[aiilns]

I do understand where you're coming from, but I was growing up in the 2000s and the (primary & later secondary) school took photos that were shared first on official blogs/sites and then later posted on facebook/twitter without asking for permission.

It's not the photos that are the problem, it's that people don't really understand or respect others' privacy in the internet age.

February before covid, I was at a college in Manchester and was pleasantly surprised when they asked us to complete consent forms on where the photos that were to be taken were going to be uploaded. I was very happy to check the "I don't consent to photos of me shared on social media", consequently they took some photos with me & some without me. No pressure to be part of the group & not be left out.

[alistairSH]

Is there an actual expectation of privacy when enrolled at a public school? There certainly isn’t when out in truly public places (in the US). And students certainly don’t have any/much right to privacy with their bags and lockers (school employees are allowed to search them, in the US). Between the two, I can’t see there being a compelling legal argument to disallow photos for things that are in full few of tens or hundreds of other people already.

[HarryHirsch]

How about "expectation of impermanence"? In the past, people had film, and the farthest any photo got was that person's album. Now every last ass on earth can post their photo in Facebook for all the world to enjoy and it won't ever get taken down. US law needs to catch up.

[alistairSH]

While I understand the sentiment attached to "expectation of impermanence", as far as I know, that hasn’t been codified federally (or in most/any states) in the US. Administrators don’t get to make rules like this up without a legal basis to do so (well, they can try, but they’ll lose in court). There very may well be some other legal basis for “no photos of kids in public” but I’m not aware of it.

[aiilns]

> I can’t see there being a compelling legal argument to disallow photos

> that hasn’t been codified federally

The world is moving faster than law, I'd even go as far as to say that it almost always has been. What gets put into law has to have a common sentiment behind it first.

And not everything that's law means that's how things should be. Even in the US I think some states have the death penalty, others don't. The law does not show some absolute truth.

Your thinking is happening on a plane of law and legal enforcement: "the school can't enforce these rules, they can't stop me from taking photos, it's all legal".

Were it legal to kick a kid and the school had a rule prohibiting it, would you say the same? My thinking isn't about the law at all. It's about what I view as problematic and how I believe things should be; the sentiment that precedes law. I don't have to wait for the law to say that kicking kids shouldn't be happening.

[aiilns]

And it's not just the expectation of impermanence. Those photos are forever and for everyone as you say. Reachable by anyone, anytime for whatever reason.

[barry-cotter]

> Is there an actual expectation of privacy when enrolled at a public school?

No. Children in schools don’t have rights, the same way as prisoners don’t have rights. Public and private schools are not different in this respect. As institutions built on dominance and the implied use of force schools could not function in anything resembling a normal fashion if children had rights.

[eropple]

> No. Children in schools don’t have rights, the same way as prisoners don’t have rights.

Tinker would like a word.

[MaxfordAndSons]

I mean, prisoners also have limited rights to free speech, I guess? Think GP meant "rights" to mean "the full spectrum of civil rights private, adult citizens enjoy"

[ricallo]

Recently was biking down a city street and saw a pack of tiny kids supervised by two adults, walking down the sidewalk. All the kids wore identical tiny day-glo safety vests, just like adult safety vests but kindergarten-sized. It was the cutest thing and I wanted a photo for my elderly mother-in-law, who would have absolutely loved it. Was late afternoon and the light was perfect, the day-glo was electric.

Then reality hit: I could get in big trouble and my benign motive would be a useless defense. I biked past, lamenting the loss of a terrific photo.

[low_tech_love]

I can’t help but picture you trying to explain to the adults why you would want the photo, and being treated as a potential pedophile… sad.

[low_tech_love]

Sure, publishing is one thing, but not even taking the pictures and/or allowing parents to take them is the problem. It is lazy blame-avoidance backed by some kind of hysteria (if you ask me). Of course they need some consent form if they’re going to post it publicly, but the parent group should not be considered “public” in my opinion.

[aiilns]

Thinking of myself as a parent I'd be quite angry if photos of my children ended up on Instagram (private profiles or not) or any company's servers.

So in your place, knowing how brazen everyone is with privacy I'd actually be ok with this measure. It's not like you can't take photos/videos of your children and their friends (with their parents' consent) outside of school & during your time together.

Some 200 years ago photography hadn't even be invented, and only the last ~50 years has it been mainstream. Not every moment has to be recorded, relax, have fun and take a few photos so you can reminisce when older.