I could, if I wanted to, was a nutso, and had a bit more internet savvy than I have (I think, but maybe not, mabye I have enough) know what community you are posting from, and track you and your children down.

Is it not possible to have a Flikr account, or something like that only accessible to those you’ve given a password, or post pictures of your children that are from when they were younger, or not exactly identifiable, or not liftable? I think it would just make me feel awfully uncomfortable to find out my child’s face or head had been lifted and photo-shopped onto child porn images. It can and has been done.

But, maybe I’m not knowledgeable enough about the internet, and that is colouring my thinking here.

The risk Laylalola fears is so close to zero as to be insignificant.

To put it in perspective, I recommend Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker. He does an excellant job of blowing off the “stranger danger” hype and talking about real safety.

This sounds a lot like the rape prevention “advice” we hear.

Statistically speaking, it’s a lot more dangerous to share photos with friends and family than to post them on the Internet, if pedophilia is your main concern. This is an old rant but good food for thought:

http://www.snipeme.com/archive.php?year=2004&rant=strangers

Child predators for the most part have ready access to children they already know; they don’t need to hunt down kids they’ve seen on the Internet. And I think if we try to train our kids to hide themselves and their identities, we are actually training them to keep secrets and to feel ashamed of “bringing attention to themselves” and this actually makes them more vulnerable to the lies and manipulation of real predators. Who, sadly, already live among us.

What is it, specifically, that you’re shocked at having to point out? That women and even young girls are sexualised in our society? I don’t think you had to point it out; I think most people posting here are well aware of it but possibly considered it a parallel fact to the discussion at hand.

And if “supposedly pro-feminist” was an attempt to imply that we’re not really pro-feminist because we don’t subscribe to the exact same risk calculus you do, I’d suggest you take the plank out of your own eye first: comment #16 seems to be endorsing victim-blaming in cases of date rape.

You say “Because if I’m noticing this and I’m someone on the side of protecting the children, I think almost certainly someone who is a child predator would take notice of just the number of photos — and if he recognized a public place in those photos, well, yeah, I’d think he’d take note of that too.”

OK, so the predator has noticed this. And…? (And I really don’t see where the number of photos factors in.)

“I don’t know. In some ways it seems to me so ridiculous to me that I’m even having to argue my point that it’s an unnecessary risk to post photos of your children in places that can be identfied.”

I think where we disconnect is that I (and a few others of similar viewpoint) don’t see where the “risk” part comes in.

So the creepy stalker knows that a particular child goes to the grocery store. How exactly is this an additional risk? There are kids in every grocery store in the country. Creepy stalker has no shortage of potential victims. Even if creepy stalker is after the particular child, then how exactly is creepy stalker helped out by the pictures? OK, he knows that the kid goes to the grocery store. He knew that before - he just didn’t know which one. So now he knows - but the thing is, if he wanted that information, it’s trivial to find it out without spending hours comparing subtle clues in photos on the Internet. If he’s creepy stalker guy and he already knows that kid X is his target, then he’s followed kid X home, and followed kid X’s parents around, and all the rest of it. It’s not like it’s a big task to figure out where Kim and Matt go to the store.

It’s not that there’s absolutely zero risk, that under no conceivable circumstance could photos ever help a stalker. I can see how the photos could help a stalker a tiny bit under the right set of circumstances. It’s just that the risk is so small that taking positive action to protect against it seems like a serious waste of emotional energy and resources, and, basically, a surrender to fear. I don’t mind a surrender to rational fear now and again - if Sidney toddles into the busy street, Amp should totally surrender to his fear and haul his ass out there and save her, not be cool and murmur about acceptable risk. But this doesn’t seem like a rational fear.

To put it another way: you think Amp shouldn’t put up her pictures, although doing so brings many people much joy. How then can you justify Sidney going out in public at all? She shouldn’t be going to the grocery store; she should be at home in a locked room, with an armed guard. And so on. The logical consequence of following your worldview (where tiny risks should be actively managed) is a life in prison.

Generally speaking, the appropriate response to tiny risks is to be aware that they exist, but otherwise to ignore them. That’s the path to a happy life of reasonable safety, or so it seems from my perspective. (And for the record, I have a toddler the same age as Sidney of whom I am determinedly protective.)

Amp posts photos of his chilren on the Internet; my radar already goes up, just given the number of photos of them he posts. When he posts photos of them in public places that could be identified, I personally think he’s crossed a safety line. Because if I’m noticing this and I’m someone on the side of protecting the children, I think almost certainly someone who is a child predator would take notice of just the number of photos — and if he recognized a public place in those photos, well, yeah, I’d think he’d take note of that too. I don’t know. In some ways it seems to me so ridiculous to me that I’m even having to argue my point that it’s an unnecessary risk to post photos of your children in places that can be identfied. I mean it really really does remind me of mid-teenage girls who dress like mini-prostitutes, wanting to look older and more mature and sexier for the fun of it — but not having a clue yet as to the reality of what they’re walking into when they do that, that they are indeed sexualized targets already. Yes, as a woman you have to learn these things and you go to different extremes until you find the place where you can live your life. But that’s why I say I’m just shocked that I’m even having to point this out in a supposedly pro-feminist forum. I thought all of this already was understood, but apparently not.

And in any case, I’m betting an adult blogger is out and about in the world more than the children whose photos they post, and would make an easier target.

Yup. I’ve got family and friends all over the world. The most convenient, least intrusive way for me to give them all the opportunity to stay connected with what’s going on with my kid is to blog about her and post photos.

If there were an epidemic of pedophiles stalking kids over the internet for the purpose of abducting or assaulting them, maybe I’d reassess the risks. And if, as Aunty suggests, I had any sense that anyone was likely to try to get to me specifically through my kid, I’d be a lot more careful.

But anyone with a digital camera and ears can get a photo of my kid, her name, and a good guess as to the neighborhood we live in by watching me with her at the playground. If I don’t worry about that, why should I worry about some freak in Kalamazoo compiling the same data?

a known pedophile in my family was gleefully photographing my child at the family picnic; he’s supposedly “reformed” or “cured” according to my relatives [of course we all know what bullshit that is], but regardless i am still very unhappy about it. i’m seriously thinking of just heading on over and beating the ever-loving shit out of him, but that wouldn’t be good karma. maybe i should just send the FBI an anonymous tip.

I agree that a weirdo who’s determined to go after a small child only needs to step out the door, and doesn’t need to stalk via the Internet. I’d also point out, however, that a weirdo who would be determined to hurt Amp (or any other given individual) might easily use the Internet to target a specific child. Having said that, the only people I think realistically need to worry about that might be celebrities, politicians, etc.