BS: Facebook and photos

22 May 20 - 06:53 AM (#4054315)
Subject: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

I've just been reading about a grandmother in the Netherlands who is facing fines if she continues to refuse to take down photos of her grandchildren. The children's mother has repeatedly asked her to remove the photos. A few years ago a visitor to our house from overseas gleefully took a lot of photos in our house during a family gathering. No problem. But, minutes later, she was cheerily showing the gathered assembly that she'd put some of them up on Facebook, including some of me, complete with captions. I caused a right old atmosphere when I immediately asked her in no uncertain terms to remove them. She couldn't understand why I was asking. I didn't feel the need to give her a reason. I think it's outrageous that anyone should think that posting photos online without the express permission of the subject is all right.

I don't have anything to do with Facebook and never have, except for one occasion when I couldn't read the tributes, unless I joined, to someone close to me who had died prematurely and suddenly. I unjoined about a week later (not easy...). It occurs to me that there could be not only photos of me but also all kinds of scurrilous stuff about me up there that I'm blissfully unaware of. Not that I have anything to hide, but that's hardly the point...

---

22 May 20 - 07:20 AM (#4054324)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Nigel Parsons

It's a fine line (in UK), there is no restriction on taking (not indecent) photos of other people (in public places). There does not seem to be a restriction on the use that can then be made of those photos.
We do not know what was in the Facebook postings (possibly additional information which would be controlled under GDPR).
Photos taken in the home is a separate matter.
The story of the grandmother is : Here: BBC
The general guidance in UK is discussed here: Here: British Life photography awards
The very fact that it had to be taken to court suggests that the law is not particularly clear in the Netherlands either.

---

22 May 20 - 07:26 AM (#4054325)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Doug Chadwick

I think it depends on the situation. If it's a public event and you happen to be someone in the crowd then you would have no control. That is, after all, what the newspapers do all the time. If it is a closed group such as an event at a school or club, the organisers should set a policy on photographs, taking into account any individual objections, and make it clear to all those attending. If it is a private event then, absolutely, nothing should be posted without express permission.

DC

---

22 May 20 - 07:29 AM (#4054326)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Backwoodsman

I cannot understand the people who post photos of their children and grandchildren on Facebook - they are open to mis-use by anyone who chooses to take copies, including many cases of children’s photos being edited to make it appear they are engaged in sexual activity, or are disfigured or disabled.

Some time ago, I questioned one individual on the wisdom of posting photos of his grandchildren over which he would have no future control, and he haughtily informed me that they were beautiful children whom his friends enjoyed seeing photos of and reading about. Imagining that the world at large wants to see photos of your kids or grandkids seems to take besottedness to a ludicrous level. I make a point of never ‘liking’ photos of children, not even those put up by family and close friends - they know my views.

---

22 May 20 - 08:50 AM (#4054338)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

A few years ago I filmed the dance shows for our local dance teacher who was a friend of ours. I did it from a fair old distance up in the gods at the back of the theatre. I had to go through a CRB check to make sure that all was above-board with me, and we had to get the express permission of every parent in order to do the filming. But after a bit of editing we made DVDs for the parents who wanted them. I suppose that put things out of our control, though we did get the parents to give an undertaking that they wouldn't post the video online. The only way we could guarantee that that wouldn't happen would have been not to do the filming at all. What a miserable situation. Oh for a Facebook-free world...

---

22 May 20 - 10:09 AM (#4054348)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

..seems to take besottedness to a ludicrous level.

The whole point of Farcebook IS to take self-absorbtion, self importance, and besottedness to a ludicrous level. And it works a treat.

And to make Zuck rich, of course.

Yup "social media" is gonna save the world..................

Oh for a Facebook-free world...

Rather an idiot-free world; if the moronocracy would simply stop USING Farcebook

---

22 May 20 - 10:43 AM (#4054359)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Stilly River Sage

Always ask first, and if they ask to see the photo and don't like it, don't publish it.

As a journalist it was my job to take photos of people, but people knew I was there as a journalist. The newspaper I worked for had a rule, something along the lines of if there were five or more people in the photos names might be skipped if the group was identified, though if someone of particular interest to the photo was in the photo, they would be named [Joe Blow, second from right].

I have taken many photos over the years and worked with difficult people. At the university as a PR person I usually had to come to some kind of understanding with them - if we were in the workplace and it was a photo of a university sanctioned event - leave them in a crowd, or let them have final say. There were a couple of people who got a little Photoshop tweak to remove an extra chin, etc. There were some who would spoil the photos making faces, flipping the bird, etc., but if you use a really long lens so they don't see you and you can get a natural relaxed expression you'll find people are less resistant to photos being used. This discussion pertains to a public or work setting, not the family Thanksgiving dinner.

Social media is a feeding frenzy for collectors of photos. Many parents have learned not to post public photos of their young children for safety reasons. Anyone posting personal photos in a public way are asking for trouble later - we learned that at Mudcat when the old troll found Mudcat members in their Facebook accounts, harvested their personal photos, packed in some soft-core porn photos with them, then made spoof accounts (that populated the now-robust Mudcat Facebook page until they were weeded out and reported and closed).

You're perfectly within your rights to ask that photos be removed, but you'll save yourself some grief if you catch the photographer before they get started and tell them to point the camera away from you.

---

22 May 20 - 10:50 AM (#4054361)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

I don't object to having my photo taken at all, even though I happen to be the world's most unphotogenic person. It's the sticking of them up in public that I object to. I honestly don't understand the mentality of someone who thinks it's ok to do that without asking.

---

22 May 20 - 10:52 AM (#4054364)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jeri

If I were you, I'd just crab out the words "GET OFF MY LAWN", and walk away, back to your world of "I can't understand it, so I'll just hate it."

One of Facebook's issues is the ads. I still remember what it was like before the ads. I usually ignore them, if I see them, but I seem to be not getting political ones. Maybe it's AdBlock? NPR was talking about someone getting a whole bunch of fake things approved. They didn't post them, but Facebook said they were ok. But I'm happy for AdBlock. I can weed the idiotic from the non, but if I'm force-fed a diet of crap, I'd eventually sound like Mosssback too.

---

22 May 20 - 11:01 AM (#4054368)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jeri

Another thin g - it takes some learning about the way things work there to make yourself safe. Edit your privacy settings.

As for people posting photos against your will, I had a friend who recorded sessions. I vowed to not do anything new, so my repertoire stopped growing. I wouldn't have minded occasionally discovering I'd been recorded, but hated that everything audible showed up on the tapes.

The need to document/memorialize things interferes with enjoying those things.

---

22 May 20 - 11:19 AM (#4054373)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

If I were you, I'd just crab out the words "GET OFF MY LAWN", and walk away, back to your world of "I can't understand it, so I'll just hate it."

Care to explain what this means?

---

22 May 20 - 02:50 PM (#4054413)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

Don't waste your time, Steve.

Farcebook true believers are as obstinate a lot as Trump Death Cultists.

They just won't admit that they've been Zucked along with the rest of the world.

---

22 May 20 - 03:05 PM (#4054418)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

Well I don't now what "crab out" means, I don't understand "GET OFF MY LAWN" and I for one don't hate things simply because I don't understand them, if that was directed at me, which I'm not sure it was. Anyone can post negatively I suppose. But it's good if you make it clear what you're feeling negative about.

---

22 May 20 - 03:24 PM (#4054425)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jack Campin

I have no problem being photographed, recorded or videoed so long as I get a link or copy I can use. I have yet to get a video recording that wasn't crap, but photographers sometimes get it right. See the picture of me blowing a tarogato on my FB profile - taken at a folk camp by a Hungarian pro whose name I forget. I like it.

But taking pictures and not sharing them with the subject isn't on.a

---

22 May 20 - 03:40 PM (#4054430)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Donuel

Have you really changed that much? I did see that once years ago you enjoyed some things you didn't understand. Most people are afraid of things or people they don't understand as in xenophobes which isn't you.

'Posting' makes people happy/proud to share ideas, experiences, accomplishments, skills and news on Mudcat or Facebook.
That being said what Stilly says is true as well as Mossback on the extreme side. In a way we are all Serotonin junkies.

If Zuck could make as much money selling serotonin straight up, he would do that. I am biased in that I believe mudcat has more factual civilized knowledge than all of Facebook.

---

22 May 20 - 04:31 PM (#4054437)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

What are you talking about, and who to?

---

23 May 20 - 12:36 AM (#4054479)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Stilly River Sage

Facebook ads can largely be blocked with the browser add-on called "Facebook Purity." It lets you block a lot of the crap, it lets you see posts in the order they arrive, it lets you see notifications (the few you let through) be seen chronologically. I completely block about 75% of the stuff it offers. The reason I HATE the phone app is that it's the worst of the worst of the Facebook crap and no way to get rid of it, so instead I log onto Facebook on my phone with my Chrome browser. I have more control there (though I don't use FB often on my phone, there are times when I need to access it.)

https://www.facebook.com/fluffbustingpurity/ is the site - go there with your browser that you view Facebook on and set it up. Go behind the scenes and turn off the nonsense. You can never actually CALL IT Facebook Purity on Facebook - they block all messages or posts that use those words. The euphemistic name is "Fluff Busting (FB) Purity."

---

23 May 20 - 01:55 AM (#4054486)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Senoufou

I recently ventured into the shark-infested waters of Facebook, but only so that I could access our village Facebook site thingy.
It's been very useful during lockdown to see what's happening in the village (a pig escaping, people selling plants outside their front gates, a lost cat, the odd break-in into someone's shed etc.)
I haven't put a single photo on there, wouldn't even know how to. Even my profile doo-dah is just a blank silhouette. I haven't posted anything at all such as a comment. I just look and read, then vanish!
But it does astonish me at the daft stuff some of our villagers feel obliged to post, One woman has created what she calls an 'avatar' (??) of herself, a sort of cartoon. Another keeps bunging in 'me-mes' (is that the word?) and another puts on short videos of her feeding her sheep!
I reckon parents of children have the absolute right not to allow fond grandparents to post photos of them if that's their wish. There are some weirdos at large on the internet and it's a dangerous place in many ways.

---

23 May 20 - 02:00 AM (#4054487)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Joe Offer

I like Facebook for sharing my travel photos, keeping track of my grandchildren, and following political trends in my community. I'm careful to share most things just with friends, and not with the world.
The political stuff can be distressing, but I think it's important to see what's going on in my very conservative community. All in all, I enjoy Facebook - and it's a great place to play Words With Friends.
-Joe-

---

23 May 20 - 04:33 AM (#4054514)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jack Campin

I never post anything on FB without making it public. What would be the point? Waste of effort creating something hardly anyone could see.

---

23 May 20 - 05:06 AM (#4054517)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Dave the Gnome

I quite like Facebook too but can see its many pitfalls. Keep your privacy settings to friends only for everything and watch for anyone spoofing you or Bering spoofed.

As for photos, I think it has been said before. If the area is public then it can be photographed. If you are in a public area, you can be photographed without permission. If it is a private area or function, the photographer should seek permission. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Facebook. They may take take time but I know from experience that Facebook will take down something if you have a genuine complaint about it.

---

23 May 20 - 10:10 AM (#4054578)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

if I'm force-fed a diet of crap, I'd eventually sound like Mosssback too.

Ah, but Jeri, you're the one doing the feeding rather than the eating.

The problem isn't the ads- its the Nazis, the white supremacists, the Q-Anoners, the narcissism, the absolute bullshit, the people who rely on it for "news". On the whole, Farcebook has done a great deal more harm than good on a global scale.

---

23 May 20 - 01:35 PM (#4054629)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Stilly River Sage

This is from Facebook. It could go in any Mudcat thread of "What is Folk"—there's good stuff out there drifting around with all of the nonsense. :)

---

23 May 20 - 01:44 PM (#4054633)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Senoufou

I ought to have added that once 'signed up' I looked for people with my unusually-spelt maiden name, and found a cousin I have never met. He's my late father's brother's son, and his photo gave my heart a lurch - he looks so like my father! I did send him a short message (not public) and he remembers my father and grandmother. Now this is a wonderful thing that Facebook has facilitated.
However, it appears he's a rampant racist and xenophobe, and my naughty sister suggested I send him a photo of my very black husband! hee hee.
I didn't though.

---

23 May 20 - 03:07 PM (#4054651)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jeri

Ah, but Jeri, you're the one doing the feeding.
I wish you could see how sad it is that you'd say that, but it's not my problem.

I found a friend I hadn't seen for thirty-some years, and my cousin found me.

When first got on it, I turned into a 13-year-old again. Giving and getting fish and plants with Catspaw. But that was before the ads, and the trolls, and the data miners. It was a lot better before the primary focus change to be profit, as it does with so much else.
But one has to learn about Facebook, use what's good about it, and avoid what isn't. And if it's too hard to figure that stuff out, it's better you leave it alone. Bitching about anything because you don't understand it just looks like you're ranting at a train that left the station without you on it. I DO have friends that don't want to deal with Facebook, but they don't get upset when others do. I don't understand why anyone would do that.

or maybe I do.

---

23 May 20 - 04:05 PM (#4054661)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

"Bitching about anything because you don't understand it just looks like you're ranting at a train that left the station without you on it."

And this ignorant and rude remark (along with your previous "lawn" one which you never did bother to explain to us) reveals just how little YOU understand. There are legitimate reasons for not liking Facebook, and no-one is trying to offend or ridicule YOU because you happen to like it. Right?

---

23 May 20 - 05:05 PM (#4054667)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mr Red

there is no restriction on taking (not indecent) photos of other people (in public places)

Quite right, though I heard it as (yes) public places, but litigation appertained to the reproduction thereof. So unless you print or broadcast there would be no case. Witness the ubiquitous pixelation on videos, these days. I would bet there were lawyers willing to posit the concept of digital images seen on the camera's screen as reproduction. Depending who sees them, I guess.

Images taken in private places need permission beforehand - in theory.

Then there are laws regarding security cameras, they must be overt and point away from other peoples' windows, from my understanding.

---

24 May 20 - 04:58 AM (#4054751)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

Whilst I appreciate the digression of the thread (I love thread drift, notoriously), I should point out that I'm not objecting to anyone taking a photo of me, but I am objecting to those pics being posted on a public platform unless I've been asked first (and, admittedly, I'm more likely than not to say no). It happened to be Facebook in the instance I quoted, that's all.

---

24 May 20 - 07:26 AM (#4054796)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Senoufou

Exactly Steve. That's why I haven't even put my photo on Facebook for my profile thing. I just left the blank silhouette of a lady that the site set up.
My husband, rather foolishly in my opinion, has hundreds of pics of himself on his Facebook, and far too many details. It would be easy for anyone to find out almost everything about him. I won't let him put me on there though. His friends must wonder if I actually exist!
But each to his own, and if it gives him pleasure to flaunt his latest sporty outfit, then it's none of my business.

---

24 May 20 - 08:20 AM (#4054808)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jack Campin

When I've had tourists taking pictures of me in a session (which happened fairly often) I was pissed off when they DIDN'T upload them anywhere. I'm always curious to see how they see the event and I think it's offensive not to communicate that.

If you're performing in public you expect to be seen by the public.

---

24 May 20 - 08:36 AM (#4054813)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

But that's not the same as someone putting up fairly close-up pics of me and naming my name!

---

24 May 20 - 12:22 PM (#4054853)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jack Campin

Facebook is less scary than Twitter for that sort of thing. A recent article on Alternet looked at where Twitter posts in favour of ending lockdown in the US are coming from - the whole discussion on Twitter is being driven by bots with unlnown controllers in a VERY large and sophisticated operation. Then there's the fact that as of today, Dominic Cummings is NOT trending on Twitter while the two other public figures recently outed and forced to resign for breaking lockdown ARE, despite being far less prominent and powerful. That could only happen if Twitter was deliberately protecting him.

---

25 May 20 - 09:04 AM (#4055068)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

Germaine, I think:
-----

Grandmother’s Refusal to Remove Photos From Facebook Tests Privacy Law

By Adam Satariano and Claire Moses

NY Times, May 22, 2020

**

Handling pictures of children and grandchildren is usually a private affair.

Not in the case of one Dutch grandmother.

A woman’s refusal to remove photos of her grandchild on Facebook and Pinterest boiled over into court in the Netherlands this month, turning what started as a family dispute into a broader test of the limits of internet privacy laws. A judge in the province of Gelderland, in the eastern part of the country, decided that a grandmother was prohibited from posting photos on social media of her three grandchildren without the permission of her daughter, the children’s mother.

The District Court judge said the grandmother had violated Europe’s sweeping internet privacy law, called the General Data Protection Regulation, or G.D.P.R. In the Netherlands, the G.D.P.R. dictates that posting pictures of minors under the age of 16 requires permission from their legal guardians, according to the court’s website......

Continues here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/business/facebook-privacy-law-grandmother.html?

---

25 May 20 - 04:19 PM (#4055145)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

A regulation with which I fully agree.

---

26 May 20 - 03:21 AM (#4055203)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mr Red

Of the 113 white supremacist organizations that the project found on Facebook, 64% had pages that had been created by Facebook itself. Such auto-generated pages occur when an individual user lists a job in his or her profile that doesn’t have a corresponding business page. If one or more users list the Universal Aryan Brotherhood Movement as an employer, Facebook creates a page for the neo-Nazi group. -Huffington Post blickie from above

So that's how it works. Once you know you can gain the system.

---

27 May 20 - 09:37 AM (#4055468)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

ZUCKED AGAIN !


Bombshell report reveals Facebook knew for years about its dangerous potential — but rejected the warnings

Written by Eoin Higgins / Common Dreams        May 27, 2020


Despite internal research that Facebook’s platform was exploiting and exacerbating divisiveness among its users, top executives ignored the findings that the algorithms were doing the exact opposite of the company’s stated public mission to bring people together.

That’s according to new reporting Tuesday from the Wall Street Journal which in a comprehensive dive into the company’s treatment of its platform’s capabilities to divide users found that executives knew in 2018 what the site was doing to users but declined to take action.

“The most persistent myth about Facebook is that it naively bumbles its way into trouble,” tweeted New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose. “It has always known what it is, and what it’s doing to society.”

More Here:

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/bombshell-report-reveals-facebook-knew-for-years-about-its-dangerous-potential-but-rejected-the-warnings/

---

28 May 20 - 09:47 PM (#4055743)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Bill D

"gain the system" arrrggg... No... it's game the system.

---

29 May 20 - 02:31 AM (#4055758)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mr Red

and the difference is?

---

31 May 20 - 06:19 AM (#4056195)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Tattie Bogle

So far, I think that only Jeri has mentioned privacy settings?
There is a popular misconception among those who are not familar with how Facebook works that all of your posts can potentially be seen by the whole world at large. Well only if you make your posts "public"! Beyond that, you can restrict who sees your posts (and photos) by specifying "Friends and Friends of Friends", "Friends only", or you can further restrict it and allow only a small group or one person(such as your family member(s)?) to see your posts. You can even specify "only me", but what would be the point of that. My daughter sends us pics of our grandchildren, but would not send to all of her friends necessarily: or she will send by Facebook Messenger or iMessages, which are both more private.

I agree that it is only polite to ask before photographing people, and to ask for what purpose the photos will be used, e.g. website, Facebook. This usually happens at any of our musical gatherings ("if you don't want to be photographed/videoed, keep out of camera range").

At our festival we have always had one or two photographers from within our group taking photos of events: we have notices prominently displayed: "if you do not wish your child to be photographed, please speak to the photographer". We have had a couple of primary school groups performing: the school obtains permission from the parents for them to be photographed/videoed.

---

31 May 20 - 11:26 AM (#4056267)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Steve Shaw

Well I do know about the privacy settings, but as the photos in question had been uploaded to someone else's account over which I had no control the argument doesn't apply to me.

When I filmed the children's dance shows, parents had to give their express permission. I think that's right and proper. It shouldn't be down to parents to take the initiative. I understand that there's no law against having your photo taken without your consent, but I think children are a special case. It shouldn't be down to the parents to seek out and ask the photographer not to photograph your child. That seems like the wrong way round to me.

---

31 May 20 - 11:46 AM (#4056269)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Nigel Parsons

So far, I think that only Jeri has mentioned privacy settings?
There is a popular misconception among those who are not familar with how Facebook works that all of your posts can potentially be seen by the whole world at large. Well only if you make your posts "public"! Beyond that, you can restrict who sees your posts (and photos) by specifying "Friends and Friends of Friends", "Friends only", or you can further restrict it and allow only a small group or one person(such as your family member(s)?) to see your posts. You can even specify "only me", but what would be the point of that. My daughter sends us pics of our grandchildren, but would not send to all of her friends necessarily: or she will send by Facebook Messenger or iMessages, which are both more private.

Unfortunately, all of the above relies on no-one to whom the posts are sent either sharing them onwards, or, if 'share' is disabled, copying & pasting them.

---

31 May 20 - 11:52 AM (#4056272)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

Ooops. Sorry Jeri.

---

31 May 20 - 12:17 PM (#4056278)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Jeri

What are you sorry for, Greg?

---

31 May 20 - 12:44 PM (#4056284)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

"Greg"? Gone over to Q-Anon, have ya Jeri?

---

31 May 20 - 06:51 PM (#4056355)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Tattie Bogle

"Share" is not usually enabled if your post is not public. But yes. you can "lift" photos off Facebook and copy that way, so, if in doubt, post nowt.

And Steve, yes we were very mindful of Child Protection issues at our festivals, but it's one thing dealing with a defined group such as a children's choir where you can get written consent from all parents beforehand, and quite another when you are dealing with a transient population, where kids wander in and out of camera view at random.

---

01 Jun 20 - 05:46 PM (#4056559)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

Yo, Jeri:

Ya read McNamee's book yet?

If not, why not??

---

01 Jun 20 - 06:22 PM (#4056567)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Mossback

And Schmuckerberg is now enabling and legitimising President Turdship's lies and bullshit.

Yup, go Farcebook, eh Jeri? What's not to like???

---

03 Jun 20 - 12:55 PM (#4056967)
Subject: RE: BS: Facebook and photos
From: Tattie Bogle

"Lifting" photos from Facebook: simpler than that" just click on the picture, go to options, then Download. They are pretty low res, but I've had to resort to that when making our folk club posters, if the guest artist hasn't sent me anything decent high-res!

---