The very fine John the Lutheran has dug out and circulated some guidance that many people find themselves thinking about at this time of year: a few advisory notes from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on the fraught topic of photography in schools.
What we’re after of course is something “official” that us camera-toting parents can haul out (preferably with a big Her Majesty’s Government crest in the letterhead) and wave at hovering Netmums and headteachers who are getting fretful about all this Internet Paedo Malarkey they’ve read about in their redtops.
Because we all know that deviance involving children increases proportionately with focal length (or indeed aperture size, in its more advanced stages).
Sadly, though it was probably a worthy attempt at the time (December 2005), the ICO guidance falls down in a couple of important areas. [Update: 1713 071211 There is another version of this guidance available, dated June 2010, which is, erm, identical – it’s as if Facebook never happened…]
Although it’s a bit useful–in that it basically says “it’s ok for parents to take pics of kids, even in a school, if those pics are for personal use, and nobody should freak if more than the snapper’s own kids are in the frame”–it gets off on the wrong foot by trying to tie everything back to the Data Protection Act. Sure, if you’re assembling class records, or access passes, a photo has immediate DPA relevance.
But like a shaky student in an exam, the ICO write answers about the DPA because they know about the DPA–even if that’s not quite the question that’s being asked.
They are right in saying that most instances of photos being taken have no data protection implication, but that isn’t really why parents and teachers are getting twitchy these days.
No, many concerns today are over something that’s not even mentioned in the guidance perhaps (being fair) because it didn’t really exist in 2005. [I shall be less fair now that I’ve seen the 2010 version!]
Yes. Adults will take photographs of children, without explicit permission of the parents of each and every child in the picture, and put them on the Internet. [SFX: Internet Paedo Malarkey klaxon]
No, this is a social concern. And indeed a social media concern. One that’s not such much about privacy, or spamming, but about darker fears. Because we all know that Internet photos are photoshopped together with scenes of bestial savagery, and traded by rings of shadowy perverts. We know about it because we read it in the Daily Mail.
Being blunt: people only really freak if they think you’re either going to make a) money or b) porn out of their kids’ faces (the fact that without highly verified model releases, the commercial exploitation just ain’t going to happen being neither here nor there).
Those fears aren’t going to be countered by waving “permits” from some bit of government. It might help a bit, of course, if a headteacher really does pull the “because of Data Protection…” line. Though remember that the Trunchbulls of this world are not easily moved by proffered sheets of A4, especially with Crown Crests on them. It’s their school, and their Word is Law.
And angry, scared parents are angry and scared–driven by emotions that it’s sometimes hard to comprehend. If you get to the point where you need to show them a letter from the government, you’ve probably already lost the battle. You certainly won’t be having any more fun at that Nativity Play, anyway. Best avoided.
No, the only answer in my experience is to approach with subtlety. With smiles. With requests for permission where that looks sensible. By keeping an eye out for parents who don’t look comfortable, and making an obvious point of avoiding their children. By offering to share the pics with other parents. Saying you’ll send copies to the school has worked wonders for me. (Suddenly everyone wants their child front and centre.)
By perhaps not taking your 400mm and sitting smack in the centre of the front row shooting up the skirts of the tinies. Yes, I’ve seen this done. Unwittingly. Take a good, small lens that’s good for indoor light. Don’t blaze away with a flash.
Be respectful. That is all.
At my kids school, we are asked to only take photos of our own kids. The reason is not paedofear or data protection but the simple and very valid reason that some kids in some schools are from broken families where one parent has been denied access to the child and doesn’t know where that child is schooled.
If I were to post a picture of my kids next to a friend on stage, I wouldn’t know if that kid was in the situation described above. The staff are hardly going to point them out.
Some schools have to check every picture that goes out to ensure the protected kids are not identifiable. Sad but necessary.
I hear that. But – serious question – how is it envisaged that a child will be identified, in reality?
The casual browsing of social media (by definition within the conundrum, belonging to complete strangers)? Doesn’t seem so likely.
And newspapers (a more feasible route, though again, the realities of an estranged parent scanning random schools’ photos looking for a child are a bit flimsy) are very attuned to this sort of thing, and will themselves be a perfectly good filter – in conjunction with the school – for anything they might publish.
So I’m sensitive to the theoretical risk, but it doesn’t seem very realistic. In advance of ubiquitous facial recognition, of course. But that’s another post.
One instance at my son’s school, though, does rather highlight a possible risk, at least in the eyes of those looking for problems.
J’s HT very sensibly said that photos/videos were fine, but he politely asked that people not post them on social media ie Facebook.
Someone’s granny not only did, but tagged every kid in the photos. To be honest, I was annoyed, and I’m not even from the paranoid school of parenting…
Now we’re getting to the interesting detail: relevant to both Shane and Anna’s points. As with the existence of any media, digital or otherwise, it’s not the mere existence of the image that is so important, nearly so much as whether and how it can be found.
Tagging, or any other form of indexing, whether in a formal state database, in your address book, or on Facebook, is an act of intrusion. Let’s be clear about that. No wonder people find it hostile if done without foreknowledge let alone permission.
It adds those risks: of findability, of linkability, of misappropriation.
And here’s the rub: any policy on school photos that attempts to mention these subtleties…
“ok guys, are you listening? you can take pics, and you can post them online, preferably to protected spaces, but please don’t tag them or add any other metadata…guys, are you still listening guys? this is important!”…
…almost by definition becomes unworkably complicated. So we get these statements about “no pics online” even though that’s the only modality these days in which they’re going to be anything close to useful – because we can’t deal with the subtleties that are involved with being truly responsible online.
I hope we grow up on this one. We have to. We need to understand how these spaces work.
The following plan seems to solve this:
Parents are asked whether they consent to their kids being photographed in the school play. If “yes”, then fine. If “no”, then fine too, with the proviso that the kid in question doesn’t get to appear in the play.
Problem solved.