Child exploitation in the name of attention whoring

Study: 82 percent of kids under 2 have an online presence
Link: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/10/07/baby.pictures/index.html

Thanks to the ubiquity of photo-sharing websites like Facebook, 82 percent of children in 10 Western countries have a digital footprint before the age of 2, according to a study by internet security firm AVG.

The U.S. led, with 92 percent of American children under 2 appearing in online pictures, the report said.

...

Everyone likes to look at snapshots of cute babies -- or at least the babies' parents think so. But disclosing a lot of personal info, such as birth dates, middle names and mothers' maiden names -- which can be carelessly inserted into photo captions -- can aid identity thieves.

"Obviously there's a privacy issue," said AVG spokeswoman Siobhan MacDermott, "if they're applying for credit [later on] and having that information readily available for people who want to compromise their identities."

Plus, what if they just have a strong sense of privacy (which is largely absent in the modern world) and simply don't want pictures of themselves online?

No figures on how many have their 'own' email, twitter, and facebook accounts set up minutes after birth if not before, by parents who then post moronic updates in their childrens' names.

NINETY TWO PERCENT? That's outrageous! I have also seen moos(it's almost exclusively moos who do this) post information on WHERE the kyd goes to nursery or pre school, and WHEN he gets out! They have already usually mentioned his nickname, favorite foods and activities, and in the course of her posts she has generally dislosed their location as well by mentioning location specific things like, "At our cummunity Rosa L. Parks Little league field that was built for the kyds in 2007, right next to the Southern Poverty Law Center ....", or "At the Mt Kamoozoo Mall that's 2 blocks from my house,...." etc.....Then, to sweeten the pot, they post pictures of the kyds as well! I suppose that it never crosses their minds that this is a pedophile's dream and if he is one of the abductor types, she has placed her child in grave danger.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Another article did a good job of addressing some of my concerns about privacy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/10/are_parents_the_biggest_threat_to.html

This is an engaging way for his parents to let their nearest and dearest know of their son's progress, and they can control who sees any of the material. Just a bit of fun, really. The question is what will the infant Facebooker feel when he gets to an age when he's actually allowed to have a social networking profile? He will find that his entire life up to that point has already been laid out online.

My generation found it bad enough when parents got out the baby pictures to show to our girlfriends. I've warned my friend not to be surprised if the revelation of his father's Facebook fun sparks a teenage rebellion from his son.

of course, i'm guessing these same nitwits also see nothing wrong in applying for credit cards and loans in their kids' names and fucking up the kids' future ability to get an apartment, a student loan or, in some cases, a job.

i still believe it is a form of child endangerment and even child abuse to put your child up online like that. especially child abuse if the kid is able to object to it. they would not want a bully to torment their kid by posting personal details on the internet or posting videoes on youtube-so how is it different if parents do it?

Quote
zatoth
i still believe it is a form of child endangerment and even child abuse to put your child up online like that. especially child abuse if the kid is able to object to it. they would not want a bully to torment their kid by posting personal details on the internet or posting videoes on youtube-so how is it different if parents do it?

Indeed. Roommate and friend post video of student's sexual experience online and face several counts of invasion of privacy (as well they should). Parent posts naked picture of young child smeared with feces and it's treated as harmless. "It was just a bit of fun," both abusers say. "I didn't mean anything by it." There seems to be this double standard in society that whatever a parent does to a child it is part of the child's self-interest, and the child is better off with its parents than elsewhere. Speaking about the first case, it was said: "No one deserves to have their private life made public. Imagine how violated, embarrassed, angry and ashamed he must have been." About the second scenario: silence.

I want to see some parent get slapped with a lawsuit for this violation of privacy which is done purely in the parent's self-interest. In the case of parents who have managed to turn exploitation of their children into a paid job, I hope the child will request emancipation and be entitled to all the money the parent earned through completely ignoring that the child is not the extension of self.