A lot of what I wanted to say has already been said by Joe, Jude, JonV. I will question this though:
I know the law on this very well as I am a reasonably accomplished photographer
...
No one has a right to privacy in a public space period. No exceptions.
That's not right, is it? There are public spaces where photography is unlawful. Railway station platforms is one, and a handful of others I forget now.
As well as alluded to above it’s a requirement if your organisation receives public money. Some local clubs won’t have unattended minors on events a parent has to be present as there are parents who regard them as cheap childcare. (See also Scouts, the number of irate parents when we asked for contact details for camp and for them to be available to collect little Johnny if he got ill/injured).
I was a regular Dad helper with my kids local Scout troop whilst my kids were there, it was a real eye opener to how dim-witted some parents are, some poor kids have got no chance 😀
Railway station platforms is one, and a handful of others I forget now
A lot does rest on what is defined as a public space but railway stations are privately owned by Network Rail. The obvious inference here is photographing a public space that might also be regarded as a target for terrorism. No one can stop you photographing these ares, including public buildings, not even the police, but they might arrest you on the suspicion of planning an act of terrorism. Fortunately simply making a photograph of a building is not enough grounds for suspicion to warrant an arrest.
My sister has an adopted daughter and her daughter cannot have her photo put on social media etc for safeguarding reasons.
Why would that be if she is adopted? Surely at that point the child is solely the responsibility of the adoptive parents (if she was fostered I could fully understand it, but when a child is adopted there are no longer any third-party responsibilities/input from social services are there)?
Surely at that point the child is solely the responsibility of the adoptive parents
In these cases it is because the biological parents still represent a threat to the child.
Railway station platforms is one, and a handful of others I forget now
You can take photos on / of railway stations, platforms etc, (same on London Underground), you're just not allowed to use them commercially. If you tried to set up shop with a tripod, flashguns etc, you'd be rightly told to desist but taking photos of trains or the architecture is absolutely fine.
They might have more to say if you went round filming the location of CCTV cameras and security barriers but in general, it's fine and permitted.
A photography mag a while ago actually supplied a lens cleaning cloth with all the rules around street photography printed on it - it was around the time of sweeping new anti-terror laws and police going around trying to confiscate cameras, get people to delete photos etc.
I'm astonished people still don't get why kids privacy may need to be protected. It comes up on here occasionally, but comes up regularly at schools, sports clubs, Scouts etc.
At least one of my friends who have adopted have to keep their child's new identity private, sadly, but has to be done.
In these cases it is because the biological parents still represent a threat to the child.
I understand that there may be a threat, but once adopted, I was not aware there was a *legal* position on this and the choice would be solely that of the adoptive parents. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of the word 'cannot' in the posters' context and it means 'it would be dangerous in our circumstances to do this'.
I was not aware there was a *legal* position on this
My understanding is that there is no legal position in any situation unless a court rules on this in conjunction with a pending case. None of the examples cited in this thread (of children's identities needing to be protected) are legal requirements, rather they are safeguarding requirements.
I understand that there may be a threat, but once adopted, I was not aware there was a *legal* position on this and the choice would be solely that of the adoptive parents.
At risk kids are still supported by social services. There is some horrific things some kids have had to suffer. They remain very vulnerable throughout their childhood and even as adults because of these.
I’ve sat through so many child safeguarding sessions and the odd case review that it’s been absolutely disturbing. If me not taking a photo of my kids to protect a child I’m good with that. It seems to that self entitled comes from camera operators for the media. No surprises there.
^^^ Fair enough (asking as a newly 'qualified' foster carer but we only very briefly touched on the rights of adoptive parents during the training).
There is some horrific things some kids have had to suffer.
And yes I know this very well having seen some of the cases put to us for consideration for fostering.
My understanding is that there is no legal position in any situation unless a court rules on this in conjunction with a pending case.
Yeah. Those comments were in reply to "why is photographing children a safeguarding issue?"
It may well be perfectly legal. But as others have said, there may be a risk to those children beyond some hypothetical paedo taking photos for the bank. I have a couple of friends who were in this exact situation, they adopted two young kids who had been removed from their abusive family. The kids were relocated across the country and given new names for their own protection. Someone innocently posting photos of them into the public domain could have been a real threat to their safety.
So it would actually be preferable to say that you're a pedo taking pics for lusting over later, rather than saying you're a parent taking pics of your kid for the family Facebook page.