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: 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?