Internet Safety? Or Just Plain Weird?

A primary school has been accused of being alarmist for covering up the faces of pupils on its website – apparently to protect them from pedophiles.

Bizarrely, the images have been altered with the type of smiley faces popular during the Acid House dance craze of the 1980s.

The decision was taken at Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex.

Read the article here.  (thanks John Norton for the article via email)

Here is the part I am having a hard time understanding in all this. Traditionally, (think back to your school years) newspapers have published student's pictures and names together when highlighting accomplishments that warranted kids getting their name in the paper (eg. touchdown in football game, winning spelling bee, won scholarships etc.). Can you imagine the lessening of the "pride factor" for Grandma and Grandpa if their loved one had been recognized with a smiley face covering what should have been their 15 minutes of fame? And what about newscasts? I mean my children have made the TV news (in a good way hahaha) and the newspaper several times- somehow it just wouldn't have been as exciting if they had been unidentified in such a way as this.

Seriously- aren't we taking this a little too far?

Comments

[Ginger]

Plain weird. Hands down. Especially knowing the acid house scene...
I'd post this picture as a statement.

[Chris Bell]

I think that this is just going too far and don't even see what the point is to posting an image with the faces altered. I manage our school's website and it's gotten to the point where we're not even posting pictures 99% of the time anymore. Good thing we have stock images ;^)

[Maureen]

This is taking it way too far. Where is the research that says child predators are looking in school websites for children? The scare tactics used to keep children in bubbles is appalling. From everything I have read- there is no research to back up this type of alarmist behavior. Shame on the adults for making the children and their parents feel fear, instead of pride!

[Heather]

Tying in with Chris Bell's comment--why post the photo at all. Since the visual communication shifts from school pride to acid-trip, then the message is way off base from what was intended. If privacy is desired, why not create a photo site for subscribed users only?

[melissa]

Weird, but I too have actually done this to class photos I posted to my...Intranet page! How's that for paranoid! And in college, during student teaching I had to video tape students for a reflections project and me teaching a lesson. No children's faces could be scene so I had them stand backwards. AND in my student teaching portfolio I had to put the real smiley face stickers over kids faces for their protection. My portfolio has only been looked at by my professor and my principals. Absolutely ridiculous!

[Rick Weinberg]

Ya know...I think its weird. I even had a tech person tell me that I had distort children's voices in podcasts because with some kind of voice identification software they could be in danger. OY-vey...Please

[AllanahK]

It's good to know then that the parent community of the school has no pedophiles or child abusers in it as it was OK to show children's faces in the school newsletter but not anywhere else. I wish that I could be that sure of the parent community at my school. From my experience people who do the most harm to children are members of their extended family- sad but true.

[QueenAnne]

Yes, it is weird. There is no diversity with those white, smiling faces. Why doesn't this school use actual masks like Michael Jackson does with his children? If you can't publish the picture without all of this nonsense, perhaps we should do what the courts do - just have drawings.

[mrsdurff]

We recently had a school auction. Our class published stories through Lulu. I was told by the auction organizers to put student names on all stories because they would sell better if parents had names. No fear here!

[Richard van Dijk]

Really find this all quite funny. Love the cotton wool approach and the irrational fear of predators from far away lands. Wasn't it in the news lately that family are the biggest threat. I think that we should lock up all fathers and uncles first as they seem to be the number one threat. Oh thats right thats a dumb idea.

[Jim Dornberg]

We can blame NBC for their never-ending series of "predator" programs. Parents don't need to be confused with the facts because they've already made up their minds about internet safety. And, sadly, even the state of Michigan's idea of "educating" parents about internet safety is teaching them how to access the state's list of registered sex offenders. Check out: www.michigan.gov/csi

[Carl Anderson]

Wouldn't it be great if we all did this? Just for one day. Every school in the nation put smiley faces on every kid's mug we display on our websites. Even better if they are animated gif files or if the eyes follow the mouse cursor.

[alexanderhayes]

As always, is it appropriate and does it lead to new understanding ?

I'm afraid not. In this case I'd have rathered the photo was not published at all.

Had this been published in the heady 80's the author would have perhaps been accused of promoting the use of the drug Ecstacy.

Perhaps we can explore this phenomena further you know where.....by the way we have movement on the home page.

[Carolyn Foote]

This truly is safety carried to a bizarre level. Still chuckling over here!

[Janet Clarey]

High per capita of lawyers + ~100 TV Channels = Fear

[Paul Harrington]

I tend to agree with most comments here, and would endorse the point of why publish the photograph at all if you have to cover the faces of the pupils.
In my school I had a list of pupils whose parents preferred them not to appear online for a variety of very good reasons, once those wishes were observed the powers that be were happy!

[Bill Ferriter]

I get a bit of a chuckle by my district's information release policy that allows us to release some interesting demographic information about athletes without permission: Name, height, weight, team participation, athletic schedule.

Seems to me that kind of "approved information" could put kids at a greater risk, doesn't it?

If the fear of predators is what drives this kind of reaction, why would it be okay to pair names with schedules that include dates and times?

We'd have to sanitize all sports reporting on school websites and local newspapers----and that just ain't going to happen!

Weird contradiction, don't you think?
Bill

[MA ECMS]

very interesting

[Jenna]

Weird! I think they're overreacting. I don't think we're keeping kids any more safe by keeping them out of the news or off of a school website. I think it's important to respect a parent's right to exclude their child from an online photo but such extreme behavior, in general, breeds fear in parents and students and accomplishes little.

If parents in this school's community are concerned perhaps less 'face forward' photos could be taken. For example, the sports team could be photographed playing on the field from a distance.

[Jenna]

Weird! I think they're overreacting. I don't think we're keeping kids any more safe by keeping them out of the news or off of a school website. I think it's important to respect a parent's right to exclude their child from an online photo but such extreme behavior, in general, breeds fear in parents and students and accomplishes little.

If parents in this school's community are concerned perhaps less 'face forward' photos could be taken. For example, the sports team could be photographed playing on the field from a distance.

[Ric Murry]

I spoke to this very issue a few months ago, and gave an example...http://tinyurl.com/2pxwc4

Parents love it when kid is in paper. We see how the media has molded the minds against the web. Perhaps traditional media is afraid of a competitors???

Question - do you think the school is trying to make a point about how ridiculous their AUP is? Could it get the parent/grandparents riled enough to "storm the CO?"

Thanks for discussing this issue.

[Noclegi Ustka]

I tend to agree with most comments here, and would endorse the point of why publish the photograph at all if you have to cover the faces of the pupils.
In my school I had a list of pupils whose parents preferred them not to appear online for a variety of very good reasons, once those wishes were observed the powers that be were happy!

[Nanci]

The photo's original message of school pride/acheivment is replaced by a much louder one, "Beware Pedophiles!"

[Nanci]

[achievement] oops.