Parents Could Be Sued By Their Kids For Posting Pictures of Them On Facebook (theguardian.com)

Next time you share pictures of your children on Facebook, you will want to take their permission before doing that. French authorities have warned parents in France of fines of up to $50,000 and a year in prison for publishing intimate photos of their children on social media without permission. From a Guardian report: It's a development that could give pause for thought for many parents used to sharing details of their children's lives across social media. A 2015 study by internet company Nominet found parents in the UK post nearly 200 photos of their under fives online every year, meaning a child will feature in around 1,000 online photos before their fifth birthday. [...] "In a few years, children could easily take their parents to court for publishing photos of them when they were younger," Eric Delcroix, an expert on internet law and ethics, told Le Figaro. "Children at certain stages do not wish to be photographed or still less for those photos to be made public," he added.It may seem like an absurd law to many, but think about the potential consequences of putting a kid's picture on social media. Among others, we've seen plenty of pictures becoming meme on the web.

Comments

Really?

[fyngyrz]

Really? One wonders how a child would give permission in any manner that meant anything in a legal sense.

Perhaps the summary isn't presenting this clearly (what? WHAT?) but yes, it does seem pretty absurd.

Then again, the US certainly hasn't been slacking in stepping into the role of parental choice / decision-making.

Re:Really?

[Salgak1]

Exactly. If a child is not at Age of Consent (which varies) or, more importantly, legal Adult status, and thus able to enter contract and sign any official document, how can permission be granted legally before that time ? Does not Parental Rights imply the granting of permissions (especially if the parent is the one who took and posted the photos. . . )

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? One wonders how a child would give permission in any manner that meant anything in a legal sense.

I don't know, if there's anything my three year-old is good at it's saying, "NO!". I'm sure that 10 to 15 minutes of this would be good enough for any lawyer, jury, or judge.

Re:Really?

[angel'o'sphere]

Does not Parental Rights imply the granting of permissions (especially if the parent is the one who took and posted the photos. . . )
The courts, and common sense, think: it does not.

However your milage of "common sense" may vary :D

Re:Really?

[operagost]

I don't know about French law, but yes, here in the USA by definition a minor cannot consent to just about anything. Therefore, claiming that a parent needed their child's permission to post something is meaningless.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary indicates that this is about France, not the US.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, the US certainly hasn't been slacking in stepping into the role of parental choice / decision-making.

Yes, it has. Very much so at times. Otherwise we wouldn't have hysteria over vaccines, medical care, family abuse, and even children missing.

And people, despite their desire to portray themselves as anti-government, well, I can't count the number of times I've heard somebody or another complain about parents not raising their children properly. So then I ask, what do they think should be done? Should those children be taken away? Should there be mandatory parenting standards and licensing?

But no, in this case, I can see problems coming up down the line. But even Jackie Coogan (you may remember him as "The Kid" or "Uncle Fester") suffered from his parents wasting the money he earned, let alone setting the stage for something rather unpleasant.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

USA by definition a minor cannot consent to just about anything, with the exceptions of having an abortion.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, while parental notification laws can become an undue burden, unlike spousal notification laws, they are not prohibited per se.

And you'll find that laws regarding abortions tend bring in judges when a minor is involved and they don't want their parents told. Because sometimes, well, parents aren't the best at handling this sort of thing, and children can have a valid interest that differs from their parents.

And in some circumstances, it's going to be a criminal investigation regardless.

But do go on in your ignorance. Proceed to expound further.

Re:Really?

[mwvdlee]

Playing devil's advocate: How do you want to teach children to handle private information responsibly on the internet when their parents have already ruined any chance of keeping such information private in the first place?

Re:Really?

[Richard_at_work]

This is the same country where you cannot legally cut your kids out of an inheritance - the French government has never been shy about stepping in where it really shouldnt have any jurisdiction.

Re:Really?

[AmiMoJo]

They are simply pointing out that if you post embarrassing photos of your kids on Facebook the worst possible scenario is that they go viral and they end up hating you so much they sue you for damages and violation of privacy. It's unlikely but the law allows for it in extreme cases, where the child can show that they have been (psychologically) injured or lost money (e.g. was forced out of a job).

Basically they are just reminding everyone that the law applies to children too and parents should think before posting every moment of their little darling's life on Facebook.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What private information? Their weight at birth? The day they lost their first tooth? Is there some massive group of parents posting their kid's SSN or something like that?

Re:Really?

[MightyMartian]

Beyond that, are the alleged consequences even that probable? This sounds more like a combination of legal stupidity and the general ability of people to overestimate risks by such a wide degree. In other words, it is irrational from the top down.

Re:Really?

[fyngyrz]

I was referring to the US in a manner intended to say "but we're leading the way here"

I tend to be a bit too concise sometimes. Sorry.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The kids can sue for presumed damages. Try doing that when your credit card is abused. You have to prove ACTAUL famages have been dne.

Re:Really?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Therefore, claiming that a parent needed their child's permission to post something is meaningless.

Regardless of the legal code, the ethical reasoning is very muddled.

The most workable construction is that, while, yes, a child is born with inherent rights, the child is initially incapable of exercising those rights. Nobody says that a toddler should be free to head off to a rave downtown - it's expected that a parent will appropriately curtail the child's rights.

Over time, the parent(s), the custodian of those child's rights, will slowly cede the rights back to the child, as his brain matures. By time the child turns 18, he's legally recognized as an adult with full rights (excepting Prohibitionist nonsense).

The French here seek to punish a parent for exercising the rights over which he has moral custody, which is, in effect, exercising his own rights.

Sure, some parents will make bad choices, but most will not, and having a government suing parents for sharing pics of their kids is far, far, more dangerous to the society than the occasional lapse of judgement.

Re:Really?

[SvnLyrBrto]

It's not just about identity theft material. Plenty of parents certainly believe that it's their right... their duty even... to publicly humiliate their children. I'm really not sure how that could escape your notice. It's so pervasive that it's even become the sort of pop-culture cliche that makes it into Volkswagen commercials.

Re:Really?

[swalve]

Human rights trump these "parental rights" of yours. Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities.

Re:Really?

[swalve]

You mean the human rights of minors? Those silly frog eaters.

Re:Really?

[Jason Levine]

Obviously, the article talks about France, but in the US my boys don't have any right to agree to any legal contract. If a photographer took a photo of them and wanted to use it for commercial purposes, they'd need the approval of me and my wife. We actually did this with one photo we took that Western Digital wanted to use for an ad campaign. We signed the paperwork and collected the money. My son didn't really have any say in the matter. (He was too young to understand what this all meant. Had he been older, we'd have talked with him about it and likely would have respected his wishes on the subject. However, we wouldn't have been under legal obligation to do so.)

I do wonder how France supposes that parents will get permission to post "My baby boy/girl was born" photos. Do they think that a baby that is mere minutes old will give valid consent? Or is this completely "Child turns 18, decides he didn't like his parents posting baby photos of him 18 years ago because he wasn't wearing clothes, sues parents"?

Re:Really?

[religionofpeas]

A child is not a fully functional human yet. Their "rights" are adjusted accordingly.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting your parents stuff when they die is not a human right.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question though, is "why do you feel this compulsive need to plaster pictures of your children everywhere?"

You know, your children are not things or possessions, which you are free to manage and use as you damn well please. They are future citizens and members of our society which currently are in your care. No more, no less.

It's your job to be the guardian of the child, i.e you're supposed to look out for the childs interests in its place. You're not supposed to abuse it's inability to say "NO" to stroke your own ego.

Ergo, if you're doing something the child hypothetically should have a say in, such as posting pictures in public, you are not acting in the interest of the child, since children generally speaking have no interest in appearing online, you're indulging yourself. You are trying to use the role as custodian to give yourself the rights that rightly belong to the child. This is a perversion, because those rights are not yours to begin with, you are only supposed to exercise the rights of the child for its own good and benefit. Publishing pictures etc. is not in the child's interest, and it cannot be undone. However, if the child at a reasonably mature age consents to have them published, they are still available, no?

Re:Really?

[William Baric]

So "human rights" trump "parental rights"? OK, but between my "human right" to post on social media a picture I took and the "human right" of someone else to forbid me to post on social media a picture I took, which "human right" trump which?

Seriously, the concept of "human rights" is now so abused that it has become a farce.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of the legal code, the ethical reasoning is very muddled.

No more than any other. Which is to say, quite a lot, because it's a complicated picture that goes in a variety of directions.

The French here seek to punish a parent for exercising the rights over which he has moral custody, which is, in effect, exercising his own rights.

Sure, some parents will make bad choices, but most will not, and having a government suing parents for sharing pics of their kids is far, far, more dangerous to the society than the occasional lapse of judgement.

The French here (so far as it might be a few professionals in the field giving some advice that there is a concern), are noting that choices have consequences, and that sometimes they will have to act to address the results of parental conduct which causes harm to children. Or even just discomfort.

Where as you seem to be exercising a hysterical reaction over some imagined result that is not demonstrably evident in its actuality.

Does that constitute a lapse of judgement on your part?

Re:Really?

[lgw]

But children are not chattel, and parents don't have the freedom to abuse their kids.

The question here: is oversharing a form of abuse? I think it is, though a mild one. What you do as a young child should not follow you into adulthood.

Re: Really?

[BellyJelly]

There is no human right to post on social media. There is a human right to privacy. So yeah, someone does have the right to ask not to feature in your facebook postings.

Re:Really?

[BitterOak]

Human rights trump these "parental rights" of yours. Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities.

Parents aren't humans?

Re: Really?

[suutar]

but there is a right of expression, usually termed "speech" but interpreted to be more than vocalization. So... speech or privacy?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, you are prolife then. A child has a right to life, the parents have a responsibility to provide for that child.

Re:Really?

[operagost]

Thanks for the vague and insulting rhetoric, AC. But secret minor abortions, while also arguably insane are not even relevant here. In this case, it's the parent taking action without obtaining the minor's consent.

Re:Really?

[operagost]

Indeed, it's that children have rights and parents exercise them on their behalf. The problem is that the left has been trying to shift that responsibility to the state for decades.

No one has explained how, if a parent is supposed to get the consent of their child, that they're supposed to prove that. Does one have to shoot some video asking their child if it's OK to post that infant bathtub photo?

Re:Really?

[ewibble]

Copyright law is pretty absurd, and anything you derive from absurd basis is bound to be absurd too.

Absurd parts of copyright:
Period it last for,
Due process (take down notices), god forbid you would have to have proof before demanding someone take down a potentially infringing copy.
Most parts of law you have to actually prove a harm beyond balance of probability (reasonable doubt for criminal charges) occurred.
Fair use, first sale doctrine, seem to be thrown out the window.

If fair use was, or harm part of copyright was there, then parents posting their children's photos would not be an issue. Anyway you can agree to do a lot of things on your children's behalf since they can't do it themselves. But copyright seems to override any other sane basis in the legal system, since it is such a heinous crime, there is nothing worse than potentially taking away corporate profits.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that it is not reasonable for a child to give consent (just like other vulnerable populations who may not be mentally competent cannot always give consent), children deserve special protections as a vulnerable population. Parents don't own their children or their rights to privacy. This is a way to protect children from parents with a lack of appropriateness.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The French here seek to punish a parent for exercising the rights over which he has moral custody, which is, in effect, exercising his own rights.

Nope. But do keep trying to paint it as such. Your opinion is of no consequence thankfully.

And "moral custody".. Seriously?

You seem to be trying to present this as a parent having full unconditional rights to control of a child in all matters.

Not actually so. Because children are not property.

A parent is supposed to act on a child's behalf in the CHILD'S best interest. Not their own.

Sure, some parents will make bad choices, but most will not, and having a government suing parents for sharing pics of their kids is far, far, more dangerous to the society than the occasional lapse of judgement.

And why then, would the parents who made good choices be in court?

Oh right.. Because the most extreme case must be the norm.. And the French court system has nothing better to do than go through the school register and take every parent to court unconditionally.. Right?

See. .this is not America. So when a case goes to court, it is not the first thing that someone does. And it is usually to get a RESOLUTION. Not to get compensation.

Neighbours hedge blocking the sunlight in my garden.. If they refuse to keep it trimmed, I go to court to get the judge to tell them to do it, or to assign a tree surgeon to remove the offending tree in extreme circumstances, at my neighbour's expense. Not to get compensated for pain and suffering due to being denied sunlight.

And it is not actually very common.

Which means, unlike in your hysterical fantasy, a judge will listen to both sides, and may decide little Pierre is a whiny obnoxious teenager, and posting a cute photo of his fifth birthday party is not in fact, a life ruining trauma. Or they may decide that that photo of 15 year old Pierre with a dossier on when he cut his first tooth, stopped wetting the bed, and a long and mostly exaggerated saga of every argument is in fact, too bloody much information, and order it be taken down.

Fines and custodial sentences would be for extreme cases, not the norm. These are MAXIMUM penalties.

Making it possible for a child to stop their parents sharing intimate or embarrassing details with the world.. Great idea. And with some, a threat of eventual legal recourse is necessary.

Re:Really?

[dwywit]

That makes me wonder: sue your own parents? Do they have liability insurance for this sort of thing? No? Then where will the money come from? YOUR OWN INHERITANCE, dumbass. So, you sue your parents broke, or nearly so, you get your inheritance early, good for you.

Now you'll have to spend it to maintain your parents in their old age, because they can't afford to live.

Or your brothers and sisters sue the crap out of you, because you caused them to lose their inheritance.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the US a child of say 10 cant be on facebook (ie by entering a legal bunding agreement). Does this make facebook liable when they not only let them signup but monetize their data as well?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a photographer took a photo of them and wanted to use it for commercial purposes, they'd need the approval of me and my wife."
hahahaha. Nope. The photographer owns the photo, and can do what they like with it.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a news publication they can do it without permission.
For commercial purposes they do need permission from the subjects.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's making some rather large assumptions about estate planning, wills, net worth, life insurance and so on. Many people have parents that were very irresponsible and are leaving only debt and timeshares to their children. Sue now, they can borrow money to pay you!

Re: Really?

[William Baric]

The idea that "privacy" is a human right is absurd. It's not because you desire something that it becomes a "right".

And by the way, privacy is used for only one thing : to hide who you really to others in order to not suffer from the consequences of your actions. You call that a "human right"?

Re:Really?

[v1]

I don't know about French law, but yes, here in the USA by definition a minor cannot consent to just about anything.

I'm assuming this is a question of rights of images taken when the person was a minor, and now is not. I would have expected that the courts would consider pictures taken of a child to be given "unlimited indefinite license for use in the future" if taken while the child was a minor and they were the child's parent. Apparently not?

When a kid turns 18, the parents usually "gift" the child everything they "sort of owned" at that point. The car they bought or helped buy, their clothes, furniture in the bedroom, though really all "personal belongings" to that point are technically the parents' property. If they wanted to be dicks they could kick the kid out into the street with the clothes on his back and go craigslist everything in the bedroom. Even things the kid had "bought with his own money", since at the time the money was technically the parents' property also. They even still have access to savings accounts since all minor's accounts must have a parent as a co-access and could clean it out on the day before your birthday. (or after, I don't know if parental access is automatically recoked at 18?) So I don't see why rights to prior taken photographs aren't considered parental property for purposes of ownership and usage?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the vague and insulting rhetoric, AC. But secret minor abortions, while also arguably insane are not even relevant here. In this case, it's the parent taking action without obtaining the minor's consent.

Excuse me, I believe you meant to reeply to post #52075589 rather than the one you did reply towards.

That says:

USA by definition a minor cannot consent to just about anything, with the exceptions of having an abortion.

While the one you did reply to says:

Nope, while parental notification laws can become an undue burden, unlike spousal notification laws, they are not prohibited per se.

And you'll find that laws regarding abortions tend bring in judges when a minor is involved and they don't want their parents told. Because sometimes, well, parents aren't the best at handling this sort of thing, and children can have a valid interest that differs from their parents.

And in some circumstances, it's going to be a criminal investigation regardless.

But do go on in your ignorance. Proceed to expound further.

I admit the last is insulting, but the rest is on point in addressing certain facts, if unsourced.

Re:Really?

[lsatenstein]

Really? One wonders how a child would give permission in any manner that meant anything in a legal sense.

Perhaps the summary isn't presenting this clearly (what? WHAT?) but yes, it does seem pretty absurd.

Then again, the US certainly hasn't been slacking in stepping into the role of parental choice / decision-making.

What right does a biological parent who has a child of between 6 months to teenager have? If the parent has no rights, then why hang around.

Re: Really?

[i.kazmi]

While I think this lawsuit and the court's decision are absolutely bonkers and the right to privacy is somewhat curtailed in a public setting (such as in markets, parks, bus/train terminals etc), I do think everyone has a right to privacy (for instance in their homes, in private gatherings, in personal communications, etc).

I, for one, would hate it if someone were constantly snooping on me while I was sat in my home minding my own business, won't you?.

Re:Really?

[i.kazmi]

Left? You mean to tell me that the right has never used 'Think of the children' for scaremongering to push asinine laws through?

Re:Really?

[i.kazmi]

Additionally, America doesn't have a political left (the way the rest of the world perceives left anyway). You have far-right (the Republicans) and centre-right (the Democrats) so I have no idea what, how or why you have a beef with the Left (since you are always whining and moaning about Left this, Left that so it is only natural that I presume that you have some grudge against what you perceive to be the Left), methinks you should be mad at some shade of Right!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally, yes. There are many things parents do to children that are not good, like letting them eat fast food, not vaccinating them, not getting involved with their school. Actually, it's more of a list of what they don't do.

Internet assisted scrapbook

[Anonymous Coward]

Many mothers have a tendency to scrapbook. Scrapbooks tend to be binders of photos and random memorabilia related to the happenings of their children. Since Facebook had no deep meaning or value of its own, people transported some of their hobbies over to the new digital format, including scrapbooking.

If France allows penalties over Facebook posted images of children before they could even make a symbolic gesture of consenting or not, then it is also appropriate that such fines (in a reduced form due to smaller exposure) also be applied to any parent who shows a scrapbook to a visitor without the subject's consent.

Dollars?

[tonyyeb]

Surely the cost should be in Euros? Or is Slashdot's target audience just in North America?

Re:Dollars?

[godrik]

TFA reads 45,000 EUR. I assume the editor or poster converted to USD.

Re:Dollars?

[tonyyeb]

My point is why convert to dollars anyway? Yes include it along with the original currency of the nation where the story originates (as does the Guardian article it is linked from) but don't replace it like the US is only nation that reads Slashdot.

Re:Dollars?

[Anonymous Coward]

It annoyed enough to get you to post, which generated a couple of extra page views, increasing the value of the story to advertisers. Mission accomplished.

Re:Dollars?

[pla]

My point is why convert to dollars anyway? Yes include it along with the original currency of the nation where the story originates (as does the Guardian article it is linked from) but don't replace it like the US is only nation that reads Slashdot.

It makes sense to give it in dollars because people from many countries read Slashdot.

The US Dollar acts as this planet's dominant reserve currency, for better or worse. Pretty much anyone with even the slightest interest in international affairs has a good idea of the current exchange rate between their local currency and the dollar. The same doesn't hold true for Rubles or Euros or Renminbi.

Nirvana Nevermind

[Major Blud]

So if this guy was French, could he not only sue his parents, but the estate of Kurt Cobain?

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

Re:Parents will get theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

AWs?

Wait, Wait, Now Hear This . . .

[tiberus]

Missouri teen, is suing parents for corruption of a minor, child endangerment, emotional distress, and negligence. It seems the teen recently acquired a Facebook account and went creeping on their parents pages. The material found was termed as 'disturbing', 'borderline pornography' and 'disgusting' by the teen. Most the of the outrage centers around the father's posting of meme's with sexual content and nudes.

Re:Wait, Wait, Now Hear This . . .

[Coisiche]

The moral here is never accept friend requests from family. Requests from work colleagues are also best left unaccepted.

Re:Wait, Wait, Now Hear This . . .

[KiloByte]

A safer option: firewall out any known Facebook IP ranges. Block any of their domains at DNS level. Use an extension like Request Policy to weed out other trackers you may not know are owned by Facebook.

Re: Wait, Wait, Now Hear This . . .

[BellyJelly]

Can't I do that with my hosts file? Can anyone on slashdot help me with that?

Re:Wait, Wait, Now Hear This . . .

[tiberus]

Y'all got that that was a joke, right?
Well considering how many Facebook profiles are Pub-lick-kah, that would only help so much

Re:Wait, Wait, Now Hear This . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I also avoid accepting friend requests from friends for maximum safety.

clean slate

[leomekenkamp]

I grew up in a world where the internet did not really exist for most people. My first direct contact with it was in 1989. This means I have had the opportunity (although at the time I was not fully aware of that) to influence what pieces of information about me were put online.

When I became a father it seemed only logical to extend this same opportunity to our offspring. And my girlfriend feels the same on this issue, so it is very difficult to find anything on our children online.

My hope is that they will see the value in this and abstain from putting things online that might work against them in their future life. Puberty for them is still some odd years in the future, so I hope there is time enough to get this into their firmware.

Re:clean slate

[PopeRatzo]

I grew up in a world where the internet did not really exist for most people. My first direct contact with it was in 1989.

You missed the best years of the Internet. After '86, it was all downhill.

Re:clean slate

[Anonymous Coward]

me too

Re:clean slate

[thegarbz]

When I became a father it seemed only logical to extend this same opportunity to our offspring. And my girlfriend feels the same on this issue, so it is very difficult to find anything on our children online.

Yeah? I grew up in a country where a rite of passage is the posting of deeply embarrassing pictures of the first 21st years of a person's life on their 21st birthday in front of as many friends and family members as possible. Strangely my generation grew up all right, but then we also were tough as cement. Ok, we weren't that tough but we weren't coddled little flowers who have to run off to their safe spaces every time the world hurt our delicate little feelings.

But hey, sue me. It's a sure fire way to see your future inheritance donated to a charity.

Re:clean slate

[Anonymous Coward]

Then a teenager will sue their parents for NOT putting every detail of their childhoon on Facebook.
They will claim that because they are not there, their parents didn't love them at all and their behaviour borders on child abuse.

Simpler to just NUKE Facebook.

Re:clean slate

[jareth-0205]

I grew up in a country where a rite of passage is the posting of deeply embarrassing pictures of the first 21st years of a person's life on their 21st birthday in front of as many friends and family members as possible.

Yeah, but you wouldn't tolerate someone doing that to you now, would you? You value your privacy now, right? But anyone younger has to give up any control over their image because.... they're young and fuck'em?

The internet never forgets, it would be nice if parents took that into consideration when enforcing an online identity on their spawn. I got a friend-request from a friend's newborn the other day... *sigh*

Re:clean slate

[PopeRatzo]

same

Re:clean slate

[Solandri]

I grew up in a similar timeframe. I have the philosophically opposite viewpoint. That doesn't mean I think you should splash every embarrassing photo of your kids on social media to torment them in perpetuity; but that I don't think we should be trying to hide our dirty laundry under a false veneer of cleanliness.

Have you ever read books or stories written from around the 1950s or earlier? They're remarkably sterile in that it's incredibly rare for anyone to swear. The one big exception is stories told from front-line soldiers' point of view during WWII. Suddenly every other word coming out of everyone's mouth is cursing. Why the disparity? This goes back even to ancient literature, where the recorded word is usually suitable to read to your children, but a sampling of what people were actually saying is enough to turn your ears red.

For some reason, society has developed a notion of "proper" behavior which deviates substantially from how people actually behave. You put on your Sunday best when going to church. An attorney dresses up the defendant in a suit and tie even though the guy never wore them before in his life. You clean up your house when you have guests coming over.

Whatever the reason, I think this disconnection between expected behavior and actual behavior is harmful. You're basically teaching people that it's OK, and even beneficial to lie. You put on a dog and pony show for a potential customer, where you demonstrate your software (only the parts which work well - gotta hide the parts that don't work well) to try to convince him to buy. Its detrimental effect is especially pronounced in politics. We've come to expect our elected officials to all have spotless records (no skeletons in the closet) and behave properly all the time. Well I'm sorry, but the only people who can meet that standard are ones whose behavior is so deviant from the norm that they're not really fit to represent the people they're supposed to be representing, or pathological liars. That's why politics is chock full of the latter - we ourselves have filtered out the more honest candidates because they're honest enough to tell us about their past screwups. The net result being the liars who successfully deny and cover up their screwups are elected.

This is all coming to a head now that the Internet and social media is becoming such a big part of our lives. A faux pas which in the past would've been forgotten (except maybe as an embarrassing anecdote told by a best man at his friend's wedding), is instead documented with pictures, video, and everyone's immediate reactions, digitally preserved for all eternity. You believe the solution is to return to our past ways and try to hide these misdeeds from a wayward past. To put on a false facade for our daily interactions with friends, co-workers, and people who may hear about you; while revealing our true selves only to our closest and most trusted family and friends.

I say we've passed the point of no return and can't go back to that past. Society needs to come to grips with the new reality that's been created by the permanence of digital information storage. We need to accept that everyone makes mistakes. That we weren't born with a copy of the criminal code emblazoned in our cortex, and the only way to learn the social rules of proper behavior is to transgress them yourself and become subject to the scorn of people who follow such rules (nearly everyone), or watch someone else go through that process. A Presidential candidate used to smoke crack. So what? We were all young and stupid at some point. How s/he learned from that experience and used it to make better decisions in the future is much more important in determining their fitness to be President I think.

Getting to that point requires a widespread acceptance of what people are really like - swearing, drinking, yielding to peer pressure,

Re:clean slate

[thegarbz]

Yeah, but you wouldn't tolerate someone doing that to you now, would you? You value your privacy now, right? But anyone younger has to give up any control over their image because.... they're young and fuck'em?

We learn a lot over the years and there's one very valuable thing I've learnt since turning 21, namely that despite being embarrassed (for some strange reason) about someone seeing pictures (and a video, my parents went full out with the TV and everything) of me doing some incredibly stupid things, seeing me in "vulnerable positions" such as when I had braces with complete neck brace and looked like the type of nerd who only exists to get mocked on TV shows, and in a few cases even a few shots of me completely nude young and chatting up some old naked lady on a nude beach...

I survived. Not only did I survived but the entire thing ended up being the worlds biggest non-event. I didn't lose friends, I didn't get alienated, after a day of laughter and jokes the world went on just the way it did before and now that I'm an adult more than anything I realise that people who judge others based on what they did when they were young, do so through a lens that doesn't create a lasting impression of their personality.

The internet never forgets, and so it shouldn't. Some of those pictures were retrospectively put up on Facebook for a little laugh, and that's all that came from it.

So yes, I value my privacy. No that doesn't mean I even so much as asked anyone who I know has these pictures not to share them. Because that's what not growing up in "generation bubblewrap" is all about.

Re:clean slate

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually...

My parents have the adorable baby picture of me which, as an adult, would be highly embarrassing if it were to see the light of day. My parents, of course, save this picture for when I bring home a sweetheart so that they can embarrass me in front of her. It's wonderful entertainment for them--revenge for all those years I made their lives miserable.

If you post these pictures on the Internet, you ruin your opportunity for this kind of entertainment in the child's later years.

Re:clean slate

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about "bubble-wrap" or any other derogatory nonsense you might sprout, it's about power. It's about how just because you have somehow managed to get your filthy paws on some embarrassing information, feel entitled to humiliate other people just because you can, and they can't do a damned thing to stop you.

You sir, are a grade A arsehole.You are also, not unexpected, a total idiot, if you seriously think that just because "nothing happened beyond a few laughs" was the worst that happened to you, that's all that can happen to someone else. I don't care about what kind of self-righteous bullshit you use to dress it up. I just hope you die a slow and painful death soon, so you stop being a drain on the world.

Re:clean slate

[jareth-0205]

I survived

Good for you. I'm glad that your world does not excessively punish you for those pictures.

Not everybody gets to be in that situation though - and that's exactly why privacy is important, and why *you* shouldn't get to decide what other people have to reveal or be ok about having revealed about themselves. There are a whole bunch of prejudices and assumptions about what a picture says about someone, whether it reveals their sexuality, disability, or whatever. I'm assuming that you're not one to judge, but some people are. And those people sometimes have great power over you, be they a teacher or a boss or a policeman. Privacy is what prevents flawed judgemental people from harming us.

Re:clean slate

[thegarbz]

Not everybody gets to be in that situation though

Interesting thought you have there. Could it be because in your world everyone is so obsessed with privacy that the mere thought of seeing a "private" moment somewhere is an instant faux pas?

Kind of like the obsession Americans have with titties or the more recent fear that a former man may work into a girls change room and that you need a law to stop those crazy transexuals. A lot of the antics on your side of the Atlantic seem very strange to us.

Now you're right there are people who will judge. I had the same conversation with a friend from Missouri. His first thought was "that's horrible, what will your friends think and say". My simple answer is that friends will say nothing, fake friends will say something and it's a great opportunity to find out who they really are. Life's too short to deal with judgey douche-bags, so it's good to have some fodder out there to bring them out. Lets you know who to avoid.

Now naturally I'm assuming here that we're in a somewhat civilised western society, like say ... France or the USA. If you're unfortunate enough to be in a position of fear from persecution where something like a picture of you doing something embarrassing can have a very serious negative affect on your life, then I'm all with you. That said I've yet to see a photo that any sane functioning person would treat like that on Facebook, and I'm at the age where nearly everyone I know has an offspring between 1-10.

Re:clean slate

[thegarbz]

That's funny and we collectively as a group of nations think the same way about you Americans and your stupid "OMG a baby photo will ruin my life" nonsense. But you're right, let's follow the evidence trail. I'll wait for you to dig up some news about how someone's baby photo ruined their entire damn life. Based on the way you talk there must be millions if now 10s of millions of such cases by now right?

Now please keep your judgy bullshit on your side of the Atlantic. Adults with functioning brains are over here and we don't care for your stupidity.

Re:clean slate

[jareth-0205]

No - in my world, in all our worlds, there are people who will cause us problems because of their own hangups. And you can't always avoid them, as you so elegantly evaded acknowledging those people I mentioned that you can't avoid. Yes, your friends won't care likely, but your boss might. Your co-workers might. Your parents might. And you can't always just get another job - I doubt my tech boss cares, but if I were a teacher or in a more old-boy network then they are likely to look down. The world has many people who think homosexuality is a crime and will make a gay teacher's life impossible because of a suspicion. And that's the prejudice that you *can* see, the ones you never know about because someone does a google search on your CV and sees some pictures and makes a snap judgement not to interview you.

Clearly we are no longer talking about just children here, the right to have control over your privacy is one that is important at all ages.

Re:clean slate

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just shut your retarded mouth and fuck off? You make one wild guess, which is completely wrong, and keep tooting about your strawman, the baby-photo, which was never the issue to begin with. Fucking retard. DIAF, please.

Re:clean slate

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that these embarrassing moments can now be seen by the entire world.

Re:clean slate

[leomekenkamp]

Interesting point of view. However...

For some reason, society has developed a notion of "proper" behavior which deviates substantially from how people actually behave.

Yes. For me this is called 'civilized'. When someone cuts me off in traffic, my instinct tells me to hit him or her. Nasty, but it is my ancient primate genes talking. I may or may not think about hitting, depending on my mood. That is the more human part of my brain. Do I actually hit someone for cutting me off in traffic? No. There is a big difference in what I 'feel', 'think' and what I do.

I know you mentioned 'behaviour/behaviour' and not 'though/behaviour', but the first is analog to the latter. For instance, I do not communicate about what I do sexually. I do not do anything illegal, or even weird, but that is just something between me and my girl. Putting our intimate details in the public domain is not civilized behaviour for me. Likewise for a night out: I do not go on a vandalizing spree or whatever, but posting pictures about my night out? No, that is private.

This line of reasoning pretty much continues all the way up to (but not included) posts like this one: I consider this to be a civilized exchange of ideas, so that is why I write these lines.

As the saying goes, good judgement comes from experience. And experience comes from bad judgement. If "everyone" has their incidents of bad judgement made public for all to see, maybe we'll all start to be more honest with ourselves, admit that we all screw up from time to time, and be more forgiving of other people's innocent mistakes. Then maybe we can actually get some honest politicians elected to run the country.

I am Dutch, so I might have less to complain about in politics... I do want my children to learn from their bad judgement, and I know that they will make mistakes, but I see no use in having their mistakes out there forever. It is not civilized and serves them no purpose. It is probably best said by jareth-0205 in 52078783 :

Privacy is what prevents flawed judgemental people from harming us.

What exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

is the upside of using Facebook? Nothing good can come from it.

Re:What exactly

[PopeRatzo]

Nothing good can come from it.

I disagree. You get to find out that the girl who wouldn't talk to you in high school is now fat and ugly.

Re:What exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fairly safe to assume they are without verification.

Re:What exactly

[Hognoxious]

Even the girls who were fat and ugly wouldn't talk to me.

Re:What exactly

[PopeRatzo]

Even the girls who were fat and ugly wouldn't talk to me.

I doubt that. Charming guy like you.

You should pull the plug as Kuro5hin

[mewn]

Seriously, do you even read TFA ?

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.”

This is rather different than your summary :

French authorities have warned parents in France of fines up to.....

He is a famous lawer arguing that this could happen, which is different than a formal statement from any official.

Awaiting the american zealots

[angel'o'sphere]

Yelling "free speech" and "censorship" ... or even "copyright".

Child abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather be able to sue my "step father" for child abuse, in particular for forcing me to strip half naked then stand and wait in the middle of the lounge room until he went into the bed room to get a belt then forced me to bend over in front of other people while he belted me. Asshole.

Sign a waiver

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Here son, I know you're only 2 years old but I need you to sign this waiver allowing me to upload your images and also grant me a perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, worldwide, fully paid/sublicensable license to use, copy, perform, display, distribute, and make derivative works from this content."

Re:Sign a waiver

[Anonymous Coward]

Two year old Son: NO!

Re:Sign a waiver

[Anonymous Coward]

Two year old Son: NO!

You can have some ice cream if you say yes... Problem solved.

Re:Sign a waiver

[antdude]

2 years old? You need to go younger than that. Like before they are born! :P

Mandatory disclaimer for posting baby pics

[Anonymous Coward]

Permission for posting this picture of this 9 month toddler was duly obtained by his parents prior to publishing* and is available upon request by the law enforcement.
* Due to the young age of the toddler in question the permission is obtained from his parents who are entitled to legally represent him until he is 18.

Oh, Yeah! I totally like it!
There's a certain schizophrenic symmetry to parents obtaining legal permission from themselves to post baby pics to the Spook-book.

Yeah right

[MightyDrunken]

If my children* tried to pull this off I would blackmail them with the threat to post some of the images I held back.

* Illusion of success with opposite sex created only for humour value.

free speech is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech. We all should ban it.

Wait, France already has.

Censorship is doubleplusgood. Copyright is doubleplusgood. RIAA/MPAA and thousands of dollar fines are doubleplusgood.

Profit$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Post stuff, get sued by kids, Insurance pays off, PROFIT$$

Or you could do something useful with your life

[barrywalker]

and get the hell off Facebook. Yea, I know.. says the guy on Slashdot. Shut up. At least there are no pictures of my children here.

Re:Or you could do something useful with your life

[thegarbz]

At least there are no pictures of my children here.

Yeah, there's also none of your friends, or family, and everyone you communicate with is just another asshole on the internet. If you think that is an improvement then it's probably self explanatory why you don't like Facebook.

As for useful with my life, I'm sure busting out the ol' typewriter and drafting letters to friends and family on the other side of the world, delicately printing out pictures, sending them in hand addressed envelopes is a much better use of my time than a 2 minute scan down what's happening on Facebook right?

Re:Or you could do something useful with your life

[Anonymous Coward]

At least there are no pictures of my children here.

I'm sure busting out the ol' typewriter and drafting letters to friends and family on the other side of the world, delicately printing out pictures, sending them in hand addressed envelopes is a much better use of my time than a 2 minute scan down what's happening on Facebook right?

At least that method doesn't feed the data gathering monster that FaceBorg has turned into.

Re:Or you could do something useful with your life

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you could just use e-mail. I've even attached pictures to e-mails...

Even if all of your family/friends have gmail (so, still being aggressively data-mined) instead of their own e-mail accounts, it's arguably preferable to facebook.

- T

Re:Parents will get theirs

[aevan]

Presumably: 'Attention Whore'.

Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry, kids. To pay for your lawsuit, Mum and I have decided to sell you for medical experiments."

The right to be forgotten in the future

[larryjoe]

This really is no different than the right to be forgotten except that the time scale is shifted. It's like a Catholic indulgence, with the right to be forgiven/forgotten for all sins in the past, present, and future.

France

[MitchDev]

Deadend nation trying to remain relevant and failing miserably

Re: Parents will get theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

Can i sue my gf's kids for posting pictures of me then?

The devil is in the coercion

[fyngyrz]

How do you want to teach children to handle private information responsibly

I don't want to teach other people's children anything. I've been done with teaching mine for years now. I think that it is first the parents job / responsibility, and second, that of the state.

Providing information to a citizen -- any age -- is one thing. The way I see it, it's difficult to do it wrong, if you do it truthfully. The state, unfortunately, has a very bad habit of being untruthful in service of various shabby (and worse) agendas.

Coercive law is something else entirely. Particularly when it gets into the areas of personal and consensual choice, how it defines "informed", and where parents choices WRT to their still-at-home children are concerned. Most law in this area is, to be kind, wrongheaded. IMHO.

facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Oughta think twice before ever signing up for facebook in the first place

Wretched hive of scum and villainy doesn't even begin to cover it, mr/ms/miss/mrs product

I live in hope facebook's servers will crash en masse in a completely unrecoverable manner

Failing that, I'd settle for a smallish comet impact or a Carrington-like event

Better start saving

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue me and you are simply spending your inheritance on my lawyer. Win and you spent the rest of it.

I'm happy enough to reverse mortgage the house and donate the last $100 to charity.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the kids will be much better off with their parents in jail for a year.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the kids will be much better off with their parents in jail for a year.

That would involve making it a criminal offence rather an a civil offence.

Violation of Canadian and Washington St

[WillAffleckUW]

Leaking information, without express permission, of kids, is a violation of their rights to Privacy under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

It's also illegal in Washington State, where our State Constitution has a specific right of Privacy.

Period.

So stop posting those baby pics and tagging your kids.

In related news, parents send invoice to kids

[presidenteloco]

For $50,000 per year for room, board, educational, and security, social services provided.

Re: Parents will get theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends. Who took the pictures (who is the copyright holder) and where were they taken (in a public or private location)?

You can't gain informed consent from a 5 year old.

[Maxo-Texas]

This is really a ban on posting photos of children.

France just hasn't thought it thru.

Easy way around this

[Maxo-Texas]

Place the child in a public space where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Take and post photos to your heart's content.

Re:Easy way around this

[slew]

Place the child in a public space where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Take and post photos to your heart's content.

Given the EU's privacy laws and the right to be forgotten, I don't think that would be a safe harbor in France the same way it might in the US.

Re:You can't gain informed consent from a 5 year o

[slew]

This is really a ban on posting photos of children.

France just hasn't thought it thru.

Or maybe the French have thought it through and they are simply tired of looking at endless pictures of other people's children ;^)
(disclaimer, I have 2 kids and no facebook account)...

Lost opportunity

[godel_56]

Rather than posting all the kids' embarrassing photos on the internet, the parents should wait until the kids are 13 or 14 and acting like little shits.

Then the parents can threaten to bring the photos out and show them to all the kids' friends when they come around. You've got to think ahead. :-)

Different viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

How about those with a parent that cannot be told "no". I have no social media accounts and I want it that way. I don't want my picture on facebook or any other social media site, so what happens when mom won't hear "no"? Especially someone maintaining a clearance, perhaps?

-_-

Should be illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone should have the right to not have pictures of them published on social media or anywhere on the web, except for valid journalism.

Why should i not have the right to control where pictures of me are seen.. Copyrighted works have more protections regarding this than a real flesh and blood human.

Everyone should have the right to control in what situations his name, quotes and pictures are published... With the exception of valid journalism..