hard to track unless they provide a link back to your page or someone stumbles across it.
Just more to think about. And The Searcher is right (I know he loves hearing that ;) - every kind of person is on the 'net. Right down to all the sickos in prison for child molestation. And they all have the potential to see your photo if it's public. Whether it puts your child in physical danger can be debated - but if you don't want to take a chance that someone sexually fantasizes about your kids, then you shouldn't make them public.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm a criminal defense attorney. There is no such thing as a "pedophile gang." Wherever you heard that is just trying to create fear and hysteria. Pedophiles don't work together to get children. You shouldn't believe everything you see on television or read on the internet.
If there is no such thing as a pedophile gang, what was it that was going on in Belgium? I seem to remember that a large number of people, some high officials were working together abusing children and young people. Okay so instead of the word gang the word ring was used but ring or gang seems the same to me.
The BBC even reported on this matter:
"The Belgium government has announced wide-ranging changes to the country's police forces following the publication of a parliamentary report into the torture and murder of young children by a paedophile ring. The Belgian prime minister, Jean-Luc Dehaene, said a single national police force would be created, combining the two present autonomous forces. The report had singled out the police for particular criticism, accusing them of negligence and amateurism."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/57349.stm
This would suggest that pedophiles do in fact work together to get children and young people. I'm sure that there are many other examples of pedophiles working together in gangs or rings to achieve their twisted aims.
Here are a few more:
"global paedophile ring"
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7079763.stm
"Edinburgh paedophile ring"
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6940901.stm
"Paedophile ring smashed by police"
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6763817.stm
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The issue that we are trying to make is that, whilst the photo may be abused, your child won't be. Focus on the abuse of the photo not the child, because if you think that keeping the photos private protects the child you are very much mistaken.
The Ortuk situation is a disgrace if Google are still allowing to continue, though I'm not surprised they've put profit before anything else.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"global paedophile ring"
The girls were identified by police in Belgium and the offender, their father, was arrested.
"Edinburgh paedophile ring"
Dunsmore, 43, was sentenced in June to 12 years in prison for her part in the gang rape of her young daughter and another girl.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In the end, what harm is there in some "pervert" favoriting a photo of your child? While I understand the discomfort of such a thing, in the real world your child is not harmed from it. It is hightly unlikely such a person is going to try to track the child or your family down to do something horrible. There are probably people who your child actually knows that pose a threat to your child more than someone online. Most all abuse and harm that comes to our children is inflicted by a family member, friend or aquaintance of the family. While you have every right to worry about posting photos of your children online, you have to balance the minimal danger of that against the actual real dangers your child could face in the real world vs. the cyber world.
As far as pedophiles "harvesting" photos of children, yeah that's creepy but ....so? I am going to be perfectly blunt here.....I rather have a pedophile satisfy their disturbing desires by getting off to a photograph than actually touching a real child. Your child is no more harmed by that than they are by some creepy person who sees them at the supermarket and goes home to fantasize about it.
So, just use some common sense and don't let paranoia take over your life. Yes, someone on Flickr may favorite a photo of your child and have an erotic photo of a woman (or a man) in their favorites as well. Block them if you wish, but never forget that your brother, husband or even your father probably watched or bought pornography at some time in their life and has a photo of your child in their wallet as well.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Whether it puts your child in physical danger can be debated - but if you don't want to take a chance that someone sexually fantasizes about your kids, then you shouldn't make them public."
Which was my point in case I didn't make it clearly enough.
(And just to nitpick - child molesters do not have internet access in prison - in fact, most are prevented from having it once they're released from prison.)
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
On the global paedophile ring, read this:
itn.co.uk/news/879cd172336339b7fbc0ebaf0a220d31.html
It was the father to two young girls selling videos he made of himself and his daughters. The 'ring' is his list of buyers of his tapes.
The Edinburgh 'ring' consists of people allowed by a mother to have sex with her daughter.
The last pedophile ring is again the list of customers of a Web site with photos of child abuse. The charge was possession of child pornography.
In the two cases involving imagery, the images show child abuse; they are not the photos parents post to flickr. In the first two cases, the perpetrators of the abuse are the parents of the children, not gangs of pedophiles who have tracked the children down somehow. In the third case, the adults responsible for the images are not identified in the reports. It is not, though, gangs of pedophiles who have tracked the children down; the ring is the purchasers of existing pornography.
These three reports are not on point. My question is what reliable sources are there that show that posting family photos of kids on flickr or elsewhere brings harm to the children. As I said, the FBI stats indicate that most harm caused to children is from people those kids know. I am unaware of any reliable statistics concerning harm to children as a result of photos on the Internet - I am quite willing to be convinced I'm wrong, by the way, but I have no information that makes me question my belief that posting photos on flickr results in no harm to children.
I understand people believe otherwise. Some people are attempting to prevent even the taking of photos of children:
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1028189_no_photos_...
where a father in a public park was told it was against the law to take a photo of his baby. The story contains this quote:
But Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, said: "Based on these reports I am thinking of introducing a Bill to Parliament called The Common Sense Act 2007.
"We are in danger of becoming so adverse to risk we will lose sight of common sense."
Uh, photos of the baby in the park are shown in the story, by the way.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Violentz, RubyMae, and Civilized Explorer already said exactly what I wanted to say, only better...
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I had my babies' photos public, but have just learned that someone has stolen at least one of them (I am pursuing this matter through Flickr). It's up to you, yes, but I have now made my childrens' photos private. It's not that I worry that someone will come after them, but I do worry that people are stealing my photos and I cannot keep track of the thefts if that happens.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
everyday_stranger, make sure you fill out and email to Yahoo their Notice of Infringment form.
info.yahoo.com/copyright/details.html
Just follow the six steps listed out by them. I filed one the other day against someone who had posted one of my own photos in their photostream. Yahoo removed the photo within 15 minutes. I'm sure the day of the week and time you submit the form will determine how long it takes for your photo to be removed from the offenders photostream.
Oh.... and in case you are wondering what an electronic signature is (which you will be required to give them in your email) It looks like this.....
/John Smith/
John Smith
You just put in your own name. :o)
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Violentz - I did the NoI - the picture is still up in the other guy's photo stream, over 36 hours later...
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr/Yahoo usually acts on NOI very quickly. Are you sure you filled it out correctly? Maybe it wouldn't hurt to send another. If you use the Report Abuse link at the bottom of every page, it has the directions for filling out the NOI.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(btw-I followed the link from your photostream - he clearly took your photo, it has your watermark on it - but lynch mobs are against community guidelines. You may want to have your supporters tone it down a notch or they could get in trouble, too. I understand how upset you are, but attacking someone on flickr isn't going to get your photo removed any quicker.)
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've responded to everyday_stranger via Help by Email and over in this other topic:
flickr.com/help/forum/61581/#reply352734
It would be awesome if we could avoid derailing what I think has been an awesome and informative conversation.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I take a slightly different spin on things. Most of my pics are of my kids and most of those are private, but that's more because I think they have a right to privacy, i.e. they are too young to consent to have their photos online (and also personal information such as names, etc.). As much as I'd like to have those photos public as they are some of my better shots.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you Heather, this conversation was steering towards an entirely different topic.
In any case, my initial question has been answered, I think; by FlyButtafly:
if you don't want to take a chance that someone sexually fantasizes about your kids, then you shouldn't make them public
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've said this before, I'm sure, when this subject comes up. I do find it "icky" that people might use my photos of my children in ways I don't intend, but I've also found that the "ped" interest seems to be much less that some people make it out to be. If you don't use stock-photo-type tags on your Flickr photos -- no "boy", "girl", or "teen", no body parts or activities specified -- they get remarkably fewer views, and (thank you, Stats!!!) remarkably fewer views from people's favorite collections or from direct addresses (direct addresses can include where someone has bookmarked the photo rather than favorited it).
I like to let my children out in public. I think the world is a better place when there are children out and about in it. Yes, I'll make my kids' photos just a little less easy to find in those common tag searches (I can see what some of those are, now - I used "teen" in one of my self-portraits and know that it was hit in a search that was clearly looking for ... someone considerably younger), but I won't let insufficiently soundly based media paranoia or a few creepy people close my beautiful world down.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's what I plan to do (and suggest other concerned parents do as well):
Keep your children's photos private. Want to share them with Mom, who doesn't even know what flickr is? Send her a GuestPass (is that what it's called?). Want to let trusted fellow flickr users see them? Mark them as friends or family.
Simple as that
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rolii:
just yesterday an old friend from another country--who knew my son when he was a toddler--stumbled across my flickr page. my friend immediately emailed me with a comment marveling how much the boy's grown, blah blah blah.
if I'd made those pics private, my friend--who is not a flickr member--would have never known the pics were there. I certainly never thought to send him a guest pass.
just saying, there are upsides and downsides to all solutions.
Lú_:
eloquently stated.
and having stats helps a lot!
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unfortunately, policing Flickr for stolen pics of your kids, and trying to take matters into your own hands, can be a pretty big downside.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
..Anecdotal only, of course but, I've been on Flickr for nearly 3 years, all photos are public & CC licensed, 25% of them are of my teen and with few exceptions my experience (including photos being blogged) has been positive
..General internet safety, such as not posting/using a child's real name, location, school or other identifying information (in my case it's my godchild, so we don't share name or location) and other common-sense practices go a long way toward protecting the child ..As far as protecting the photos of the child? ..All the stuff already mentioned, especially the use of non-identifying tags, posting to few (small) groups, not posting provocative photos, blurring or otherwise photoshopping identifying info seems to work (for me)
..I've made enough friends on Flickr through shared experiences of our children that I could probably make my godchild's photos "friends & family" now without significant effect ..but, it's unlikely I'd have met those friends if the photos had been private to begin with
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here we go again. Now dbthayer and ericdege have gotten me to re-think my strategy. hmmmm...
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Rolii:
yeah, but it's easy for me to talk.
my teen is such a pain in the ass about having his picture taken that I hardly have anything to post. sheesh, you'd think that I was stealing his soul or something.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I posted pics of my son and found out months later that at least 2 men had copied and reposted them on their page. These were posted with tons of other pics of young boys and also added to young boy picture groups for all the pervs to ogle. My pics are now kept to private for the most part. Do yourself a favor and dont create stress un-neccisarily. Keep them to family only or decide who you really want to add as a friend or just a contact.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I take a slightly different spin on things. Most of my pics are of my kids and most of those are private, but that's more because I think they have a right to privacy, i.e. they are too young to consent to have their photos online (and also personal information such as names, etc.).
This is kind of my philosophy. Most of the photos of my kids that I put on Flickr are marked friends and family only. Part of it is because my ex doesn't want pictures of our children all over the big bad Internet. The other part is that I'm trying to respect my kids' privacy.
I'm really proud of my kiddos, and love to share photos with folks, but I usually do that via a Guest Pass, if the person is not one of my friends/family here.
Posted 54 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads