Posting full names on our troop web site

[Ankylus]

One thing you might consider. Once a year we have the scout's parents execute a "privacy statement" or something. I forget what we call it. Basically, it provides several options, each representing a different level of disclosure. Some parents are OK with first names, or pics with no name, or full names, or in the newsletter but not the website,  or whatever. We provide them the opportunity to tell us exactly what they are comfortable with.

[5yearscouter]

One thing you might consider. Once a year we have the scout's parents execute a "privacy statement" or something. I forget what we call it. Basically, it provides several options, each representing a different level of disclosure. Some parents are OK with first names, or pics with no name, or full names, or in the newsletter but not the website,  or whatever. We provide them the opportunity to tell us exactly what they are comfortable with.

But keeping track of who can post what about which scout becomes a nightmare when you are dealing with 70 scouts on the troop website.

Waaaaayyyyy easier to set a default for your unit to do no harm--which means as adults trying to protect the child's privacy in our troop website and online interactions. 

If a youth gives away his own privacy-full name, etc. by choice after being trained on the possible repercussions and parents given the same training, then it's on them.  not on us as unit leaders.

[Stosh]

There is nothing illegal about anyone taking pictures of anyone else in public.  Once a person takes the picture, they own it and it's rights.  Giving permission to take the picture only gives a photographer additional deterrent if the subject of the picture wishes to sue.  There is nothing illegal about someone standing out side a school playground or even in a public park playground taking pictures of children.  Only child pornography is illegal.

 

If a parent doesn't want a picture taken of their child and posted on the internet they need to do due diligence and not have their child attend the activity.

 

http://jezebel.com/5800238/should-photographing-other-peoples-kids-be-illegal

[5yearscouter]

We've had issues with cubs in a domestic violence abuse situation where posting photos of the cub online put them at risk because they were hiding from dad.  So we didn't post any pics of that cub, with our without his full name attached.  That is common decency.

 

There is also such a thing as needing to have a model release to use photos of other people for certain purposes like advertising.  So you can't just take photos of kids and use them how you wish. 

 

A scout (and scouter) is friendly and courteous, getting parental permissions would fall under that.  Using photos just because you can is poor form, and considered poor netiquette to post photos of other people's kids online..

Edited March 29, 2017 by 5yearscouter

[Ankylus]

But keeping track of who can post what about which scout becomes a nightmare when you are dealing with 70 scouts on the troop website.

Waaaaayyyyy easier to set a default for your unit to do no harm--which means as adults trying to protect the child's privacy in our troop website and online interactions. 

If a youth gives away his own privacy-full name, etc. by choice after being trained on the possible repercussions and parents given the same training, then it's on them.  not on us as unit leaders.

 

I absolutely agree with all of that.

[Stosh]

We've had issues with cubs in a domestic violence abuse situation where posting photos of the cub online put them at risk because they were hiding from dad.  So we didn't post any pics of that cub, with our without his full name attached.  That is common decency.

 

There is also such a thing as needing to have a model release to use photos of other people for certain purposes like advertising.  So you can't just take photos of kids and use them how you wish. 

 

A scout (and scouter) is friendly and courteous, getting parental permissions would fall under that.  Using photos just because you can is poor form, and considered poor netiquette to post photos of other people's kids online..

 

Unfortunately any other adult parent in the group can take pictures of scout activities and they don't have to adhere to any BSA requirements.  They can instantly turn any and all photographs and names into an on-line viral event.  Unless one bans all photographic technology from all one's scouting activities, the inevitable can happen.

[Cambridgeskip]

A balance always needs to be struck.

 

Photos are taken for a reason, for people to see. And if you want to promote your pack/troop/unit you need people who are not already members to see what they are missing.

 

The impression I have is that BSA is far stricter on photography than we are here in the UK. Here we find it quite variable from group to group. My group is probably the most open on photography. We take a ton of photos and post them publicly on our website. We of course would take down photos of any given child if the parents asked us to. Not a problem. Other groups are more private and post in password protected areas, that kind of thing. One thing we would never do though is post full names. It's just a complete no no. It's the first stage of possible cyber stalking. And to that effect (and the real point of this post) it's worth reading this post on 1st Facebook scout group (a quite UK dominated Facebook community for scouters). It shows what exactly someone was able to do with minimal information. Quite chilling and well worth a read, possibly by the scouts themselves.

[Col. Flagg]

It shows what exactly someone was able to do with minimal information. Quite chilling and well worth a read, possibly by the scouts themselves.

 

And if they know how to cover their tracks through anonymous proxy servers, trojans and zombie servers, you won't be able to find them.

 

Although I work in high tech my kids think I am a Luddite. That is, until I turned on their powered off iPhone and took a picture and sent it to them.   That showed them that my concerns over their privacy was not overblown. It also illustrated for them why we did not allow them to have social media accounts until they were 18. No snapchat, no flickr, no instagram. Now they don't even miss it.

[TAHAWK]

 

First, you assume it applies to Cyber Chip. There is nothing in the citation that says that.

 

Second, It says specifically "Scout units that plan to use social media should share the following Internet safety guidelines with Scouts, parents, and leaders, and all Scouts should abide by the following Internet safety guidelines and personal protection rules:" Saying all Scouts should abide by the guidelines applies to leaders since we are Scouters.

 

I think you are getting caught up in lay terms like "should" and "shall". If someone says you shouldn't do something, to most laymen that means don't. We're slitting hairs here.

Whenever it comes up, BSA says "shall" means required, and "should" is a suggestion.  BSA already split d'a hair.

 

I like asking the parents what they want.  Hard to see how that is wrong as a policy matter.  Practicalities may be another thing if opinions differ.

 

Kid's names and pictures appear with sports team stories every day locally.  Every Eagle here is pictured and named in the local papers, much to council's delight.  Often service projects get the same treatment.

 

Most molesters, like most murderers,  are not strangers.  

[CherokeeScouter]

We have three approaches for social media.  We use the website for information about the troop, who were are, what we do, when we meet, along with links to some forms, etc. It's the perfect site for someone who is Googling our area to find out about our troop.  We have pix, but no boys' names are mentioned.

 

All the specific stuff goes to a closed Facebook group or on TroopWebHost. Now we know there is an age limit in FB - I think it is 14 - so we make sure that everything is pushed out on WebHost.

 

I would say it's mostly parents on FB who like looking at pix of their kids. But like I said, it's a closed group. We really use WebHost for the heavy lifting. 

 

Seems to work pretty well. 

 

I think I actually published our social media policy on here about a year ago.  I just cut and pasted into a post. But I might be thinking of something else. (I'm getting old). 

Edited April 12, 2017 by CherokeeScouter