________ A to Z kerala .......... [kvk] [www.atozkerala.in , www.atozkerala.blogspot.com]
The question of sharing images of children online is complex, one that has many different issues to take into account.
Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim said: “Once a photograph goes on the internet, it’s hard for it to be erased from the online environment.”
He added, “A photograph also contains information. It shows the child, it may identify a child and may contain inadvertent information, for example; it could reveal a medical condition, or a location, or the fact that the child regularly attends a sporting event. This could lead to a security issue for the child. Also, depending on the photo it may cause some form of harassment for the child. The child may not want it there in the future, yet once online the information will be there for a very long time.”
Rachel Chappell, founder and publisher of North Shore Mums said that as a parent the ultimate concern is that an innocently shared image could fall into the wrong hands.
“While, it’s quite common to [share] on your personal Facebook page, it would be completely inappropriate to post photos of other people’s children within a wider audience,” she said.
With this in mind, what should people be doing to safeguard the safety of their friends’ children?
The solution is simple according to Mrs Chappell.
“I think permission should always been requested. Obviously everyone has different opinions around the sharing of images online — some don’t mind at all, while others have real concerns about images of their children being in the public domain. A campaign that addresses the ‘seeking of permission’ would be really useful to raise awareness,” she said.
She added, “I personally don’t mind if friends post photos of my children on their own personal Facebook page with a ‘friends only’ privacy setting, for example, of a child’s birthday party. If you didn’t know the parent very well, I think they should let you know they’re planning on posting photos, so that you have the opportunity to say if you’re not comfortable.”
Mr Pilgrim agrees with this protocol.
He said, “It really comes down to having respect for others’ privacy. Consider it from your own perspective, would you be comfortable having pictures of your family and children shared online? Adults should be sensitive to others concerns, and always get a parent’s consent before sharing. Individuals also need to look at the privacy setting of their accounts, is it at its most secure? In this way you protect your own privacy and that of your friends.”
So, the next time you’re scrolling through your photos and you come across a cute photo of old mate Jane’s rug rat, exercise some caution before posting.
To share, or not to share? That’s the digital dilemma. Picture: SolStock
EVERY
TIME we log into our Facebook feed these days, it seems we’re inundated
with pictures of adorable babies and children. But just because
everyone is sharing this content, doesn’t mean it should be done.
Look
we get it, our mates’ kids can be cute at times, and while most of us
only have the best of intentions when we hit share, the reality is
there’s no telling where the content may end up. And once it’s out
there, it’s out there forever.The question of sharing images of children online is complex, one that has many different issues to take into account.
Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim said: “Once a photograph goes on the internet, it’s hard for it to be erased from the online environment.”
He added, “A photograph also contains information. It shows the child, it may identify a child and may contain inadvertent information, for example; it could reveal a medical condition, or a location, or the fact that the child regularly attends a sporting event. This could lead to a security issue for the child. Also, depending on the photo it may cause some form of harassment for the child. The child may not want it there in the future, yet once online the information will be there for a very long time.”
Rachel Chappell, founder and publisher of North Shore Mums said that as a parent the ultimate concern is that an innocently shared image could fall into the wrong hands.
“While, it’s quite common to [share] on your personal Facebook page, it would be completely inappropriate to post photos of other people’s children within a wider audience,” she said.
With this in mind, what should people be doing to safeguard the safety of their friends’ children?
The solution is simple according to Mrs Chappell.
“I think permission should always been requested. Obviously everyone has different opinions around the sharing of images online — some don’t mind at all, while others have real concerns about images of their children being in the public domain. A campaign that addresses the ‘seeking of permission’ would be really useful to raise awareness,” she said.
She added, “I personally don’t mind if friends post photos of my children on their own personal Facebook page with a ‘friends only’ privacy setting, for example, of a child’s birthday party. If you didn’t know the parent very well, I think they should let you know they’re planning on posting photos, so that you have the opportunity to say if you’re not comfortable.”
Mr Pilgrim agrees with this protocol.
He said, “It really comes down to having respect for others’ privacy. Consider it from your own perspective, would you be comfortable having pictures of your family and children shared online? Adults should be sensitive to others concerns, and always get a parent’s consent before sharing. Individuals also need to look at the privacy setting of their accounts, is it at its most secure? In this way you protect your own privacy and that of your friends.”
So, the next time you’re scrolling through your photos and you come across a cute photo of old mate Jane’s rug rat, exercise some caution before posting.
What kind of treatment IS activists and sympathizers need is a question worth pondering. Theirs seems to be a madness that has no method to it. If they are fighting for Islam, why should they be the very antithesis of everything that Islam is? The prophet had indeed fought battles. But historians note that the fatalities in all his battles together were less than a thousand. His magnanimity in the aftermath of battles was so exemplary that many of his prisoners of war chose to return to his fold even after they were released. He entered Mecca, the city that had thirsted for his blood and hounded him out, a decade after being forced out of there, as a conqueror without letting an ounce of blood to be spilt. And to boot, he forbade his men even from claiming the encroached houses and properties they had been forced to leave behind in the city of their birth.
When his followers extended the domain of Islam after his death, they did not exactly follow his model of tolerance, but as the famous French Christian historian Amin Malouf pointed out, largely abstained from gratuitous violence. The example of the great Saladin (Salahuddin Ayyoubi) has been legendary. When his enemy commander King Richard lost his horse during the combat, Saladin immediately sent him a horse saying that a king like him should not be fighting on foot. When the English king fell ill, he sent his personal physician to treat him. In the aftermath of the Jerusalem victory, he was so magnanimous that he made it a point to make the city a true cosmopolitan centre by allowing Christians, Jews and Muslim to settle there on equitable terms. In gratitude many Christians chose to call their newborn sons Saladin.
More than on their individual victims, IS is now inflicting an irreparable damage on this tradition. It is in this context that the disappearance of a few Keralite families allegedly to join IS becomes a worrying development. As yet there has been no confirmation of these reports and there are speculations that their port of call is actually Yemen and not Syria. If the latter is true, it would mean less alarm and a little less concern for leaders of Muslim community.
The rulers too have an added responsibility. More than at any point of time, Indian Muslims are now feeling besieged and beleaguered. Questions are being raised from quarters close to the ruling hierarchy about their belongingness and right to exist. As Bobby S Said put it in a similar but different context their very ontology is being challenged by a hauntology. The talk of a Muslim-free India by the likes of Sadhvi Prachi is a grim instance of this. Increasingly, minorities feel like being deprived of not only democratic spaces of protest and articulation but even air pockets to breathe. The government stance on Aligarh and the witch hunt against Zakir Naik are stark reminders of this.
