Slashdot Mirror


German Police Warn Parents To Stop Posting Photos of Kids On Facebook (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A post on Facebook by German police advising parents not to post pictures of their children on the social media site has been shared more than 100,000 times and viewed by over seven million people. The Hagen Police left its warnings about paedophile interest with the suggestion that kids might not appreciate the early publicity after they have grown up a little.

143 comments

  1. What if...? by skam240 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if my children are ugly? Is it okay then?

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:What if...? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Rule 34.

    2. Re:What if...? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Then definitely not. And you better prevent others from taking their picture as well by having them wear a bag over their heads whenever they go outside or are near one of the windows of your home.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re: What if...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be afraid. Be very afraid. Run. Hide. Freak out.

      Why do people listen to this?

    4. Re:What if...? by rioki · · Score: 1

      It's awwwww right.

    5. Re:What if...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that called a "Burqa"?

    6. Re:What if...? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Only if you are muslim. For everyone else, it's a sack.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:What if...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU should totally ignore this warning. It's for everyone else so go ahead and ignore it.

    8. Re: What if...? by IBME · · Score: 2

      What if facefuck is a pile of steaming shite to begin with? Who do you tell to pull their heads out of their asses and to get a life? Fuck you and fuck facefuck

  2. We should arrest school picture photographers also by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those school pics you were forced to get every year? Ya, big pedophile ring right there. Forcing us to look nice for photos, so they could get off on it.

    What about the DMV taking pictures of your kids? Government controlled ephebophilia ring there.

    Oh shit, about what all the kids at the beaches? Wearing very little? We should outlaw that also. Maybe not let kids go outside anymore while we are at it. After all, we just think of the children, oh wait, we should outlaw that also.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  3. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I knew some idiot who doesn't know the difference between "getting a photograph" and "posting the photograph on Facebook" would say something stupid like that.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. *gets popcorn* by SeaFox · · Score: 0

    This should be fun.

    Attention whore Facebookers caught between their desire to show off their special snowflake with their paranoia that everyone they don't know is a pedophile interested in their kids.

  5. "might not appreciate the early publicity" by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sudden breakout of common sense. It's the exact same thought I had when watching "David After Dentist" on YT.

    Imagine him at 15, scared and asking a girl on a date, and her asking him if he's been to the dentist lately.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:"might not appreciate the early publicity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put money on that video resulting in him getting laid at least once in college. There's always someone out there attracted to "famous", even if it's "internet famous".

  6. In other words...BE AFRAID!! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be afraid, be VERY afraid!

    Pedophiles are everywhere, under your BED, in the CLOSET, in your SCHOOLS, hiding behind TREES, at the SUPERMARKET!!!

    They're at the AUTO DEALER, they're in the POOL, they're climbing MOUNTAINS, be AFRAID!!! Everyone you know is SECRETLY a pedophile or a satanist or BOTH!! AAAAHH!!!

    Be afraid of everyone everywhere all the time!!

    OoooOOooooh scary!!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be afraid, be VERY afraid!

      Pedophiles are everywhere, under your BED, in the CLOSET, in your SCHOOLS, hiding behind TREES, at the SUPERMARKET!!!

      They're at the AUTO DEALER, they're in the POOL, they're climbing MOUNTAINS, be AFRAID!!! Everyone you know is SECRETLY a pedophile or a satanist or BOTH!! AAAAHH!!!

      Be afraid of everyone everywhere all the time!!

      OoooOOooooh scary!!

      Don't compare a pedophile to a satanist. Pedophiles are evil sickos, satanists are not.

    2. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're positive there is no overlap between the set of people that are Satanists and the set of people who are pedophiles? This claim is dubious at best.

    3. Re: In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, there should be a lot of overlap. Church officials believe in Satan and an alarming subset are pedophiles.

    4. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect there is even less overlap than you would expect by chance.

      Pedophiles go where they have easy access... like the Catholic church.

    5. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post has nothing to do with pedophiles. It's about privacy and respect. You moron.

    6. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever you hear of pedophiles, they just seem like just another old guy, whether it's your local swimming teacher, or grocer, or...
      Wait a minute, that username--

      I NEED AN ADULT

    7. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah!
       
      They're climbing in your windows and snatching your people up! So hide your kids. Hide your wives.

    8. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      People need to get over this insane paranoia. Everybody keeps pushing this mentality that we're all out to get eachother and steal eachothers' belongings. Doesn't take much to step back and realize that most of us are just normal people living normal lives. Of course, some people are going to argue that being overly cautious is a good thing, but it's just creating unnecessary paranoia and fear. Personally, I think we need to take a step back and really think about what's going on. Have we as a society really changed that much over the past decades? I think the main problem is the connectivity we have to the world, and the fact that our news is so instantaneous. Live updates to news articles and such bring us updates way faster than we're used to and maybe it's making the world seem like a worse place than it really is. Except, maybe pedophiles really are hiding everywhere...? See the first letter of every sentence in this post.

    9. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect there is even less overlap than you would expect by chance.

      Pedophiles go where they have easy access... like the Catholic church.

      or schools.

    10. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Logic would force me to conclude that while those places are pretty safe, anywhere with a large percentage of politicians and youth pastors is another story entirely.

    11. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Logic would force me to conclude that while those places are pretty safe, anywhere with a large percentage of politicians and youth pastors is another story entirely.

      This is very true. Sad, but true. Wanna get your child molested? Send him or her to a church youth group.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure the odds are pretty long even then.

      Speaking as an attendee of such camps, never noticed any shenanigans like that.

    13. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an attendee of such camps, never noticed any shenanigans like that.

      I'm pretty sure it happens, whether you noticed it or not. Ask me how I know.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    14. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      The Catholic church had no higher percentage of pedophiles than the average population. The issue was the coverup.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any evidence to suggest that molestation rates in a church youth group is higher than in the general population outside of all church youth groups?

    16. Re: In other words...BE AFRAID!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a WITCH! BURN HIM!!!

  7. Post pics of your cock (only if it looks good) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Facebook have policies regarding content? I don't really like these kinds of websites, so I don't read their policies..

  8. I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's really no good reason to post photos of your children. There's no reason to post photos of yourself, really, but at least you and your friends understand what is going on when you do it and can make your own decisions.

    I do a lot of photography on the side, shooting with models and all sorts of other people. I will never post photos of children (I've only taken a few, for that matter). Am I being paranoid? Perhaps, but there's just no reason to do it. It's also a matter of self-preservation. If some creeper gets the photo and photoshops it into something horrible, I may get mixed up in something that will ruin me. The chances of that happening are very, very small, but there's nothing really to be gained from kid photos. From that perspective, it's all risk.

    1. Re:I agree, mostly by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If some creeper gets the photo and photoshops it into something horrible, I may get mixed up in something that will ruin me.

      What if they take a photo of an adult that you've shot pics of (or a pic of you) and photoshops it into something horrible, perhaps involving children?

      The chances of that happening are very, very small, but there's nothing really to be gained from allowing photos of adults to be misused in some nefarious way. Obviously I'm taking this to an extreme silliness, but how is it different?

      Maybe one of your pictures gets used in a frame-up or photoshopped into child porn or something that looks really incriminating...at what point do we all just say this is paranoia running wild?

      The fact is that anyone that wants pictures of kids will have no trouble finding them on the web, so I think that boat has already sailed.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:I agree, mostly by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      You are talking about posting pictures of others children, not the same thing of people posting photos of their children, yeah some person could do some photocrop of your own children pictures still.

    3. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I print out and masturbate on the face of every person I see on the internet. I've raped you all.

    4. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if they take a photo of an adult that you've shot pics of (or a pic of you) and photoshops it into something horrible, perhaps involving children?

      The chances of that happening are very, very small, but there's nothing really to be gained from allowing photos of adults to be misused in some nefarious way. Obviously I'm taking this to an extreme silliness, but how is it different?

      Maybe one of your pictures gets used in a frame-up or photoshopped into child porn or something that looks really incriminating...at what point do we all just say this is paranoia running wild?

      The fact is that anyone that wants pictures of kids will have no trouble finding them on the web, so I think that boat has already sailed.

      The difference is that adult nudity is not inherently illegal. If someone does a head swap on a photo of an adult, it would fall under tort law, not criminal. In short, you won't have the FBI beating down your door.

      Paranoia running wild it is for sure. But the problem is that child porn accusations are as good as a conviction. I think your life is pretty much ruined the moment you get mixed up in something like that, guilty or not. At some point, if there's no real benefit to something, there's no reason to do it, even if not doing it is caving into paranoia.

      It's true that there are plenty of photos of kids out there for nefarious purposes. They could choose any of them. It's really a matter of being unlucky if it's yours.

    5. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that adult nudity is not inherently illegal.

      Child nudity isn't inherently illegal either. Pornography is. If you can't tell the difference then you are the problem.

    6. Re:I agree, mostly by tgv · · Score: 1

      > There's no reason to post photos

      That's the core. There is almost never a reason to post photos online for everyone to see. If you want to send a picture of your child to its grandparents, email or a private message would be more effective. Actually, there is almost never a reason to post anything online. Which means that it boils down to some form of boasting, this time involving your kids. "Look how nice my kids are."

    7. Re:I agree, mostly by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Child nudity isn't inherently illegal either. Pornography is. If you can't tell the difference then you are the problem.

      And that, members of the jury, concludes the case for the defense.

      Of course by the time it gets to a jury it's too late - you've already been punished.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Job, Mr Paper Raper.

    9. Re:I agree, mostly by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Yep, same with rape. By the time you get to court, even if you have a very strong defense, you're already totally fucked.

    10. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If some creeper gets the photo and photoshops it into something horrible,

      Is that who's doing this? Creepers? Damn, I thought all they'd do is walk up to you and explode!

    11. Re:I agree, mostly by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      How do you avoid paper cuts?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:I agree, mostly by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      What if they take a photo of an adult that you've shot pics of (or a pic of you) and photoshops it into something horrible, perhaps involving children?

      You know, you don't even need that. What if you've got carrier grade NAT (all the neighbourhood shares same IP), some of your neighbours does something really horrible, police asks the provider who had that IP, and among the many people who share that IP, they just draw a name at random, or, well, pick the one who annoyed the helpdesk the most (hehe sweet revenge... NOT).

      From there on, hysteria just goes its way, and if they find evidence that you ever deleted a file, or uninstalled some software, "they" just claim that this item must have been the one that they were looking for.

      And don't count on the judge to toss such a ridiculous accusation out, in a small country such as Luxembourg, she just happens to be close friend of a construction company mafioso against whose pet project you campaigned years ago.

      So, you can get in deep waters as soon as you own a computer, occasionally complain if (again!) internet doesn't work and are active in your community.

    13. Re:I agree, mostly by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Do you have no friends? None that you don't get to see on a regular basis?

      Posting photos online, particularly facebook, is a way to feel connected to people you may not be able to see IRL as much as you would like. Also facebook tends to cause group conversations, where multiple people contribute to a subject and often not the original person you intended the photo for. It is also a great way, when you have kids, to find out that a friends kid has a similar hobby and that you should push to organise a play date.

    14. Re: I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but then you need to accept the fact that the most evil persons on earth are also going to have those pictures forever and use them in ways you couldn't even imagine. If that's fine with you then go ahead.

    15. Re:I agree, mostly by chukm · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Kind of like posting on a technology website to show how insightful you are.

    16. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for that matter, you're asking 12 idiots who can't get out of jury duty to tell the difference between nudity and porn, and they're not going to risk letting a pedophile (the only people as bad as Hitler) go free, "innocent until proven guilty" be damned.

    17. Re:I agree, mostly by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      While child nudity may not be *inherently* illegal it comes pretty close. Even worse, nudity is not a requirement for something to legally be ruled child pornography. An image need not have any nudity or even provocative poses. What really matters is what the judge is convinced of by the prosecution. *Any* picture including a child is potentially child pornography. Sure, it is easier with nudity or provocative poses, but how it is presented and describe to the court makes a big difference and neither of those characteristics are a requirement.

    18. Re:I agree, mostly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least the victim was.

    19. Re:I agree, mostly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Parents don't need a reason. They are all proud beyond rationality of everything their spawn does, and social media lets them show the world.

  9. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All kidding aside, this highlights how society has refused to deal rationally with pedophilia.

    Killing them all hasn't really reduced their numbers, and the moral scares have just made for a grim, paranoid society.

    And instances like this are essentially keeping kids under the burka, which is an indication of how backwards aspects of modern western culture are.

    If we can't deal with aberrant sexuality judiciously, it will continue to be exploited by those who aren't really considering the welfare of children.

  10. So... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    The German police advice about pedophiles is not to brag about your kids? What's next, are they going to tell Jews not to wear Yamacas to avoid antisemitism?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >>What's next, are they going to tell Jews not to wear Yamacas to avoid antisemitism?
      Already happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. The growth of muslims the last 20 years does not like jews. So most jews today chooses not to openly display their religion to avoid problems.
      Of course it is racist of me to point out that fact.

  11. Re: We should arrest school picture photographers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What country do you live in that everyone has access to school photos and driving records?

  12. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing wrong with loving the opposite gender. your modern rules that seem to ignore biology are the problem. you can create whatever rules you want about age, but biology doesn't care.

  13. True fact by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Outside many private schools in Australia are signs saying don't take pictures of our cherubs. Or what exactly? I see the signs generally after hours, otherwise I might take a selfie of myself "thinking about it" with the sign behind me, and then take pictures of vicious Sydney Lord of the Flies aspirants at their fucking worst. If the LOTF reference in the context of Sydney schools doesn't resonate, the Sydney school system is an order of magnitude more vicious than the inner city ghetto schools I went to in the US from Y5 through Y12. "Keep your feet mate" as advice for a fist fight is what these kids are taught from age *SEVEN*, which I know from direct observation.

    1. Re:True fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slow children at play

      I see these signs. The first time I read it as 'slow', children at play. Been wanting to buy some spray paint and put some suspicious quotes around slow :)

    2. Re:True fact by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You mean like this city limits sign of a rather well known village?

      The sign below says "Please - not so fast". And I can't really say that I think it was a very intelligent move to put that sign up. Yes, it's evident what it is supposed to mean and yes, you have it in many villages to encourage drivers to slow down due to children possibly being on the street, but in this case ... just no!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:True fact by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahahaha you made my day

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  14. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something terribly narcissistic however with thinking the whole of aberrant sexuality is homosexuality.

    I'm curious if you would have the same opinion with the evo psych explanations for rape.

  15. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing wrong with any type of sex until you bring in your human ego and ideology.

  16. Why should I care? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I say this as the father of two little girls. But if I post pictures on facebook of my daughters they are photos that I have deemed OK for public consumption. They are photos that if they were published on the front page of a news paper I would be absolutely fine about it. So given that, why should I care if someone with a perversion finds one of them titillating? Yeah it's definitely pretty high on the gross out scale but maybe I shouldn't post pictures of my cat then for a similar reason?

    This is a totally totally stupid suggestion. If someone does collect photos of kids off the internet from facebook NO CHILD IS HARMED. Stupid.

    1. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say this as the father of two little girls. But if I post pictures on facebook of my daughters they are photos that I have deemed OK for public consumption.

      Not all parents think that far. In fact there are a lot of terminally stupid Facebook users that post things without thinking at all ( the police is always happy when someone on the run updates his location ). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of parents post enough details for any criminal to get a detailed schedule ( this includes paedophiles, burglars and a lot of others ). The warning is indeed a stupid suggestion as it is directed at people stupid enough that they share literally anything on Facebook.

    2. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say this as the father of two little girls. But if I post pictures on facebook of my daughters they are photos that I have deemed OK for public consumption. They are photos that if they were published on the front page of a news paper I would be absolutely fine about it. So given that, why should I care if someone with a perversion finds one of them titillating? Yeah it's definitely pretty high on the gross out scale but maybe I shouldn't post pictures of my cat then for a similar reason?

      This is a totally totally stupid suggestion. If someone does collect photos of kids off the internet from facebook NO CHILD IS HARMED. Stupid.

      Who says that this is about the photos itself? You get a photo with enough information close by to get better shots yourself. That's the problem. You can pull full schedules of some kids from FB making it even easier to get an opportunity. I am not concerned about the image itself, but of the combined information.

    3. Re:Why should I care? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Don't get why people here are so upset. Go to a dating site, every woman who has Pictures of herself including one/some of her kids gets mailed: don't put your childrens photos here! It is dangerous!
      Obviously the people (and the german police) believe that pedophiles and kidnappers pick up children via web sites instead of random kids they met in RL.

      I was moderator for a while on okcupid.com and 90% of the complaints of "abusing fotos" or how you want to call it where not: sexual explicit, or what ever but: "contains children"! (which was completely legit according to the sites policy)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Why should I care? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      So given that, why should I care if someone with a perversion finds one of them titillating?

      Because, if that person with a perversion happens to be a forensic "expert", or a judge, it's you who go into the slammer.

      Yeah it's definitely pretty high on the gross out scale but maybe I shouldn't post pictures of my cat then for a similar reason?

      There is far less hysteria about zoophilia than there is about pedophilia.

      If someone does collect photos of kids off the internet from facebook NO CHILD IS HARMED.

      Yeah, but try explaining that to a judge...

    5. Re:Why should I care? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I was moderator for a while on okcupid.com and 90% of the complaints of "abusing fotos" or how you want to call it where not: sexual explicit, or what ever but: "contains children"! (which was completely legit according to the sites policy)

      These people might have complained not so much to "protect" the kids, but rather to protect the "users" of the photos. What if somebody jerked off to the photo (i.e. to the adult in it who is the main subject), was caught in the act, and the onlooker presumed the jerking off was because of the kids. You know, there are lots of hysterical people out there...

    6. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... post pictures on Facebook of my daughters ...

      It makes your children easier to find, particularly when a lot of their social activities are published on social networks, etc. That is a big problem when one is a child/teenager. The argument was just made in "If you're not paranoid about your privacy ..." by JMJimmy:


      • The biggest thing in immediate danger with the loss of privacy is opportunity. You must conform publicly in every way to the definition of the ideal or face ridicule, ostracization, or limitation. Privacy is liberty. Liberty to explore your boundaries, interests, and desires. Liberty to fix your mistakes, change your mind, & move forward in life without being restrained by your past choices. Without privacy, none of that is possible.

      ... should I care if someone with a perversion finds one of them titillating?

      The usual argument is voyeurs become kidnappers/murderers/rapists. It's like arguing that seeing a woman in her bikini/underwear causes rape.

    7. Re:Why should I care? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Then why limit it to photos of children? FFS people "Check In" to places which is basically I am not home now come rob me. I'm sure you could work out a pretty good schedule for my kids if you had access to my wife's facebook page. But I don't see it as a real risk and less of a risk then her being targetted by someone she passes by every day.

      So someone gets a bit interested in a photo. Lets say they even get obsessed with one of my girls. For them to be a risk they would actually need to be able to get near her and chances are this person doesn't even live in the same country. No I am far more concerned with the people she may actually come in contact with IRL, not some random basement dweller living 15,000km away.

    8. Re:Why should I care? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      This is totally illogical. If I post a picture of my daughter in her ballet costume and someone finds it turns them on it doesn't make me someone who produces child porn. No jury would convict based on that.

    9. Re:Why should I care? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      It frankly is a stupid mindset. I would be far more concerned about the creepy guy who keeps doing the slow drive by of the school then some random on the inter-tubes. It makes me wonder what kind of life these kids lead that things like facebook are their biggest vector for coming in contact with strangers. Are they seriously that wrapped up in cotton wool that they have no interaction with the outside world???

    10. Re:Why should I care? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I guess I don't see that kids are that hard to find anyway. And while I think my daughters are the most special of snowflakes in the world I completely realise that it is only me that thinks that and to everyone else they are just another kid. So, call it safety of the herd, but the chances of it being my daughter that is singled out, tracked, and snatched is so vanishingly small that I am willing to take that risk because the costs of living a solitary life are worse.

      As for the argument made by JMJimmy you quoted I'm not sure totally agree because social media does not require you to post every thing that passes through your head or thing you fantasise about doing. Yes if you write on a public facebook page that you have just done 300kph through the city complete with a video you probably are going to face ridicule, ostracization or limitation. But seriously don't post that video. If you like doing drugs don't post a picture with a needle hanging out of your arm and no one will know. And when you make the comment about other people posting that information, those people were always going to be the blabbermouth that got you in trouble.

    11. Re:Why should I care? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      This is totally illogical. If I post a picture of my daughter in her ballet costume and someone finds it turns them on it doesn't make me someone who produces child porn.

      You are right, this is totally illogical. But since when did logic play any part in those witch trials? It's all about emotions, not logic. And that's exactly the problem.

      No jury would convict based on that.

      There is no intelligence test required to be part of a jury. And probability is indeed quite large that if the prosecutor pulls off a good show, that the jury may convict on the flimsiest of evidence. Just look at the Facebook discussions on posts which are about this subject, and see how quickly some people can switch off their brain.

    12. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a photo with enough information close by to get better shots yourself. That's the problem. You can pull full schedules of some kids from FB making it even easier to get an opportunity. I am not concerned about the image itself, but of the combined information.

      Does Germany have a sudden rash of cases where kids are being abducted by strangers who tracked them down on Facebook? Are child abductions on the rise in general? No, this is all just paranoia and fear. Using your logic you better not send your kid to school, because evil people know where the schools are and can observe when kids are coming and going.

    13. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you daughters consent to their images being posted? Even if they did, do you think they understand the effect of putting photos on the internet? You may want to show them off but is that a valid reason to compromise their privacy without their (valid, understanding) consent?

    14. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's all about emotions, not logic. And that's exactly the problem.

      So you basically don't have a justice system at all?

    15. Re:Why should I care? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      While I agree the issue is blown out of proportion, what if that random basement dweller lived 10km away? Remember, just because you don't know or see this random person doesn't mean you get to select them as being arbitrarily far away...

    16. Re:Why should I care? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Or what about the random basement dweller who only targets kids who aren't on facebook. You'd better put just a few pictures of your kids on facebook just to be safe.

    17. Re:Why should I care? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      way to go with the non-sequitur.

      My point was that he was automatically distancing himself from the speculative predator by suggesting that such predators are basement dwellers that live 15,000km away. That is known as begging the question and is a logical fallacy. I simply pointed out that there was no reason for such an unknown predator to be living 10km away (ignoring the other assumption that such predators are basement dwellers).

      I was not arguing for the general validity of "OMG pedophiles everywhere" that some people are attempting to read into the source of the referenced article, but if we were to be debating that then your presented argument is still silly as it does absolutely nothing to address anything about the argument. It is still a non-sequitur.

      For example, a strong argument can be made that abductions, abuse, etc., is nearly always done by someone known to the victim, usually a close relative (or member of the clergy). There are exceptions, such as boy scouts and private schools, but they are (relatively) rare. Even more fringe are the child predators who seek out children to abuse which -- to a very rough approximation -- is similar to the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack. Putting the matter into perspective and addressing concerns and the basis for argument is quite relevant. Non-sequiturs not so much.

    18. Re:Why should I care? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be too concerned about the creepy guy. Sure, he might be a pedo casing the joint - but a more likely explanation is a parent of a potential future student trying to get a look at how the students really behave, not how they look on the school website.

    19. Re:Why should I care? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Of course this is possible. But it isn't likely. It is much more likely, as you posted later, that the risk comes from someone known to my family. My thoughts are that there is probably an even distribution of predators in a population and the internet is likely to remove initial interest in geography. Later if someone did become particularly obsessed with my kids the odds are the they will be somewhere a long way away as the majority of the worlds population live a long way away. It isn't zero risk but it is very low, especially when combined with the already very low risk.

  17. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because we all know Facebook is a child pornography network. Having picture anywhere else is totally safe from telepathic paedophilia mental anguish syndrome. I still receive TPMA pain from that time my mother showed picture of my tiny baby penis. What a agony...

  18. German Polizei makes sense by Trachman · · Score: 0

    German Police made very simple very basic risk assessment. They probably have analyzed the root causes within the cases of bullying, sex predators, and have concluded that FB is one big opening where information is watched by the people you would never want anywhere near you.

    It does not matter that you have "adjusted" your privacy settings as "private". Sooner or later children will be tagged and identified.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that the Hague police warning to the parents is based on more than one instance of actual crimes committed, and that is probably the tip of the iceberg. A photo in a FB is not the end of the world, and statistics is prompting, that chances of being a victim are low, however not insignificant.

    Yet, this is a risk and German polizei did the right thing of informing about this risk.

    1. Re: German Polizei makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ja, they didn't do anything of that sort, but they also didn't say outright not to post pictures of your children on Facebook, they said not to post naked photos of your children without first having some privacy settings.

      "Ein Schnappschuss am Strand oder nackt badend im Planschbecken: Viele von Ihnen verÃffentlichenÂBilder von ihren Kleinsten bei Facebook und Co. Und das nicht selten für jedermann sichtbar, also vÃllig ohne entsprechende Sicherheitsvorkehrungen bei den PrivatsphÃre-Einstellungen"

      My guess was that their "analysis" was limited to a case where some internet nutjob searched out such a photo, then emailed, phoned, and harassed the Hagen Police. They can't do anything about crazy people outside Germany, so this was the next best thing to keep from having to deal with them.

    2. Re: German Polizei makes sense by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Sure, if you set the value of sharing photos of your kids with your friends to zero, and then we compare a one in twenty million risk to zero, then we'll err on the side of caution.

      But in the real world, people enjoy seeing what their friends are up to (parents' lives are strongly defined by their kids) as that helps build strong social relationships.

      We take them to soccer games too, even though there's a one in two million chance of them being killed in a car wreck on the way. And, OMG, swimming. I'm not on FB anymore but it's not due to fear of perverts, and I posted plenty of kid pics in my time. I don't want my kids to be one in twenty million, but that's why I'm teaching them blended martial arts.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:German Polizei makes sense by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      German Police made very simple very basic risk assessment.

      Yes, and they BLEW IT. Part of doing a risk assessment is weighing the risk against the benefits. They erroneously decided that the incredibly unlikely occurrence of a predator deciding to attack your child because they saw a photo on Facebook outweighed the benefit of sharing photos with people easily via Facebook.

      I'll make a prediction: no matter how hard you look, you won't be able to find many fact-based news stories online where an actual predator attacked an actual child because of a Facebook photo. In fact, you probably won't find a single one. When I did that same search, I couldn't find any incidents that actually occurred, anywhere in the world. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean there weren't any, but I think it would be likely that if such a thing did happen it would get insane amounts of international news coverage; certainly if it happened in any statistically significant amount we'd hear about it, right? Instead,all we hear is fear-mongering "what if it happened", rather than "this happened 4000 times last year and here is where we found that info".

  19. I thought that most pedos were family members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...not strangers. Why? Because they have extended unsupervised access. The idea that roving bands of pedos are parachuting in from the hills is ridiculous.

    1. Re:I thought that most pedos were family members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right, of course. The biggest threat of child molestors in the west is family members. The vast majority of mass casualty incidents in the west are perpetrated by "lone wolf" style people who don't communicate their plans to anyone to be intercepted in the first place.

      But you can't sell the idea of mass surveillance, encryption backdoors, etc. without having a bogeyman that everyone is afraid of. Gotta keep the people scared.

    2. Re:I thought that most pedos were family members by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      family, or members of the clergy. Strangers are a real stretch. It happens, but it is pretty rare.

  20. Oh no by Tifer · · Score: 2

    A sexual deviant looked at pictures of people online and had sexual thoughts. Shut down EVERYTHING.

    1. Re:Oh no by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      A sexual deviant looked at pictures of people online and had sexual thoughts. Shut down EVERYTHING.

      Perhaps a German sexual deviant in a position of authority looked at pictures of people online and had sexual thoughts and said 'Shut down EVERYTHING'?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  21. Re: We should arrest school picture photographers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we chose the digital option (at the time, which was ~2002), we received a CD-ROM (remember those?) with the entire district, indexed and searchable.

  22. Re:Diden't the Nazis used to do stuff like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "diden't" really, where did you learn to write?

  23. Blaming the victim.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..one of the most sinister features of the Fascist character.

  24. Just stop exposing yourself to the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and stop using Facebook, Twitter etc to tell the world about your mundane life.
    You never know is some pervert living in the next street might see it and decided that your life or the life of your kids need to be 'enhanced' by them.

    Just say NO. All social media is an Addictive Drug. You can get off. It if not fatal but just get off for your own sake.

  25. Holiday spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it is October after all.

  26. Re:Diden't the Nazis used to do stuff like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "diden't" really, where did you learn to write?

    Where did you? You're missing a comma between "diden't" and "really". Get a clue before you yell at someone else, buddy.

  27. Re:Not just because of pedophiles by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This. A billion times this. Allegedly babies are cute. I can't really find anything cute about them, but I have been informed that I'm the odd man out here and everyone else thinks those little whining buoys are something adorable. Fine.

    They will eventually turn into human beings, though. And no later than then they will HATE you for embarrassing them like this. This "cute" pic you post right there could well turn into bullying material for your teenage son or daughter 13 years down the line.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. A bit misleading... by nava68 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just read the original post by the Polizei Hagen and the context is not so much about pedophiles but the emphasis is more on basic privacy concerns... A quick and dirty translation (usual caveats apply):

    Please stop posting photographs of your children for all to see on Facebook and Co! - Even your children have privacy!
    A snapshot naked on the beach or bathing in the pool: Many of you publish pictures of their little ones on Facebook and Co. And very often those are visible to everyone, without any appropriate safeguards in the privacy settings. Maybe you consider the pictures adorable today, but they might prove endlessly embarrassing for your children in a few years - or they might even get bullied! Even worse: pedophile inclined people may use such photos for their own purposes or publish them elsewhere. Your children have a right of privacy. We feel that pictures of children should not be published in social networks. Because the Internet never "forgets" anything. View your pictures of your little ones wtih grandma, grandpa, aunt, uncle, friends and acquaintances rather personally. Because: Isn't it so much nicer to talk and smile about them together?
    Thank you!
    Your Police Hagen

    1. Re: A bit misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd that on a forum such as /. where many users consider themselves "hackers" completely misses the point. Why post such personal information online? For some criminals, kids are just an attack vector to get to you. Much can be obtained via a simple phone call from someone impersonating a school official, knowing your kids names, where they go to school, etc. People who would never fall for a Nigerian Prince would easily fall for something more meaningful to them.

    2. Re: A bit misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably a good idea to create some sort of pass phrase as I read someone else mention once.

    3. Re:A bit misleading... by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      Now, the article is from Germany, but a point of law for those in the US: if you post something to facebook and someone takes offense it can be labeled as child pornography (hey, not even famous award winning movies are safe, e.g., The Little Tin Drum, why should your personal photographs be any more protected).

      I'm sure facebook is lawyered up for this, but technically they would be distributing child pornography. But it gets better: in order to "protect the children" anything or anyone remotely related to the creation or distribution of the illegal product is a criminal. Driving little Johny to the boyscout camp can end up being providing transportation in support of illegal activities.

      Child pornography is the kryptonite of legal investigations. In a normal criminal investigation you have to be an authorized investigator, but once child pornography is alleged it requires special authorization. Law enforcement officers who are authorized to investigate crimes against children have, at times, come under scrutiny themselves.

      You can't stop living life, but maybe there is some value to privacy afterall...

  29. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Those school pics you were forced to get every year? Ya, big pedophile ring right there. Forcing us to look nice for photos, so they could get off on it.

    What about the DMV taking pictures of your kids? Government controlled ephebophilia ring there.

    Oh shit, about what all the kids at the beaches? Wearing very little? We should outlaw that also. Maybe not let kids go outside anymore while we are at it. After all, we just think of the children, oh wait, we should outlaw that also.

    I went to school in germany. There weren't mandatory photos in school. Our DMV equivalent doesn't take photos of kids either. We got nude beaches and most of the time people wont take photos there. Would be really hard to get a pretty picture there as the bigger part of the attending adults aren't bodybuilders or enforce the no photos without permission rule.

    To make it short. They warn about giving the really bad guys an easy way to get a photo and enough data to locate the kids. Some people even post their kids schedule.

  30. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

    Here in the states it seems that a grim, paranoid society is the end goal of the media in general.

  31. Re:Diden't the Nazis used to do stuff like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Missing a comma is a matter of grammer and can happen to anyone, but spelling like this is much more rudimentary problem.By teh way, where did you hear anyone yell? Are you delusional?

  32. Re:Diden't the Nazis used to do stuff like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where did you?

    And you missed the "e" in "dide".

  33. "Free body culture" country by Katatsumuri · · Score: 0

    This comes from Germany, where fully naked kids up to 10 years old routinely play in public fountains, park steams, and are taken with parents to opposite sex changing room at swimming pools, etc.

    The parents here definitely need more sense talked into them. This goes beyond poorly considered facebook photos. I support the police in this case, despite the fearmongering counterpoint mentioned by others.

    1. Re:"Free body culture" country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where is small opposite sex kid supposed to change at swimming pool? Alone and parent hope the kid does not panic? 10 years old in Germany routinely change alone, so this must be about smaller kids.

    2. Re:"Free body culture" country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comes from Germany, where fully naked kids up to 10 years old routinely play in public fountains, park steams, and are taken with parents to opposite sex changing room at swimming pools, etc.

      The parents here definitely need more sense talked into them. This goes beyond poorly considered facebook photos. I support the police in this case, despite the fearmongering counterpoint mentioned by others.

      I still remember as a kid I think I was 8 or 9 we were on a trip at a hotel in Colorado. We went swimming at the hotel pool and there was a german family there too. They had a girl a few years older than me maybe 11 or 12 and she was swimming topless. Definitely not something I've ever seen before or sense, very out of the ordinary in the US.

  34. Sensible advice by DrXym · · Score: 0
    I don't know why anybody is so fucking stupid as to post up pictures of their family for all to see. It has nothing to do with child predators or whatever but just a lack of respect for the kid's privacy.

    Of course Facebook could something about this too such as by setting their default privacy settings to minimize mistakes and introducing algorithms which detect children in photos and ask if the user really meant to publish that picture to everyone.

    1. Re:Sensible advice by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't know why anybody is so fucking stupid to bring their family in public. Don't they realize that everybody can see them?!

  35. The Problem by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    The problem is the pedophiles, not Facebook.

    Especially the so-called 'elite', who are involved in pedophile rings and who adhere to a code of silence in order to discredit victims and protect themselves. It is a huge problem globally.

    I really don't think taking children's pictures off Facebook is going to change anything.

    This is an excellent book on the subject.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  36. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by kuhnto · · Score: 1

    I knew some idiot who doesn't know the difference between "some idiot" and "would say something stupid like that" would say something stupid like that.

    --
    "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
  37. Agreed by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    No one should post pictures of their ugly children on facebook. What's this about pedos now?

  38. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To make it short. They warn about giving the really bad guys an easy way to get a photo and enough data to locate the kids. Some people even post their kids schedule.

    Complete and utter FUD. Has there EVER been a case where a non-family member kidnaps a specific kid based on stuff they found online? If you want to kidnap a kid, you already know where they hang out. First off, kidnapping by a complete stranger is extremely extremely rare and secondly the person who is going to do this is going to go where the kids are and grab the first kid they find, they aren't going to try to get a specific kid. Now posting when your kid is home alone is probably not the smartest thing to do so I would venture to say that posting your own work schedule or whereabouts would be more dangerous than posting a picture of your kid or your kid's schedule. Lastly, so they have your kid's picture, who cares? They can get millions of pictures on google by googling "kid". That's not the kind of pictures they are wanting and in no way does it make your kid any more at risk. The only thing it could possibly do is allow a kidnapper to put a name to a face so they can call the kid by name but that can be done by listening to the kids play for 5 minutes and abducting kids is disgustingly easy. Show up with a cute dog and you can have your pick of any kid on the playground. It just doesn't happen.

  39. Lack of Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lack of consent is the real issue. People should be allowed to consent to what information is posted about them online, including and particularly photographic images of themselves, and young children do not have the capacity to sufficiently consent to their images and data being shared publicly. 18 might be a little old, but even at 13 it's hard to say whether children truly understand the consequences of sharing data with the world. Data has a longer half life than uranium.

  40. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those school pics you were forced to get every year? Ya, big pedophile ring right there.

    You do realize that yearly photos at school were taken so that you had a recent picture for the police, right? Kids change so much year-to-year and there are parents that don't have good pictures of their kids.

  41. Scaremongering 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Men in Black said it best.

    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

    1. Re:Scaremongering 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, a very important point of clarification. Being a pedophile itself is not a crime.

  42. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    It just doesn't happen.

    You realize this. I realize this. I'm sure plenty of German cops realize this as well... those that are smart enough to be doing actual policework, that is. Those in charge of [whatever passes for] Hagen's police public relations department? Clearly not so much.

  43. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by thoromyr · · Score: 1

    If you really cared I could dig up specifics, but here in the US there was an abduction and either actual or attempted murder of a juvenile by someone not known to the family and only to the child via online activity. The perpetrator was a criminal who had done this before.

    So, no it is not "complete and utter FUD". And, yes, there *has* "EVER been a case".

    Now, is this normal? No. The vast majority of abductions are done by a close relative (often the mother or father in custody cases). Are cases like the one I mention above blown out of all proportion? Yes. But they still happen so claiming they don't is wrong.

  44. There's a guy who loves rocks by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    If there is a guy who is sexually attracted to rocks, how important is it to make sure that no pictures of rocks end up on facebook?

  45. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    If you really cared I could dig up specifics, but here in the US there was an abduction and either actual or attempted murder of a juvenile by someone not known to the family and only to the child via online activity. The perpetrator was a criminal who had done this before.

    What you're describing sounds like a child predator. This not the same thing at all. A child predator finds a tween/teen in a chat room or where the tween/teen has their own personal facebook account and starts a conversation. This is not the same thing as an adult posting pictures of their kid on their adult facebook page.

  46. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Due to online activity" is not a parent posting pictures of their kids. It's kids having their own social media accounts, and chatting up random strangers who pop up. Yes, that happens, but there isn't a line from the former to the latter. Teach your kids not to talk to strangers on the internet.

  47. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Killing them all hasn't really reduced their numbers...

    We haven't yet tried killing all pedophiles here in the states. Usually they go to prison for a few years and then are back on the streets, neither "cured" nor prevented from harming more people.

  48. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by thoromyr · · Score: 2

    The statement "Complete and utter FUD. Has there EVER been a case where a non-family member kidnaps a specific kid based on stuff they found online?" is not true and it sounds like you aren't contesting that, instead trying to change the topic/use semantics.

    In what way is a pedophile *not* a child predator?

  49. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    The statement "Complete and utter FUD. Has there EVER been a case where a non-family member kidnaps a specific kid based on stuff they found online?" is not true and it sounds like you aren't contesting that...

    I'll contest it. The kidnapping was not "based on stuff they found online", it was based on an interactive online relationship between the "predator" and the child. Ergo, this case does not prove the statement false.

    In any case this has no bearing on the danger, or lack thereof, of posting photos of your children on sites like Facebook. It may hint that in some cases there may be a danger in allowing your children to form online relationships with strangers without adult supervision.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  50. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    What about the Coppertone girl!?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  51. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly.

    The general consensus is to kill them all. If the crime is rather heinous, details will be leaked to the prison at large, and you end up with a corpse where nobody saw nothin'. And several don't live long enough to make it to trial.

    For those that make it through, the morass of registry laws oddly put them in more frequent contact with lower class children while keeping them on the cusp of re-offending in some manner.

    The prevalence stays pretty static decade to decade.

  52. Admitting to the barbaric truth of Islam? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    That won't prevent another Rotherham. It does admit that the invasion of Middle Easterners are predisposed to incivilities such as vandalism, rape, assault, and murder.

    Perhaps Germany (and other good EU nations) should ship those hostile migrants back to their home. Then follow Hungary's lead and keep them out. Then again, expecting a GDR-minded leader to stop ringing the dinner bell for Islamic invasion is asking too much.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  53. I have bad news for you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your kids will never be safe unless you keep them imprisoned in your basement. Pedophiles are literally everywhere and even normal facebook pictures are enough to fuel pedophile fantasies. How do I know? I happen to know some pedophiles.. and I happen to be one :)

    For those idiots that think pedopile == child abuser. It's not. Check some capable dictionary. Pedophile is only a person with attraction towards prepubescent children. It does not imply any action at all.

    A pedophile can enjoy your pictures just like anyone else. Just someone being pedophile does not mean he will masturbate to every pic he sees. And even if he did, where's the harm? It's completely different issue for those, who actually molest children, or make stupid comments in youtube vs. those who just do it quietly in their own basement.

  54. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    The statement "Complete and utter FUD. Has there EVER been a case where a non-family member kidnaps a specific kid based on stuff they found online?" is not true and it sounds like you aren't contesting that, instead trying to change the topic/use semantics.

    In what way is a pedophile *not* a child predator?

    Yes, a child predator is a pedophile and no, I'm not trying to change the topic/sematics. You are the one trying to change the topic from a parent posting photos of their kid to a kid talking to strangers online. As other people have posted, there is a HUGE difference between a young kid having a conversation with a stranger online using the kid's personal facebook account and a parent posting pictures of a kid.online on an adult account. The first is dangerous but has no connection to the later.

  55. German police warn about parents posting kids phot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason that cops are issuing these warnings is because they dont want to have to do their jobs and ho after bad guys. Fugitives run amok while police claim they are hunting fugitives and waste their time and our money spying on good honest everyday normal citizens. It's tve witch hunt mentality bootlicking generation.

  56. Re:We should arrest school picture photographers a by vandamme · · Score: 1

    "Don't be a paleface!" That was before your time, sonny.

  57. posting on facebook by perih60 · · Score: 1

    we now have a situation where anything said about facebook that is even slightly negative about facebook , is rediculed , insalted , taken out of context , why is this so ? i have had to travel more than most , " social encounters have more mines than military encounters " the quote comes from a bbc war documentery . it is a pity that among us are people unable to deal with the slightest cultural differese , and this is a pity because we can learn so much , have nicer more fullfilling , interesting lives . if we life and let live !! i have worked and communicated with capitalists , muslems , asians , communists ,dark people , christians , conservatives , caucasians , sochalitsts , lutherans , " yellow people " nice people , aerogant , mongals , rich , poor , most of them just wanted to live their lives , have and look after their kids , have a roof over their heads , something to eat , not be victems of their " leaders " within each subgroup , bankers , black , poor , nurses , there is a small %ich who are bad . or extremists . regardless of race , religon , greed !! it is by our devercity that we will survive !because of the different climates around the world if nothing else . people fleeing religios persecution are not pilgrams according to my oxford dictionary .education ( and a dictionary " are more important than stating vegetarians are silly . i have heard people ask "are you here because your ancesters were criminals or cos you could not find a place in the society from which you come ?" knowledge does not equate understanding !

    --
    the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL