SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A court in the Netherlands ruled this month that a grandmother must remove pictures of her grandchildren from her social media accounts after her daughter filed a privacy complaint.
The grandmother, according to a Gelderland District Court summary, has not been in contact with her daughter for more than a year due to a family argument.
Her daughter has three minor children who appear in pictures the grandmother posted to social media accounts on Facebook and Pinterest. In February, the daughter wrote to her mother, noting that her requests made via the police to remove the photos of her children from social media have been ignored and giving her mother until March 5 to comply or face legal action.
After the grandmother failed to take the photos down, the mother took her complaint to court.
The Dutch implementation of Europe's General Data Protection Act requires that anyone posting photos of minors obtain consent from their legal guardians.
When the court took up the matter in April, the grandmother had removed photos, except for one from Facebook. She wanted that one picture, of the grandson she had cared for from April 2012 through April 2019 while the boy and his father, separated from the mother, lived with her.
The father in the instance of the Facebook image also did not consent to the publication of the image.
[...] Accordingly, the judge gave the grandmother ten days to remove the picture. If it isn't not removed by then, a fine of €50.00 (£45, $55) will be imposed each day the images remain in place, up to a maximum of €1,000 (£900, $1,095).
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday May 25 2020, @01:26AM (3 children)
Well the GDPR wouldn't apply to either, as it's an on-the internet law; so at that level the question is silly.
I'll presume you didn't mean to make it that silly and it should be read a bit more broadly - would someone that cares about privacy think these are things that should be regulated?
I can't speak for everyone that cares about privacy, but for my own opinion, if she has a physical photo that she obtained legitimately she can show it to anyone she wants, subject to the limitations of the physical photo, whether I like it or not.
When she starts making copies of it and giving those out, then I start to think that she just might be crossing a line. Assuming she doesn't have a written release.
Putting a photo up on the interwebs is the ultimate in making copies and giving them out. Obviously.
/On a computer/ shouldn't change that in any legal or ethical sense, only in the practical sense. It's easier to do legitimate things (make a backup) and easier to do questionable things (share without permission.) But whether something is legal or ethical shouldn't have anything to do with how easy it is to do.
"Simply put, it's a way to hide from potential dangers, keep information from enemies who could use it to hurt, if only they knew it."
This isn't so much *wrong* as just /myopic/ but it's far less than a half truth.
Information? You think I am trying to hold down the "information" by not spreading my face around the interwebs?
Is that REALLY the only possible motivation from your vantage point?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 25 2020, @04:30AM (1 child)
Why else is privacy desirable? Avoidance of discrimination by keeping quiet about things that can't be easily determined by appearances, such as religious affiliation, political affiliation, and exact age? To forestall the envy of people who want something they can seize upon to compare themselves to you, and by that measure possibly conclude that you have more? To keep our privates private, hidden under clothing? To provide an escape valve, from overly restrictive social mores and wrongheaded laws? What would you add to that? It's really not useful to blindly accept privacy as good and desirable, without being as clear as possible just what that means, and why it's so great.
> But whether something is legal or ethical shouldn't have anything to do with how easy it is to do.
Maybe. But from a practical perspective, it does matter. Also, one aspect of "easy to do" is that few have any objection, because the act in question is no potential threat to them. In other words, it's natural law. I mean by that not just easy to commit, but easily accepted by others.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday May 25 2020, @04:45AM
A very common and legitimate motivation.
"To forestall the envy"
Frankly, yes, and again completely legitimate.
"To keep our privates private, hidden under clothing?"
Should we not be allowed to do that now?
Has it been declared counter-revolutionary to be shy?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Monday May 25 2020, @05:28AM
Well, there are also legal restrictions for physical photos. For example, if for some reason she wanted to publish it on a magazine, she would have to get a model release. I think the same would apply if she wanted to present it at a gallery.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.