ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, March 05, 2016

Hey, parent, leave the kids offline

Some of you will recall that I have repeatedly urged everyone here to stop posting pictures of your children on social media. I consider it to be a reprehensible violation of their privacy and an abrogation of one's parental responsibilities in two ways: it robs them of the ability to make their own decisions and it risks exposing them to unwanted attention and potential danger. Worse, it does so for nothing more than to feed the short-term attention-seeking fix of narcissistic parents.

This is not a new subject. Back in 2009, I wrote:
Never, ever, put pictures of children up on the Internet. Not on Facebook, not on invitation-only Live Journals, and certainly not on public blogs. It's not only reprehensibly stupid, it is completely disrespectful of a child's right to make his own decisions about his public profile in the future. True, sometimes this is unavoidable, such as when a child happens to be in the news for one reason or another. But barring that, no responsible parent should ever upload a picture of a child to the Internet, no matter how proud one might happen to be.
I repeated that again three years ago:
Don't put pictures of your kids on Facebook or Instagram.  It's stupid.  It's obnoxious.  It's thoughtless and self-centered.  And it's their life, not yours, that you're putting on public display.
And, of course, there is absolutely no excuse for ever putting a picture of another family's child on social media, for any reason. So, you can't say you weren't warned, as it appears the law in some countries is finally beginning to catch up to the obvious privacy violations involved.
French parents are being warned to stop posting pictures of children on social networks in case their offspring later sue them for breaching their right to privacy or jeopardising their security.

Under France’s stringent privacy laws, parents could face penalties as severe as a year in prison and a fine of €45,000 (£35,000) if convicted of publicising intimate details of the private lives of others — including their children – without their consent.

Eric Delcroix, an expert on internet law and ethics, said: “In a few years, children could easily take their parents to court for publishing photos of them when they were younger.”

Grown-ups who sue their parents for breaching their right to privacy as children could obtain substantial compensation awards, according to French legal experts.
I won't have any sympathy for the parents who find themselves getting hoist by their own narcissistic petard in the future. They will whine and cry about their ungrateful children, who will rightly respond: "why should I harbor any concern for your financial interests when you demonstrably didn't give a damn about my legal and moral right to not be put on display to the world like a pet or a trophy?"

Labels: ,

57 Comments:

Blogger Eric March 05, 2016 6:26 AM  

I agree completely.

Blogger Gordon March 05, 2016 6:32 AM  

Yes, you're right. I'd say that people will, one day, wake up and realize they have devoted years of their life to describing their navel lint to others. Except that the millenials already realize the absurdity, and they aren't worried about it. For them, the world has always had obnoxious tattoos, nanny statism and social media.

Also, the French are wrong. Yeah, your parents sucked. You lived. Get on with life. The last thing the world needs is another excuse for trial lawyers.

This Saturday morning grump brought to you by me.

Anonymous Jim Mortensen March 05, 2016 6:46 AM  

"right to not be put on display to the world like a pet".
Now I would love it even more if pets were also given rights to privacy/their own publicity (esp since many spinsters refer to them as their children)

Though I do have an alterior motive, I would truly love to see a legal title like "The Trial of Sir Fluffykins the 3rd vs The Smith Family"

Anonymous KitF March 05, 2016 6:57 AM  

Wow, I thought I was the only person who narrowed my eyes and said 'Really?' at gooey parents who choose to share every moment of their offspring's lives with strangers, as if the child were a new car, or yes, a pet who had learned a new trick or done something funny. But then the words 'my child' always struck me as creepy and wrong-headed in its claim of ownership over another person.

When parents are still doing this to sons and daughters in their late teens and twenties you know the relationship between them is very wrong, and that the child is likely to be a needy infant with tendencies to tantrum, or old beyond their years fighting to get free of infantilising parents.

Blogger Doom March 05, 2016 6:58 AM  

While I strongly agree with the notion, I even more strongly disagree with it being a governmental issue. As for France, is this the same French government which has purposefully depressed it's own economy, chased off it's wealth and wealthy, and invited genocide into it's borders? I don't see this as a clock being right twice a day, at all. Just another losing strategy for a government that seems to hate it's people. How about expelling the murderous "immigrants" and leaving parents the hell alone?

Blogger buwaya puti March 05, 2016 7:15 AM  

This is perhaps a problem for general art/news/hobby photography. It's hard to see how this leaves much liberty for such as wpuld-be Cartier-Bressons.

Anonymous Anonymous March 05, 2016 7:24 AM  

British girl I know posted pictures of her 1 year old son in his first Halloween costume on Facebook. Hé was wearing a swastika arm sleeve and had a hitler-moustache drawn in his face, as he looked helplessly into the camera

Blogger Cinco March 05, 2016 7:30 AM  

If only the French people were able to hold their government accountable for all the Frenchmen that will never come into existence due to their ridiculous immigration and economic policies.

Anonymous redsash March 05, 2016 7:31 AM  

Right to privacy? Have you gone mad? One might as well sue their parents for taking them to Wal-Mart. They are photographed by drones and satellites from house to car, in car from traffic cameras, at the store's parking lot, inside the store by store cameras, and probably by random perverts while in the store, and if they call up a classmate about the bike bought at the store that conversation is probably captured also. Posting pictures of your children on Facebook is not psycho, but a govt allowing them to sue their parents at a later date for the act is definitely demonic. One might as well forbid photo albums for the same lame reasons, how dare you take my picture while wearing braces, the family album could have been stolen by inside edition. BTW who are you going to sue for that damn Mohawk picture.

Anonymous Unamused Flyover Resident March 05, 2016 7:36 AM  

I expect the legal parade will lead off with the original subject of "reasonsmysoniscrying.com" - even as I devoured it, I wondered what sort of parents would do such a thing when we all know the internet is forever.

I guess they can comfort themselves with their momentary notoriety and - fully documented of course! - visit to the morning yack show (which by all indications the parents enjoyed much more than the son in question.)

Thanks to the miracle of the internet, we've managed to definitively trump the embarrassment of showing naked baby photos to prospective love interests. Yay technology?

Blogger VD March 05, 2016 7:39 AM  

I even more strongly disagree with it being a governmental issue.

You are all missing the point. These privacy laws already exist and were demanded by adults. The French are merely WARNING parents that they also apply to children.

Blogger CM March 05, 2016 7:43 AM  

@Baby Hitler -
Who, what, why?

Mario power-up mushrooms, monkeys, and koroks are much better options.

I'm more inclined to agree with redsash on this. My public picture postings are far more respectful of my children's right to privacy than my parents' family album.

I also don't post every amazing quote by them as they get older. My son is getting to the age where he's more mindful of what he says where. With his developing filter, I need to filter what I share about him.

Blogger VD March 05, 2016 7:47 AM  

I'm more inclined to agree with redsash on this. My public picture postings are far more respectful of my children's right to privacy than my parents' family album.

No, they're not, unless your parents' family album is readily accessible by the entire world.

Anonymous redsash March 05, 2016 7:57 AM  

I'm shocked. Up to this very hour I have agreed with all of your opinions except for the death penalty and now this. My world is crumbling. Are you hanging out with George Clooney?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2016 March 05, 2016 7:59 AM  

Vox, for most of recorded history a 15 girl in most cultures would be considered marriageable.
"Kids" will be shitty about a lot of things. Being treated like 'kids' is chief among them.
The west, wallowing in the quagmires of self destruction, invented the word "teenager", and is drowning in people who never grow up. The Peter Pans of journalism and politics are only outnumbered by the locusts of immigration.
the last 400 years needs rewriting.

Blogger YIH March 05, 2016 8:07 AM  

A rather famous example is a girl known as 'Mara'. The origin of the photos is unclear, some say they came from a German family's faceberg page, others claim she's the daughter of the Admin of (ED, NSFW)Krautchan. There are apparently hundreds of candid shots of her out there, and have spread from Krautchan to all the other 'chans.
Many reposted with lewd comments. Word has it the parents have begged the admins of various 'chans to remove/ban posters of them to no avail. The genie is out of the bottle, those pics will never go away.

Anonymous redsash March 05, 2016 8:10 AM  

The world seeing your family album is not as painful as those closest to you seeing your family album....friends, ex-girlfriends, current girlfriends.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler March 05, 2016 8:27 AM  

Right, I'm going to take lessons from the French government of socialists and leftist?

I totally disagree with the stance. All schools take school pictures. In high school, we have year books. The Internet, such as Facebook, is a social activity, it is an online social community. We live in an age of relatives being spread about the continent. This is how a family spreads its joy to its friends and relatives about family goings on.

I enjoy pics of my relatives having fun times with their families. I work for a great grandmother who lives all alone in a city where her massive family is in other states. She recieves pics and short vids of her grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the joy and happiness on her face when she sees this is immeasurable.

Rights are not absolutes. That society revolves around 'rights' is an invention of the atheist Enlightenment, of taking English innovation and Roman legal and political issues and personalizing them is just balderdash.

Where would American Funniest Home Videos be, if you followed this stupid French legislation? Watching kids do or say funny stuff is what Life is about. Enjoying the foibles of the human race.

Sharing your families moments whether sad or happy with other people is just how a society works. If not, don't take them to the park or playground! Putting them on the internet, sharing on Facebook, is just like taking them to a public park.

Or just lock up your kids in their bedrooms. Do not parents take their little kids to soccer fields and other parents take pictures and videos of the goings on in the games?

Blogger BunE22 March 05, 2016 8:43 AM  

What are their stringent privacy laws?

You mean if I was in France taking pictures like a typical tourist then posted them online, I could be sued if I caught any French people in the photos?

Blogger _vvv_ March 05, 2016 8:44 AM  

I rarely agree with you, but this is one of those cases where I wish this was screamed from the rooftops.

Blogger Dire Badger March 05, 2016 8:56 AM  

While I agree on principle that placing your Child's picture online is incredibly stupid, children suing their parents, even for a breach such as this, smacks of biblical sin.

Blogger TheDanielsaur March 05, 2016 8:57 AM  

My wife and I have adopted a policy to not put any public images of our infant daughter on any public media, only sharing them privately with family members and close friends. Many people are weirded out by this decision, and we sometimes feel like we're the only sane ones!

Blogger Dire Badger March 05, 2016 8:57 AM  

@18. BunE22:

It's been known to happen.

Blogger Dire Badger March 05, 2016 9:05 AM  

Here's one for you to be filed under "Copyright laws are fucking stupid and need to be fixed":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2831331/Tourists-warned-breaking-law-taking-photos-Eiffel-Tower-night-sharing-images-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler March 05, 2016 9:05 AM  

Dire Badger wrote:@18. BunE22:

It's been known to happen.


The French are losing their country to Islam. They're stupid.

Anonymous Steve March 05, 2016 9:18 AM  

But then the words 'my child' always struck me as creepy and wrong-headed in its claim of ownership over another person.

Eh? What Bolshevik prattle is this?

I've always considered my wives and children to be my property. That's how come they get to live in my house, eat my food, and use my last name.

Of course, sons won't be chattels forever. The day they can best their sire in a no-holds-barred bout of drunken fisticuffs is the day they get to call themselves men.

That's how I ended up leaving home as a teenager, and it didn't do me no harm.

Kids these days don't know they're born.

Blogger Doom March 05, 2016 10:05 AM  

Gee, it's starting to look like... Remember those commercials, back when they had booze commercials... about having a little Captain in you? I think Trumpism is going around, though... not in the Beck way. He's just special! Yeah...

One question. Can chaos reign? :p *wink*

Anonymous LurkingPuppy March 05, 2016 10:11 AM  

KitF wrote:But then the words 'my child' always struck me as creepy and wrong-headed in its claim of ownership over another person.

Humans aren't like nomadic grazing animals who pop out of the womb capable of following the herd on their own four legs. We're helpless at birth, and someone has to care for and make decisions for a child. Who should that ‘someone’ be if not the mother who gave birth to the child and the father who is married to the mother?

Blogger Ingot9455 March 05, 2016 10:29 AM  

It is one thing to 'share' a carefully groomed professionally taken oicture such as one might send out with the yearly Christmas letter.

But the daily sharing? Imagine the legal discovery if anything. And if something horrible happens with your kid, those faceberg pics are public domain for the grifting press.

Of course, if you're one of Latrina's 23 crack babies, its a great archive of pics from when you were 11 and still cute and innocent looking.

Anonymous JI March 05, 2016 10:50 AM  

There have been photographs taken of people, including children, and displayed in books, newspapers and magazines for years, often without permission. As light strikes something, it is reflected and a camera records that light, a microphone records sounds that are emitted, and the human mind records both. The light can later be reproduced as photographs or paintings, and the sounds reproduced via electronics or, in the case of a person's memory, via mimicry. At what point should the light, or the sound, become the sacred property of someone and illegal to reproduce in any fashion without permission? And how far do we go in that direction? What if someone repeats what someone else has said without their explicit permission? For example, my child said, "Mama, Dada", the other day - should it be permissible to put on Facebook that the child said those words?

OpenID denektenorsk March 05, 2016 11:05 AM  

I see the sanity behind leaving your kids off line, completely agree with you there.

That being said, the child cannot give legal consent until age X and so the parent is the legal guardian. They are free to raise their kids in as f#cked up manor as they see fit. We don't take kids away from obviously incompetent parents where the situation on the ground would warrant it.

Is this not a government attack on the family unit? I as a 20ish year who already is tired of hearing advice from the parents can now sue them for any number of offenses, preceived or otherwise?

Blogger VD March 05, 2016 11:05 AM  

At what point should the light, or the sound, become the sacred property of someone and illegal to reproduce in any fashion without permission?

Get as pedantic and theoretical as you like. Let me make it very simple for you:

Don't put pictures of your kids on fucking Facebook.

Do you understand now? Or is that still too difficult to grasp?

Blogger VD March 05, 2016 11:06 AM  

Is this not a government attack on the family unit?

No, it is the unintended consequences of women not wanting to have their naked pictures put online by their ex-boyfriends.

Anonymous Lena Dunham March 05, 2016 11:22 AM  

Parents should be free to post pictures of their children swimming bathing, or in the bath room.

we've managed to definitively trump the embarrassment of showing naked baby photos to prospective love interests

Its not embarrassing to show where you hid pebbles.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler March 05, 2016 11:47 AM  

"Rights" is a concept that is only be seen in Roman history and its political context. Only citizens had rights. The Romans set up courts for foreigners. There were different gradients of rights depending if one was a citizen or alien.

But children do not have rights for they do not live in the political system. As one sees across the internet, it is natural that fathers/mothers post pics of their kids because they are proud of them and want to share. All around is innocence. The parents are in control of their children. Back in the 60s parents made 8mm home movies of their kids and showed them at family gatherings. I see no problem.

Anonymous BGKB March 05, 2016 11:56 AM  

But then the words 'my child' always struck me as creepy and wrong-headed in its claim of ownership over another person

I thought that with all the broken families out there it was simply an acknowledgement of blood relation. Around 1/3 of paternity tests say "you are not the father"

You mean if I was in France taking pictures like a typical tourist then posted them online, I could be sued if I caught any French people

Does France still have nude beaches of did moslems destroy them all?

one of Latrina's 23 crack babies, its a great archive of pics from when you were 11 and still cute and innocent looking.

One of the funniest differences other than Tamir Rice having the kiddie pic shown by lame stream and the pic of him pointing a gun show by reality media was a 27yo that had a middle school prom pic while his most recent mugshot was one of the ugliest men I have ever seen.

Blogger Scott March 05, 2016 1:10 PM  

Agreed. I would go a step further re your advice:

"Don't [post] on Facebook or Instagram. It's stupid. It's obnoxious. It's thoughtless and self-centered."

Blogger John Morris March 05, 2016 1:16 PM  

Don't like the idea here. Sounds like Progressive breakup the family antics.

Free people have the right to be wrong to the greatest extent allowable while retaining a civilization. So you can think parents are doing something unwise all you want, and I'd agree. Denounce the the practice of social media. Or get a majority to agree with you that it crosses the line to child abuse, assuming you could get agreement where the line is which you can't, and outright outlaw the practice and go arrest the parents the second the post is made.

What you can't be for is allowing adults to, decades after the fact, decide they didn't like their childhood and sue. That line of reasoning takes the campus 'rape epidemic' logic to absurdity. Get drunk and screw, then days, weeks, months later decide it was rape. You raise the stakes to decades to change their mind and allow ruining your parents over a Facebook posting.

But more basic, the parent makes decisions for the child because the child isn't allowed to. Where would you move the line? Medical decisions subject to review once the child grows up and sue because they didn't make the one they would have with perfect hindsight? What of child models and actors? Once you open that box, only madness comes out.

Of course if you are pushing the position as a way to illustrate the absurdity of the system then ok, kinda harsh way to do it but Supreme Dark Lords gotta do what they do.

Blogger bob k. mando March 05, 2016 1:58 PM  

16. redsash March 05, 2016 8:10 AM
The world seeing your family album is not as painful as those closest to you seeing your family album....friends, ex-girlfriends, current girlfriends.



are you completely oblivious to the regular twitter mobbing stories?

people are losing their jobs, having to move out of their houses due to posting what they thought were completely innocuous statements or pictures.

should the Marxists ever create the kind of society that they so love in the US, how will you explain to your children that the Cheka is dragging them into a basement for the 'crime' of practicing bourgeois morality because, 30 years ago, you posted pictures on the internet of their infant baptism?

you don't know what the world will be in 30 years. you don't know where your children will be in 30 years ( what if your child gets a job in Bumfuckistan and the local Al Qaeda chapter looks up his Faceberg info ).

you are so complacent and so lacking in imagination ....

Blogger bob k. mando March 05, 2016 2:07 PM  

17. W.LindsayWheeler March 05, 2016 8:27 AM
Where would American Funniest Home Videos be, if you followed this stupid French legislation?



God DAMN, Wheeler.

are you that desperate for shitty entertainment?



29. JI March 05, 2016 10:50 AM
For example, my child said, "Mama, Dada", the other day - should it be permissible to put on Facebook that the child said those words?



permissible /= wise



34. W.LindsayWheeler March 05, 2016 11:47 AM
and showed them at family gatherings. I see no problem.



your family /= the world

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler March 05, 2016 2:45 PM  

I like America's Funniest Videos; it's great entertainment.

I agree with John Morris. If you don't want to post, that's fine. If you want to post, that's fine. I couldn't care less--until, like the stupid French, pass a law about it.

Anonymous BGKB March 05, 2016 3:35 PM  

One thing no one mentioned is that most people are not smart enough to remove the GPS metadata from their pictures. If Lena Dunham or Phil Sandifer really likes the pics of your 3yo girls she can find out where/when you where with the pics if you don't have it turned off or removed.

Anonymous Parent #623 March 05, 2016 4:21 PM  

Any child that sues their parents for putting a picture of them online has far bigger problems than their own greed and ungratefulness.

Blogger weka March 05, 2016 5:24 PM  

No, it is the unintended consequences of women not wanting to have their naked pictures put online by their ex-boyfriends.

So do not allow him to pull out his Pentax when you are in the nude.

https://youtu.be/3VGZ6M6t4vA

are you completely oblivious to the regular twitter mobbing stories?

people are losing their jobs, having to move out of their houses due to posting what they thought were completely innocuous statements or pictures.

should the Marxists ever create the kind of society that they so love in the US, how will you explain to your children that the Cheka is dragging them into a basement for the 'crime' of practicing bourgeois morality because, 30 years ago, you posted pictures on the internet of their infant baptism?

you don't know what the world will be in 30 years. you don't know where your children will be in 30 years ( what if your child gets a job in Bumfuckistan and the local Al Qaeda chapter looks up his Faceberg info ).


Another reason I'm moving off Faceberg, have screwed my permissions WAY down, and I email photos of family gatherings around the tribe.

Facebook ain't going to own my good photos or my personal ones.

As far as Al Queda, what I write will put me up against a wall or into the resistance if they ever get power.

Anonymous Fred March 05, 2016 5:32 PM  

Wow the stupid is very strong in this thread.

Here is the difference between some musty photo album and putting a foto of your kid online ... 20, 40 60 100 years from now, that foto will still be out there, somewhere - IT WILL NEVER EVER go away.

So your 45 year old son is running for the President, or just looking for a job at Target - and up pops a foto of him half-naked with snot hanging out of his nose crying his eyes out.

Or worse, some pedo grabs it.

And letting your kids have free reign on Faceberg or the like is even worse - that snotty post/joke they made about black people and tampons as a 15 year old is going to pop up when they are dating or trying to get a job or a security clearance or a million other things.

And if you are stupid enough to believe all that crap will EVER 'go away' you have zero concept of what IT is or how it works.

Vox is absolutely correct x 1 Billion.

My kids are only on the internet and only ever will be allowed on the internet in a wholly anon capacity - they can play silly video games under a fake user name and nothing else is allowed.

When they leave my house they will have an absolutely clean slate.

Blogger weka March 05, 2016 5:36 PM  

Fred, it is not the kid photos of snot that will destroy them at HR. It is the photos at church, at the republican gatherings or (far worse for the SJW who infest HR) at the sports bar or hooters.

Do not take that photo. Take pretty photos of the scenery or flowers. Otherwise, you can be sued. (Amateur photographer, who stopped doing street photography because of this).

Blogger SQT March 05, 2016 5:57 PM  

I have always thought it was incredibly stupid to post pics of kids online. You might think you have your account locked down but you still can't completely control who sees what. I don't want some nut job to see pics of my kids and fixate on them. If it's a friend of a friend it's not that hard for them to know where to find you.

Paranoid I know... But still. Easier to just not post anything so I have one less thing to worry about.

Blogger Were-Puppy March 05, 2016 6:32 PM  

Where will they get those Cap and Gown graduation pics for the DINDU NUFFINS?

Blogger Halifax Donair March 05, 2016 7:22 PM  

Quebec has some interesting personality laws. One reason why there are so many celebs at Mont Tremblant. You can take a picture, but even news people need clearance to run them.

Blogger Halifax Donair March 05, 2016 7:27 PM  

@10 I hope David (of after dentist) sues big, for one.

Blogger Halifax Donair March 05, 2016 7:30 PM  

@15 I wonder how Kiira Korpi feels?

Blogger weka March 05, 2016 7:40 PM  

Let us be clear. The Frogs bought in their privacy laws so the president could dine with his mistress in public and it would not make the front pages of Le Monde

Privileged elite microregulation of peasants. And sine the frogs run the EU and Quebec the hypocrisy is instirionalized.

But putting kids photos anywhere published is stupid. Particularly when Facebook claims copyright of anything posted there.

Blogger Halifax Donair March 05, 2016 7:44 PM  

should the Marxists ever create the kind of society that they so love in the US, how will you explain to your children that the Cheka is dragging them into a basement for the 'crime' of practicing bourgeois morality because, 30 years ago, you posted pictures on the internet of their infant baptism?

Kodachrome of my baptism exists. Was online for a few months, because I treated social media like a gallery rather than a record.

Unlike Scotsmen or McRapey, it's the only time I've worn a dress.

Blogger Halifax Donair March 05, 2016 7:47 PM  

@51 Facebook's copyright claim is as good as those "not responsible for lost coats" signs in restaurants. It boils down to deepest pockets.

Blogger Halifax Donair March 05, 2016 7:54 PM  

@42 Dad's neighbour is a judge who just sent a rich kid away for axe murdering his father. We also have relatives in Fall River. My name is Eugene, and gallows humour prevents domestic violence.

Anonymous redsash March 06, 2016 1:19 AM  

Will the parents of the French women's Olympic gymnastics team be given waivers against future litigation?

Anonymous Discard March 06, 2016 3:54 AM  

35mm Kodachrome is the solution.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts