Althouse: "This is exactly the kind of photo you shouldn't post of your child."

September 6, 2013

"This is exactly the kind of photo you shouldn't post of your child."

That is: the kid's face.

Paranoia (of facial recognition) strikes deep.

13 comments:

Heartless Aztec said...: It's all pretty much a moot point at this stage of the game. Unless you hiding in the deep north woods and completely divorced from the 21st century it's a done deal for better or worse.; 9/6/13, 8:25 AM
MadisonMan said...: The fact that these parents ran their kid's potential names past google before finalizing a choice says everything that needs to be said: Hipster Doofuses, the lot of them.

That they think facebook, twitter, instagram and github will be around (and in use!) when their kid is a tween is hilarious.; 9/6/13, 8:35 AM
Oso Negro said...: Facebook and the other data miners are evil. But to think you can avoid images of your daughter making it to the internet is the acme of foolishness in 21st Century America. Now if they swaddle her in a cute little hijab and abeya, they may improve their chances.; 9/6/13, 8:38 AM
Brian said...: The whole section on "curating" the child's "digital identity" is remarkably shortsighted. GMail, Instagram, Facebook? Is there any reason at all to think that kids are going to give a damn about those accounts 10 or 15 years from now?

I'm imagining some self-serious parent of today handing his 15-year-old a sealed envelope with the password to an AOL email account that serves as the Master Key to the teen's carefully set-aside GeoCities and Xanga accounts.; 9/6/13, 8:40 AM
prairie wind said...: We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online

...but we see nothing wrong with using the photo of someone else's adorable child in our article on a popular website.; 9/6/13, 8:51 AM
SJ said...: I tried to post a longer comment, but got an error.

In short, the photo which contained the House Address, the girl, and the announcement of Labor Day holiday at the beach sounds like a setup for a news story.

Like this one.

Privacy of children is an interesting question.

But protecting the family home against opportunistic thieves is more immediately pressing. And this family doesn't seem aware of that risk...; 9/6/13, 9:24 AM
Strelnikov said...: Given recent revelations, no amount of concern along public surveillance lines is actual paranoia.; 9/6/13, 9:37 AM
Brian said...: I should probably just stop commenting again, and go on with life assuming MadisonMan will say whatever it is I intended to say.; 9/6/13, 9:43 AM
MadisonMan said...: Brian, don't stop. I loved the reference to GeoCities, Xanga and aol! (laugh)

Lycos and AskJeeves are coming back soon, I'm sure of it!; 9/6/13, 11:13 AM
Krumhorn said...: And then she gives the child an envelope containing a master email account that Google will use to sell her products after reading every email sent to or from that account.....that is after the NSA has read them

And why not a MySpace account? Or Compuserve?

- Krumhorn; 9/6/13, 12:54 PM
cubanbob said...: I avoid this problem by not having a Facebook or Twitter account. I also don't use Gmail or Yahoo mail for anything serious.; 9/6/13, 4:09 PM
JohnG said...: Naturally, the child's name and a pic were found and posted in the comments.

If you truly want to keep your child anonymous, begin by not bragging on Slate about how good you are at keeping your child anonymous.; 9/6/13, 6:21 PM
Joe said...: This is the new boogie man.

The conceit is that "my" child is so special he/she will be targeted by the boogie man.

The hypocrisy is that the writer brought more public attention to her daughter than anything facebook would do. It reminds my of when my kids were little and screamed "don't look at me."; 9/6/13, 11:27 PM