Hacker News Reader

Comment by hospitalJail | Hacker News Reader

My brother tried the whole 'don't share pictures of my kids online'. Lasted 2 weeks.

They started by sending private snapchat messages to our family. My wife screenshotted the cute baby picture, google uploaded it automatically to their backup/photo storage.

Game over.

Heck, walk into walmart, your face and your family are all scanned and added into their security database.

Its a fools errand.

I can think of few uses for privacy, overthrowing a government, embarrassing fetish, a medical illness that would cause people to treat you differently, yet none of those are showing your kids being kids online.

View on HN

There’s a difference between “I don’t want any photos of my kids in a server anywhere” and “please don’t share pictures of my kids to other people unless we do it privately”, which your wife immediately violated by screenshotting an obviously private message.

I wonder how many of these people have kids over the age of 10.

By 4 years old, my kid was on social media, because he went to a birthday party and a stranger took a picture.

Would be weird having everyone but the children go around the great grandparents when the great grandparents turn 100.

When they are on a soccer team, they don't take a team photo?

All because we are afraid a face is going to do what exactly? Reminds me of the whole 'don't put your last name on the internet'.

What's weird to me is posting any of this stuff to social media. It's great to have family photos with the great grandparents, but why does it have to go on Facebook?

It goes on Facebook because that's how people communicate with a wider circle of friends. They don't care about the whole internet, but they want the friends that they do not see every week to stay involved in their lives. FB absolutely maintains those connections over years of minimal personal involvement.

You can debate whether that's a good idea. You can even debate whether you think the connection is real (but I think the feeling of a connection is enough to consider it "real"). You can certainly debate the use of these images in corporate machine-generated ads... but deal with the first paragraph: I think we understand why genuine people might still post on social media.

This is quite a huge improvement. Prior we'd have one relative take a picture and it would be lost to time.

how are strangers getting to a birthday party of your childs friend?

or are the parents (which they most likely were) of your childs friends strangers to you? they should not be.

You don't have kids huh?

i do have kids and i make it a point to get to know other parents of my kids friends. they are not strangers. a stranger is someone who i meet once and never see again, or don't meet at all. parents of my kids friends or even any parents from my kids school are not that.

what bothers me here is that on the one hand we have this concept of stranger-danger, and on the other everyone is a stranger, just because you haven't talked to them yet? that doesn't make sense. calling the parents of my kids friends strangers just feels very wrong to me.

I don't see much difference between it being in a Google backup and being on the Snapchat server in the first place. The point of this article was not to say it should never be stored on a server, but that it shouldn't be posted in a publicly/large group of strangers accessible way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com