[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.