Wayne GphFX
Blessed
Premium
join:2004-09-26
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to Jason Levine
Re: Would you put photos of children online?
The sad facts of life is any image of a child is considered porn to a pedophile. No matter where it was found that was the point I tried but failed to bring out. The person in the article was downloading from the web so who knows what other websites were used.
--
»www.flickr.com/photos/waynegphfx/ |
|
leXicon5
Pelosi, SHUT YOUR Fing Pie Hole
Premium
join:2000-12-27
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Jason Levine
My wife wanted to put up a page with her classrooms daily activities since parents miss so much of what their child does during the day, she thought it would be a nice way for them to see if not experience. No names, just action shots. The access would have been restricted to parents that had the password. The parents that wanted to participate would have received the URL and password in separate communications. No addresses or anything that would give away the location of the school.
The school nixed the idea, even though the site would have been password protected and no names used. They did not want the liability.
I can understand a site that is wide open for anybody to go to isn't what I'd like and I can see why others would be opposed. People have yet to grasp that society has changed. There is no more and can never be a "can't happen to me or here" attitude. Children should be protected by all means necessary from exploitation. You cant protect them 24/7 but there is no reason to put them on display without some restrictions/passwords either because you just have no idea what some people will do...
--
Honor the memory of the troops that served selflessly and without selfishness.
You have the freedoms today because of what they did yesterday. |
|
Sid
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Santa Maria, CA
| reply to Jason Levine
My wife is a director of a childcare. She said there is no way they would allow the kids pictures to be publicly viewed on a website.
Our teen daughter on the other hand has created her own website where she posts photos of her and her friends just goofy stuff. I do allow her the ability to express herself on her site but I do monitor it. I make sure she doesnt reveal personal things such as names and addresses. I have her keep her domain registered as private. Because its her own domain and not a page posted on a popular site like myspace, its difficult to find unless you happen to know the exact url. |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
1 edit | reply to Jason Levine
This is an excellent discussion. It's a shame that we have to consider predators and other risks, but an unfortunate fact.
The safety and well being of the kids is first, of course. But the board should also exercise due diligence by consulting with their liability insurer(s) and legal counsel. I'm sure any associations the center belongs to would also provide "best practices" and maybe even web site templates.
Should they decide to provide a gallery, it should be private and secured by passwords with required complexity and possibly even password change rules. The secured section name would be something like "member portal" and not "gallery" "kid pictures", "member information" or anything that would identify the content. A three strikes user ID lock for bad passwords would be a good thing. Reset through the user providing the user ID, then a reset link sent through the user's registered email would suffice.
Finally, don't allow robots to crawl the site. robots.txt is a good thing. Google may not be a webmaster's friend.
As for predators hacking the protected areas, I don't see it as a real issue. A predator who would go to the trouble of trying to hack passwords or IDs would be quite noisy. Also, there are too many unsupervised MySpace kids out there for them to waste time trying to hack a daycare member site.
--
Sive enim ad sapientiam perveniri potest, non paranda nobis solum ea, sed fruenda etiam est |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine  :When I started reading the replies promoting a password protected gallery, I thought that it would be a good idea. Then I started thinking. To keep it simple to manage, there would need to be one password to get in. (We're not going to assign each parent their own username/password.) Once one password is issued, it's likely to be shared with grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. Even if it's not shared too much, it's likely to be cracked because I'm sure they'll pick an easy to remember password. . . . I don't see that as an issue. It doesn't matter if it is going to be shared with grandma, it's not likely she is going to pass it around. The purpose of the username/password is to make it harder for the casual surfer to have easy access. There is nothing completely foolproof, what you want to do is lower the probability of the occasional passerby having access who shouldn't.
And I'm not sure why some think there is a issue with parents who are not getting along or in witness protection or whatever. A release needs to be signed first and I'm sure anyone who fits in one of these categories will not want to sign it if they feel is might bring unwanted attention to them.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
1 edit | reply to leXicon5
said by leXicon5 :My wife wanted to put up a page with her classrooms daily activities since parents miss so much of what their child does during the day, she thought it would be a nice way for them to see if not experience. No names, just action shots. The access would have been restricted to parents that had the password. The parents that wanted to participate would have received the URL and password in separate communications. No addresses or anything that would give away the location of the school. The school nixed the idea, even though the site would have been password protected and no names used. They did not want the liability. This is the bottom line really. If the administrators don't think it's a good idea, no matter how reasonable or well thought out an idea is, it isn't going to happen. And that seems to be the case here.
I can understand a site that is wide open for anybody to go to isn't what I'd like and I can see why others would be opposed. People have yet to grasp that society has changed. There is no more and can never be a "can't happen to me or here" attitude. Children should be protected by all means necessary from exploitation. You cant protect them 24/7 but there is no reason to put them on display without some restrictions/passwords either because you just have no idea what some people will do...
While I don't disagree with your point of view, I don't think we need to let fear rule us either. What is important when incorporating photos like these is the context in which they are taken and the context in which they are used. For example, this website incorporates photos of minors. Now if a pedophile can find some satisfaction from them, well, there is certainly nothing anyone can do about it other than, as some suggest, don't use any at all. But I think it should be evident there in nothing inappropriate or suggestive about them that might cause any concern about using them. The administrators agreed and so did the parents. |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to Jason Levine
Once upon a time, yes, I would have done this without even thinking about it.
Today, I would think twice about it and only with the parents' (signed) permissions. And, even then, I would be extremely circumspect about including any personally identifying information or specifying where the shot was taken. I'm not at all sure that the resulting problems are any worse than they might have been 30 or 40 years ago; we just talk about it more. Well, actually, I suspect the possibility of exploitation are now much worse than they were then.
Furthermore, the thread title addresses a somewhat different issue than your final question. (Not to mention that all of my kids are now adults.)
For years, I've taken photos of middle and high school kids at sporting events, but about five years ago I decided that I'd only publish a photo (of even these kids) with parental permission. Indeed, most recently, I've gotten to the point that I won't even take such photos without parents' permission.
Yes, it's a sad state of affairs, but I think I should be sensitive to the world we live in today.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris |
|
Dynevor
abortion is surgical bombing is murder
Premium
join:2007-05-24
Dime Box, TX
| reply to Jason Levine
A bit OT, but sound advice, IMHO.
Pay Attention to Online Photos: Know the type of photos your child is posting online. It is wisest to encourage your child not to post any photos online. Children use various forms of technology to post information and photos online, such as videos and web cams. Photos from camera phones can also be uploaded. Parents and guardians should be aware of the imagery their children post on the Web--these images may pose a risk to their children, exposing them to online predators and people they don't know. Even innocent photos can attract a predator. Check with your child's school to see if students' projects, artwork, or photos are being put on school websites. Schools need to be reminded of the risk and encouraged to allow access to student activities posted on the school's website by password only or posted on the school's Intranet. Webcams should only be used under close parental supervision and sent only to trusted friends and family.
Even innocent pictures of school activity on a school Web site have attracted the attention of one predator who became obsessed and kidnapped a child from his school (Burkey, Martin. "Martin Says Child Exploitation is 'Epidemic'." The Decatur Daily News 23 May 2006).
Cited from:
»www.enough.org/inside.php?tag=rulesntools
--
|
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :I happen to think that there's nothing wrong with doing this, but then again I'm the webmaster that would build the online gallery, possibly the photographer that would take the photos, and a parent of a child that would appear on the site, so I might be biased. So I was wondering what everyone here thought of this. Would you allow a photograph of your child to appear online like this? As long as crucial information is left out, I don't see a problem. People are going to imagine all sorts of things about any image that may cross their retinas online and there isn't a thing you can do about that. But you can, however, just obscure the data so that someone doesn't get it in his head to show up at the school location and start looking for a specific child, for example. It's just like any other personal image you upload to the Net. Take the appropriate precautions to ensure that person cannot be found/easily identified. Images of children don't belong in any special group, IMO.
--
The Toll
|
|
sumdumgai
join:2007-07-23 | reply to Jason Levine
my policy is to not post any pictures of anyone except myself. I would NEVER post children. |
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA
| reply to Jason Levine
I think the point that people are glossing over here, is that a pedophile is going to get his fix, one way or another.
If the internet never existed, there would still be pedophiles everywhere. They would simply sit on park benches "reading" their newspapers. Or stand outside a gymnasium looking "at the boats in dock outside".
People act as if the internet creates or somehow further promotes or makes pedophilia easier, and I think that makes it all lose focus.
We shouldn't be running around scared and hiding because there are pedophiles out there. There always have been, and there always will be, whether you post pictures or not.
And the really insane ones aren't ever going to bother trying to "search for a victim" online. They will just go sit outside a school or daycare. It is much easier for them that way. |
|
Chinabound
Premium
join:2002-12-21
Antioch, IL
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Jason Levine
I used to post my daughter's picture here, often. I stopped doing so because a forum member here didn't appreciate my finding photoshop mistakes on a few of his pictures, and made a rather inappropriate leading comment under one of her pictures.
Given the possibilities after that incident, I haven't posted her picture here. And this was the only place I ever trusted to do so. What a shame.
I only send them on to friends and family in emails. |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to DreamWraith
said by DreamWraith :I think the point that people are glossing over here, is that a pedophile is going to get his fix, one way or another. That's quite true. However, I wouldn't want to find myself facilitating any incident.
. . . People act as if the internet creates or somehow further promotes or makes pedophilia easier, and I think that makes it all lose focus. Not quite sure I follow your logic above. I think it would be a stretch to maintain that the internet creates pedophilia, but it's certainly arguable whether it promotes it (unintentionally, of course) and I don't think there's any real debate at all that it makes it easier for some who might otherwise only remain closet perverts, to coin a phrase. Nor do I quite understand how talking about this makes us "lose focus" on the basic issue. Quite the contrary, I would maintain that ignoring the impact of the internet on the problem of pedophilia simply makes this plague worse.
Also, if I replace the word "pedophilia" in your assertion with the word "terrorism", would you still be so willing to make this statement? Yet, law enforcement agencies (throughout the world) are now devoting (if not more correctly diverting) scarce resources to addressing both of these modern-day plagues simply because of how the internet can be exploited to facilitate them.
Would you deny that the internet has indisputably enhanced legal commerce? If not, why would you maintain that it has not similarly enhanced illegal commerce. I really wouldn't understand such a position. Like so many other technologies, there is nothing inherently good or evil about the internet. It can be used for either purpose and -- just like all the technologies that proceeded it -- we have to do what we can to enhance the good and minimize the bad.
Prior to the mass adoption of the automobile, I don't think speeding was a big problem in most parts of the world. Law enforcement didn't have to devote a significant portion of its resources to apprehending drivers going too fast for conditions and safety and there likely wasn't the current danger of death or serious injury to the general populace. Perhaps it's a simple misconception on my part, but I have trouble envisioning the Texas Rangers devoting a substantial portion of their resources to tracking down the Lone Buckaroo as he gallops across the vast reaches of Texas, yet today, a considerable amount of the resources of State Police (throughout the US) are devoted to just that. And, "the need for speed" has always existed. The automobile simply made it faster, easier, and -- lest we forget -- more dangerous.
We shouldn't be running around scared and hiding because there are pedophiles out there. There always have been, and there always will be, whether you post pictures or not. Well, I must say I've seen little of 'scared and hiding'. I've simply seen a bit more prudence on what we might do. English publicans didn't worry too much about the village drunk wreaking mayhem after leaving the pub (especially without being subsequently apprehended) when most came on foot and a few on horseback. If you don't think they're not a bit more circumspect these days when they're dishing out the pints, you're kidding yourself.
And the really insane ones aren't ever going to bother trying to "search for a victim" online. They will just go sit outside a school or daycare. It is much easier for them that way. Oh, I definitely disagree with that characterization. (Did you just add this sentence?)
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| reply to Jason Levine
Short answer: NO
Long answer: No, especially if there is an indexing of where the photo or child exists. If the photo exists by itself, with no real information about the child, where they are, where they live or in this case go to school...maybe not so much a problem. But once you tie a picture to an event or static place that is frequented by the child...that is a problem I think.
Example of OK:
Picture of a child at a famous place, with no information about where they live.
Example of NOT OK:
Picture of a child at a famous place, posted on the school website. It ties and image of a child directly to a school. |
|
Kalford
Seems To Be An Rtfm Problem.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-20
Ontario
2 edits | reply to Jason Levine
Some have commented about how not having a gallery will do nothing to stop pedophiles. And that just may be true. . . .but then again it's also true that locking our doors at night won't really do a thing to stop thieves. But I am pretty sure almost everybody in this day and age will still do that.
We can't allow ourselves to be held hostage by the monsters that pollute our society, but we can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves and more importantly protect those that are both the most vulnerable and the precious to us - our children.
This would be one such case where such reasonable steps can and should be taken.
Thus as others have mentioned, I too think that creating a gallery of the kids should be fine with proper safety concerns being addressed.
Were it my kids attending the daycare or was it me that was putting it together I would look at implementing the following:
Egeezer's suggestion of not allowing robots to crawl the site would be a definite must.
Individual user names and passwords for each parent/family where there is a minimum level of complexity required for passwords.
All new accounts must be manually approved by administrator of the gallery and include proper verification to confirm that people asking for accounts are indeed who they say they are.
Sign-off forms by the parents granting permission for posting their photos in the gallery. Also an separate model release form for if/when you will be using photos of their kids to promote the daycare either on the main portion of the site or in other forms of marketing.
No full names of kids on captions and also make sure not to keep any of full names within the file name(s) or within any information contained within the files themselves. (nor any combination of the above that would provide full names of the children)
I wouldn't worry about make it an unpublished link. Having a username /password access should make it sufficient.
--
Through My Eyes |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | And, especially in this case, I'd bloody well log all accesses to the website!
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris |
|
Dynevor
abortion is surgical bombing is murder
Premium
join:2007-05-24
Dime Box, TX
| reply to Jason Levine
From Wikipedia:
...The extent to which pedophilia occurs is not known with any certainty. Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children. One study found that professionals failed to report approximately 40% of the child sexual abuse cases they encountered...'
As earlier stated by another member, while the Internet doesn't create pedophiles, it certainly can provide access to their "feelings".
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."(JFK)
--
|
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA
| reply to Kalford
That is all I am getting at. I agree that we can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves. My issue is with the all too common crossing of the grey fuzzy line.
The one between sane reasonable steps to protection, and insane overreactive steps.
It is one thing to use common sense and not post pictures with "LOL KID LIVS HERE".
It is quite another to hermitize yourself, and everything that you do because of fear. |
|
Dynevor
abortion is surgical bombing is murder
Premium
join:2007-05-24
Dime Box, TX
1 edit | said by DreamWraith :....It is quite another to hermitize yourself, and everything that you do because of fear. I don't "hermitize" myself, nor do I live in fear. I do have a big "stick" that I have used on a predator that I caught after he had exposed himself, via an Internet kids messaging center, to one of my young daughters. The messaging center (run by a church) was shut down.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."(JFK)
--
|
|
Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
·Comcast
 ·Aristotle Internet
| reply to Jason Levine
This has all been done, stated before. I have four kids, three girls and might I add they are very pretty bias excluded 
I'm fairly careful and realize there are a bunch of pedophiles out there, yuk. I'll blame Kennedy for closing Psychiatric hospitals so those fools can breed into what we have today.
I hate the idea of any Pedophile getting loose, but tend to *Gasp* at the knee jerks going on today. Reminds me of many other things in life in America ~Culturally suppressed and indignant of nudity and flows to the other extreme all in the same breath (I can't relate to hard porn). That stated, any TV show, pictorial can be captured, beach scenes and water fountains included no matter the age or even gender; National Geographic no less and that's without the movie industry contribution, on line Bit Torrents ET AL.
I'll post shots of my kids, when I feel like it and they will be tasteful clothed shots or in a bikini (JUST like the beach) they are far too old for what is described below; I'm a parent and won't have it any other way. I won't stop a decent shot getting publicity anymore than I'll curb the concept of the Miss America pageant arena. It's life folks, my kids are not going to be held prisoner by the Pedophile concept, they will continue on as has the rest of previous generations of parents proud of their kids.
In the past I remember a woman who posted her young daughter on a photo site, she was perhaps 6 years old, she was topless and got a lot of grief over the shot. The shot was tasteful and photogenic, at play in a fountain with a butterfly -Could not see a single thing wrong with the shot....Can't say the same for the extreme attitudes she faced though. One would have thought a male nipple would impact as much as a boy of the same age or older.
This topic reminds me of the after math media frenzy of 9/11.
Day Care shot why not, providing the concept and theme is in keeping with the intent. |
|
