The Information Commissioner’s Office (pdf) is sending a seasonal note to schools to reiterate that parents taking pics of their offspring kitted out as angels or shepherds is not a Data Protection matter. Meanwhile, Leicester police - previously castigated as bearers of bad tidings - have declared goodwill to all men bearing …
"parents taking pics of their offspring kitted out as angels or shepherds is not a Data Protection matter."
Any one of the random adults in attendance could be a SICK and DEPRAVED PAEDOPHILE trying to get an UP-SKIRT shot of Mary to fuel their DISGUSTING and TWISTED fantasies! Heads WILL ROLL and the ICO if even ONE child is harmed by them NOT PROTECTING the children.
Will NO ONE think of the children?
Where is the Daily Mail when you need it?
>>"Where is the Daily Mail when you need it?"
Torn into squares, threaded onto string, and hanging on a convenient hook?
this better be a p ss take!
Why this there such a problem?
Because of opinions such as that above, What a tw t!
Suspicion should be directed toward those that shout the loudest.
That's how we protect the children.
Re: Where is the Daily Mail when you need it?
Posting on El Reg, by the look of it.
That was the sound of something whizzing over your head (if you didn't already know)
Hehe, nice one.
Miss the point much?
Was TheBigYins sarcasm not "obvious" enough?
If *that* sarcasm - which was pretty much wearing a massive stupid festival hat saying "DUHH SARCASM" in the most unsophisticated fashion - went over anyone's head, then I despair of everything, frankly.
>>"and that claims by Mr Ingram that the police phoned him this year to warn him off were untrue."
Though he sounds like he might well be someone fairly easy to wind up with a *prank* call.
Re: Will NO ONE think of the children?
What about their human right to appear dressed up in stupid costumes in photographs bandied about the family and shown to grand parents.
Never mind the grandparents...
...what about boy/girlfriends when teenagers?
...that's half the point of being allowed to take embarrassing photos of them - potential blackmail material for when they reach their teens and are threatening to get rebellious :)
dpa excuse is old had
more often "child protection rules" are now used not DPA as the excuse to be kill joys at the school play or any other events where parents like to take photos,
the photos to be used to embarass said child when they get old enough to have a serious boyfriend or girlfriend
i have had this where a child is from a single parent environment and that parent does not want photos taken as the other parent may find them during an ongoing court case or for other legal reason
but that is a rare case
Went on Tuesday
Asked the head whether he minded me taking photos, and he said go ahead, but no flash photography during the play as it puts the children off.
Nasty attack of common sense there.
Still, had white balance set wrong so most of the pics are crap anyway, although it was quite obvious that my child was by far the best at doing the twist, just no photos to prove it. Or is that parental bias?
Forgot to say
He also said that photos should not be published (internet, papers) without consent of parents of all children in the photo, which also seemed sensible.
only approved pictures
As a friend who paid megabucks and jumped though hoops to become a "official" school photographer (in various locales), if they let *anyone* take pictures how can he make money?
The *reason* you are not allowed to take pictures of little tracey or Sharon winning the egg and spoon race or playing Mary is nothing to do with paedos but because the council would no longer rake in thousands from official school photographers.
Cop for this bollox!
The head at my youngest's school seems to think that photographing is verbotten for us parents. Yet said head doesn't seem to mind a professional video being taken, subsequently sold by the school. All done without any model releases being obtained.
Can't wait for next year... there's an invoice going in if the ban continues.
Posted anonymously, for child Protection reasons, of course!
Its the right of all parents...
@"parents taking pics of their offspring kitted out as angels or shepherds is not a Data Protection matter."
Its the right of all parents to photograph or video their kids like this, so that when they are teenagers, this evidence can be used to embarrass them in front of their friends.
Its not the DPA they'll try to get you under
Its taking photography for purposes of terrorism.
Its worse than snapping public buildings for contemplation as a target, its getting direct evidence of a military asset in the form of angelic beings with supernatural powers.
Prepare to join Julian in jail.
This is a privacy stretch!
Just why can't parents take pictures of school activities their children participate in? I attended a school activity with my niece a few years ago and some prune of a teacher said I couldn't take photo's of HER child as I wasn't a parent.
So she used my camera and took numerous photo's of her child, as well as the other children, with my camera - so I guess a paedophile could do that, too.
"Schools, of course, still need to obtain permission, as does any other individual or body where photographs are not merely for personal use and where they are likely to end up as processable data."
So any parents intending to upload to Facebook should probably get permission, then?
Yes - this is a serious point. I guess you should not be loading photos of other families children onto an open facing Facebook site - I suppose there is a difference between large group photos and close ups....
I would have arrested...
...the head teacher for 'conduct likely'!
"some parents were happy for their children to be snapped and others weren’t"
Really?.....I mean honestly? There were parents who minded photos being taken of their children. A proud moment of their little darling performing in front of the whole school and they didnt want that moment captured for posterity?
Nope. Sorry but I call bull.
Daily Wail Readers
That's who! The kind of parent that believes that there's an inner paedophile lurking within every other parent.
Or that other parents will upload the photos to Facebook, where they will be printed off by paedophiles who will use the photos as bait to lure the children into their dens where they will commit all kinds of unspeakable horrors on them.
I don't know if any official statistics on the matter have been released, but I would hazard a guess that the total number of children worldwide targeted by paedophiles purely or largely on the basis of (fully clothed) photos of them uploaded online would be very close to zero...
When they are teenagers ...
As a parent, I believe it is my solemn duty to take pictures of my kids that will embarrass them in front of future boyfriends/girlfriends.
Becoming "Embarrassing Dad" - that's payback time.
Salving consciences and allowing censorship at the same time
I doubt the DPA commissioner's words, though unfortunately required, will have much effect. What is needed is the paedo-hysteria that has gripped the UK to diminish, and that will not happen unless we get a government which is not grabbing at the opportunity to extend state control over all its citizens. For all the lip-service that the government has spouted about this, they have too much vested interest in maintaining the state of anxiety induced in its citizens about carrying out activities which they should be able to do freely and without much restriction. This is compounded by the worst kind of control-freakery which the various local government and police forces seem to attract like wasps to jam and honey. On top of that, we have the parents who are largely neglectful of their children, but wish to salve their consciences about this (and also in the light of the paedo hysteria, are vulnerable to it), and so they take action where it is easy and visible, such as "not even other parents should take photos of my child at school events", but which figure little in the light of being unssupportive of their child's education in general and not bothering about their children when they get older and at risk of being misled by their peers, and so on.
So, the commissioners actions are a drop in the ocean, when an full-scale ocean-draining scale of action is required.
"The LEA tell us that the police intervention was a local CSO "
Is CSO latin for "arsehole" or "interfering jobsworth prick", I can never remember?
Ban nativity plays in schools - problem solved
Where is the seperation of state and church?
@Where is the seperation of state and church?
I'm guessing you are American, here in the UK we have state sponsored teaching of superstition in schools, also a state religion, so there is no such requirement here to separate the state from primitive belief in the sky fairy of your choice.
>>"I'm guessing you are American, here in the UK we have state sponsored teaching of superstition in schools, also a state religion,"
On the plus side, we also have a pretty decent level of atheism, agnosticism and apathism (or if you want to be pedantic, "Oh, er, CofE, I guess...")