a girl and her Teddy new 50 f/1.8!

Yea.... I thought it was "ok" b/c she is only 2 but maybe I was wrong. It won't happen again.

Lelasmama05 do not be sorry. This has evolved into a philosophical/social conversation. You have done nothing wrong.

Lelasmama05 - Please don't apologize and IMO no need to delete the images either... just protect them extensively. I did not think the images were offensive and I don't feel any one else did either. Apparently some people perceive those of us who have a LEGITIMATE concern for the safety and privacy of children in general as "over zealous freaks" and "the collective non-minded"... not even going to expand on this... Bottom line is that my only reason for pointing out what I did was to simply provide some awareness to a potential issue that you might not have been aware of... just protect protect protect images of your children.

I will divulge some of my background to assit in my reason for concern... I am a contracted service provider for the Department of Children and Families & Department of Juvenile Justice. I have also volunteered & trained with local sexual assault centers for children and women, as well as, assisted in running an emergency children's shelter. I have unfortunately seen things that the general public have an extremely difficult time believing would occur. Like I said previously, no one is suggesting to panic or delete the images - simply pointing out that you may want to strongly consider doing something to the images to protect them... enormous watermark added to an extremely low resolution image, for example. I don't think that anyone (although I can only really speak for myself) had any intention for this thread to turn into a name calling session and I'm sorry that some decided to go that route.

Again, the images are beautiful and there's no need to apologize for innocent images of your child - they are NOT offensive.

Ya know, I've asked for a reason to not post these on the internet. I've asked several times. I get job resumes, I get opinions, I get society perceptions but I don't get any information on what exactly is the fear. If folks are paranoid enough to raise the issue why can't they explain that paranoia and its root?

c_lawrence - your background is interesting and I'm sure you see things that should never happen but did they happen because an image was posted on the internet and were they stranger on stranger crimes?

_aravena wrote in post #5239971
Ya know, I understand all this. But how do nudist sites get away with this? I know they're nudists, it's a way of life therefore can't be persecuted, but there has got to be a line where it's ok to have tons of naked people on the internet just nothing below 18 still.

LoL... No one under 18? Sorry, don't mean to laugh, but I've been round the world and the US is really spreading its paranoia - nudity is pretty common in many parts of the world.

Child abuse has gotten so much attention these days, add to that the sexualization of our kids (I go shopping with my 13yo daughter and see some pretty disturbing things) and then the media fear/hype ... no wounder we think that round every corner there's a perv.... Well, no wonder everyone is so darn uptight! Had these photo's been taken to the local Wal-Mart there's a 50-50 chance they would have either refused to print them or worse.

Truth no longer matters - perception is now our new truth.

Remember when you post a pic on the net you can never take it back off. pos

Titus213... Actually, yes. I cannot go into details due to confidentiality so I will just give your some very general descriptions/reasons to what you are looking for...

One of the least threatening reasons which would not physically harm a child is for someone to copy pictures and paste them onto a child pornography website.... this is done all too often. Another... to copy and print and distrubute/sell 'underground' to people who get their pleasures from such images. This would be discouraged (but certainly not a complete deterent) with the obnoxious watermark and extremely low res I suggested earlier.

To move to the other extreme... many times, it is suprisingly easy to track down people on the internet. An innocent picture of a parent's child on the internet (myspace, forums, personal websites, etc) can, with some diligence, be traced to a city/location and with some fairly easy 'detective' work, the child can be found in the community. Once a pedophile/predator has gone to this extent, it is even more sickening how easy it is to gain access to that child... through schools, daycares, bus stops, friends, manipulation of/into the famliy....

The even more unfortunate thing is that the risks are not limited to 'bare bottoms'... pedophiles are attracted to children - even innocent and/or fully clothed photos can attract a predator.

Does this happen "often"... well, often enough if it turns out to be your child who becomes a victim.

I hate that this has become such a depressing conversation but maybe it will benefit some in the end...

c_lawrence wrote in post #5241674
Titus213... Actually, yes. I cannot go into details due to confidentiality so I will just give your some very general descriptions/reasons to what you are looking for...

One of the least threatening reasons which would not physically harm a child is for someone to copy pictures and paste them onto a child pornography website.... this is done all too often. Another... to copy and print and distrubute/sell 'underground' to people who get their pleasures from such images. This would be discouraged (but certainly not a complete deterent) with the obnoxious watermark and extremely low res I suggested earlier.

To move to the other extreme... many times, it is suprisingly easy to track down people on the internet. An innocent picture of a parent's child on the internet (myspace, forums, personal websites, etc) can, with some diligence, be traced to a city/location and with some fairly easy 'detective' work, the child can be found in the community. Once a pedifile/predator has gone to this extent, it is even more sickening how easy it is to gain access to that child... through schools, daycares, bus stops, friends, manipulation of/into the famliy....

The even more unfortunate thing is that the risks are not limited to 'bare bottoms'... pedifiles are attracted to children - even innocent and/or fully clothed photos can attract a predator.

Does this happen "often"... well, often enough if it turns out to be your child who becomes a victim.

I hate that this has become such a depressing conversation but maybe it will benefit some in the end...

For your first point, it can and does happen. Watermarks are a must IMO; however, just because people will take advantage there is no reason to live in fear. People should post within reason and be wary of what is shown (details in the background that can ID the location of the person/family). Odds are a million times higher that a local danger will present itself however.

Your second point is a bit overblown however. It isn't so easy to track someone down over the internet. As an IT professional and with more than 20 years of working on communications/interne​t finding someone via an IP address is very very hard. The best someone could do is find the IP providers area (cities or states...). If someone tried to find me via my IP they would end up in another state. If someone was so inclined, worked inside the system (like PotN) and had some really good tracing tools along with some luck they could narrow that down to an area (the size of the area is dependent on the provider - mine is road runner so they would get a city a next to mine - but thats as far as they could go. In addition most providers carry tools on their routers/servers that detect many sniffer programs and cut them out. The only real way someone could find you via your IP is either by getting a court order or someone within your provider framework has been tapping your line AND (big and btw) they have access to the secure billing computers of which are locked and can only be accessed by managers....

That was a mouth full

c_lawrence - thanks for the first specific reply. I don't agree with it but you made your points. My hope is that this conversation will help someone realize that this fear of pedophiles on the internet is blown way out of proportion. I can not be bothered by what people might do with a photo they capture off the net. There are just too many easier places to get much more salacious material than on the well controlled POTN forums. And there is no harm that can come to the people in the photos because of how others use that photo. If contemplating the pervs use of your images makes you queasy perhaps you shouldn't be on the net to begin with and you certainly shouldn't be posting pictures at all.

I have to agree with MaxxuM on the location idea. After 30+ years in data processing I believe that tracking people via ISP addresses is difficult at best. I do not believe that your typical perv has the time or patience to accomplish that but rather succumbs to a crime of opportunity. I understand that they groom their victims but that is where a vigilant parent should be stepping in and controlling a situation.

My bottom line is that we are scaring society witless with this stuff and it's prevalence on the internet in particular. It's not necessary. Normal vigilance is required and that should be all.

The photos posted in this case were, IMO, harmless, cute, and rather well done. Nothing would have tripped my senses of propriety except the prior knowledge that the world of the internet scare tactics was unfortunately about to descend on her. If we stick to the rules of POTN and provide normal vigilance over our children they will generally be fine.

And what really yanked my chain on this today is the stats I read. In 2006 there were over 17000 people killed in the US in alcohol related auto accidents. How many pervs do you know? How many folks who drink and drive do you know? Which is a bigger threat to your child?

Perspective, that's all.

I don't really know how to protect them without setting them to private and I wouldn't want to put a sticker or anything on the pictures b/c i feel that would ruin the picture. What else is there that I could do?

so...the link dont work, whats all the hubub about?

you're welcome although the reasons were not opinions but rather based on true events.

Physically, you are correct assuming you mean just posting or selling them elsewhere... emotionally is another story if they were to somehow find out, which is typically not likely.

I agree with regard to the IP address. I never stated one would have to be a hacker or have even the slightest IT knowledge to track someone down. I realize it is easy in forums to read about issues that spark emotions and insert opinions/words/ideas that are not in the post so, maybe I should have been more elaborate with the details... guess I will do so now:

A mother posts a beatiful, innocent photograph of her child on her website. On another page on her website it states she live in Example City, State. A predator comes to her website through a simple Google Image search for children in his state. The predator lives in the same city. Through the mother's blog and entries made by her friends, the predator learns of an event the mother will be attending. The predator attends as well. The predator finds and meets the mother and through casual conversation learns what school her child attends. Additionally, after 'coincidental' meetings around the child's school and community, the predator manipulates a friendship with the mother and quickly turns from stranger to family accquaintance. The predator now has access and the child eventually becomes a victim.

... far fetched? ... paranoid dellusions? ... no, true story.
Again, does this happen often? Probably not, but how would you define "often" if that was your child?

Once more, I do not believe that we should succum to the culture of fear that is prevalent in our society. I do not believe this information should scare anyone off of the Internet or from posting photos. I do think that people should be educated and then take reasonable precautions. Most people live on this level everyday... there are legitimate risks in the world, you do things to reduce those risks, and then you go one with your daily lives... why should this be any different? For example, (and I know this differs depending on location, but this is just an example) what are the odds that YOUR car will be stolen while you run into a store to go shopping? Propbably pretty low, but the risk is still there, so you lock the doors. There's no need to install surveillance equipment in your dash board or run outside every two minutes to make sure your car's still there, but we take precautions none the less and go on about our daily lives. This is all that is being suggested.

Although I think this last question is irrelevant to the topic at hand... because April is Child Abuse Prevention Month... here are some information about statistics on child sexual asbuse:
http://www.darkness2li​ght.org/KnowAbout/stat​istics_2.asp
Some Stats:
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

Aren't the vast majority of child abusers family members? So, if society is really concerned about children's welfare shouldn't it encourage fear and distrust of family members, not strangers?

Of course that sounds absurd, but there is a rapidly growing culture of fear about everything in our society. Fear of certain foods, car wrecks, plane wrecks, alergies, cigarette smoke and the list goes on and on. I think society suffers when we teach children to be fearful of everything including strangers.

c_lawrence wrote in post #5244387
you're welcome although the reasons were not opinions but rather based on true events.



Physically, you are correct assuming you mean just posting or selling them elsewhere... emotionally is another story if they were to somehow find out, which is typically not likely.



I agree with regard to the IP address. I never stated one would have to be a hacker or have even the slightest IT knowledge to track someone down. I realize it is easy in forums to read about issues that spark emotions and insert opinions/words/ideas that are not in the post so, maybe I should have been more elaborate with the details... guess I will do so now:

A mother posts a beatiful, innocent photograph of her child on her website. On another page on her website it states she live in Example City, State. A predator comes to her website through a simple Google Image search for children in his state. The predator lives in the same city. Through the mother's blog and entries made by her friends, the predator learns of an event the mother will be attending. The predator attends as well. The predator finds and meets the mother and through casual conversation learns what school her child attends. Additionally, after 'coincidental' meetings around the child's school and community, the predator manipulates a friendship with the mother and quickly turns from stranger to family accquaintance. The predator now has access and the child eventually becomes a victim.

... far fetched? ... paranoid dellusions? ... no, true story.
Again, does this happen often? Probably not, but how would you define "often" if that was your child?

Once more, I do not believe that we should succum to the culture of fear that is prevalent in our society. I do not believe this information should scare anyone off of the Internet or from posting photos. I do think that people should be educated and then take reasonable precautions. Most people live on this level everyday... there are legitimate risks in the world, you do things to reduce those risks, and then you go one with your daily lives... why should this be any different? For example, (and I know this differs depending on location, but this is just an example) what are the odds that YOUR car will be stolen while you run into a store to go shopping? Propbably pretty low, but the risk is still there, so you lock the doors. There's no need to install surveillance equipment in your dash board or run outside every two minutes to make sure your car's still there, but we take precautions none the less and go on about our daily lives. This is all that is being suggested.



Although I think this last question is irrelevant to the topic at hand... because April is Child Abuse Prevention Month... here are some information about statistics on child sexual asbuse:
http://www.darkness2li​ght.org/KnowAbout/stat​istics_2.asp
Some Stats:
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

Your anecdotal evidence is what I have issues with. You have taken a single, rare occurrence and turned it into a cause for widespread fear. I know crap happens. And I know there have probably been cases like you describe but what I am saying is that they are far to few to be an over riding concern.

I posted the problem stats with drunk driving to help put this problem we are discussing in perspective, nothing more. The stats you posted are equally sad but do not relate to issues from the internet.

Bottom line - I will not live in fear of societies ills. I will not allow a group of well meaning, overly concerned people control my life any more than necessary - and I added the last because your concerns seem to be the cause of the day and has the ears of our media and politicians who will make laws that can't be enforced to protect people who are not really at risk.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Wow this totally blew up. LOL. We are becoming way to sensitive as a group. Everyone go to your corners now for 15 minutes.