This. We posted no (zero, zilch, nada) photos of our kids online anywhere. Our kids both have an online presence, but we taught them to use avatars and pseudonyms. The only photos of either of them online come from clubs outside home and school, and those tend to be group photos of entire groups of kids.

My kids are now old enough, and understand enough, to decide for themselves when and where they want to expose their true identities.

What bothers me here is this: our kids understand the issues as well as any teens can - because I work in IT, and made a point of teaching them. Most people, and most people's kids, have no clue how their information can be used and abused. The lack of regulation, the lack of privacy, the lack of corporate responsibility in this area is just appalling.

I don't post pics of my kid on FB, precisely because she might not want to be an exhibitionist when she's older. When she's old enough to ask for a FB account of her own (or whatever company) we can dsicuss it then.

Also... as they say, if you're not paying for the product, you ARE the product, and she doesn't need to be the product yet.

By recording and publishing our children's every dental visit, afternoon recital or poopie diaper, we are removing any possibility of their future privacy.

We're not creating a generation that will be blasé about publicity. We're creating a generation that is going to be obsessed with privacy.

Not to mention that most teens, especially, do not want to be reminded that they were ever children or babies in the first place. Respect that.

I don't entirely agree. I certainly don't post every little thing online. However, with a lot of wide-spread family, I do post a few on FB only (the Halloween ones are quite popular). Many of my relatives like to make collages or notepads, etc with the kids' images, and it makes it easy.

That said, as my kids get older (eldest is 8), I am ratcheting down what and how much I post simply because the kids are more identifiable (faces change a lot less per year than at age 2!).

With my older child, I now ask, "Do you mind if I put this on FB so Grandma, Grandpa, etc can see it?"

I think there is a space between nothing online at all and every trip to the doctor/dentist/zoo/playground/park/ballgame/etc level.

I think the most important thing is for parents to ask, "would I want this online if it were a picture of me?" when the kids are little (ask the kids themselves as they get older).

Considering the child's feelings is important, but so is teaching moderation and the like. They will probably have some version of LinkedIn or a corporate website where they'll need to have a photo online. Posting on FB occasionally (assuming you don't friend everyone in the world or have your profile set to "public"), can be a good teaching opportunity about appropriateness... it can ALSO be a good way to get kids thinking about how they look to others.

"would I want this online if it were a picture of me?"

But it isn't a picture of you, and what parents may think is absolutely adorable, the kids themselves may think is geeky, embarrassing, unflattering, etc. That's Amy's point: when the kids are little, they still have a right to privacy, regardless of what you want.

And even when they're old enough to give an opinion, what they say at 11 may be very different from how they feel when they're 15. If they have no one to blame but themselves, that's one thing; they may learn a hard lesson that way. If they have their parents to blame, well ... I don't have kids but if I did, "you showed no respect for my privacy when you posted all of those photos of me" isn't something I'd want laid at my door.

I post pictures of my kids on FB, but none that involve nudity or would otherwise be thought embarrassing. For instance, my youngest two just had birthdays. I posted a picture of DD with one of her presents (a pink pony ride-on toy) and DS hugging his stuffed Toothless dragon. My oldest DS loves wearing tutus and hairbows around his neck like a bowtie. We have numerous photos of him like that we think are cute, but we don't post them on FB because he might find them embarrassing when older.

I post a lot of pictures of my daughter on FB because most of my family lives thousands of miles away, and that's the most convenient way to share them. Maybe my decision will result in the need for therapy later, but I doubt it. For me, it's on par with showing pictures of her in my wallet.

Whatever my 18-month-old's "rights" are, as her mother, I get to make lots of decisions now that she wouldn't necessarily make for herself when she's older. When she is old enough to have an opinion, I will respect it.

I think there are two camps of online "kid pic sharing." There is the "funnier the better/everything goes" and there's "for grandma/family" sharing.

I think the parents here who share fall into the later category. It's hard to be embarrassed about general photos like school yearbook pictures and "Susie before her dance recital"... and they are also the ones most likely to be on display on the walls of the home for all the first dates and friends to see anyway (and often found in wallets). They are also the ones family usually want to see.

Let's not forget that, even if parents do NOT post anything online, that won't keep the kids' pictures off the internet. They will be in group images from Little League, class photos, Uncle Joe's wedding, other kids' birthday party pics, etc. that OTHER people will post online.

I think banning bland pics from going up (unless the kid doesn't want it) is heading toward Special Snowflake land. If we have to fret about the potential bruise from something as benign as toddler pictures (again, not blatantly embarrassing ones), how can we expect them to cope when somebody calls them stupid or ugly? The worry seems disproportionate to me, especially for something so far out of the parents' control.

None of you have mentioned that this publicity can be used for data mining. Think of the password questions, such as, "What was the name of your first pet?"

You gave that away. Now your kids can't use that.

I am on here and on Facebook with an alias because my work computer has a 4 TB database attached to it, and I didn't want anybody sending email to me. It is a minor obstacle to overcome, but it is still there.

Right. I'm not always sure how identity thieves work, but I suspect putting baby photos online would help them - even though it might be more complicated than usual, since it IS a baby we're talking about and not an adult with a bank account.

I agree with Shannon and with MonicaP.
I put pictures that are not embarrassing, that mark milestones, and with kiddo's permission. Everyone that knows us knows names and particulars - I use the term "kiddo" with deliberation.

My problem is with my ex posting random pictures using names and with all kinds of details that I don't use. He is hardheaded and obstinate, and refuses to moderate his FB usage just because I (on kiddo's behalf) ask him to.

Life is one great big compromise.

(and, enough people have shared their "secret" question's answers to make that method unreliable, anyway. That whole method of validation will have to go away soon.)

Um... posting pictures of your child does not give away the first pet's name.

I think maybe I missed a step to get there.

Shannon, wake up.

People post ridiculous amounts of data in Facebook, not just kid pix - they absolutely must include details of the day to tell others how happy they are.

Even if you manage to escape prosecution for posting pictures of your own underage daughter online, it is still not a good idea to describe her school day and how little Muffy is so excited to see her come home.

I see a lot of people here are missing the point. The "cute Halloween pics" will be embarrassing in the future and can't be taken back, ever, no matter how much they are getting beat up over it in school. The "but I am sharing it because it is convenient" is bull, they have email addresses, I know this as fact because facebook and twitter require one for signup.

Finally the "but I am the mom/dad so bugger off I can do what I want" is the whole point. Parents are doing things that their kids will get beat up over and you post it because your bundle of joy did a stinky. It needs to stop because of people like you that don't see there are much bigger implications for them than there will ever be for you. There are not many things you normally do that will impact the next 80 years of their lives in ways you can't think of now.

Radwaste,

I don't disagree that people post ridiculous amounts of stuff on Facebook, but the fact that some - heck MOST - people do it does not mean that EVERYONE does it. That argument doesn't hold water.

As for it being visible to the masses for the indefinite future... I don't see a difference between FB and other online images. Cloud storage, dropbox, email servers, and the rest are all hackable and once you send the image to somebody, even if it is in email, you have lost all control over it just as if you posted it on a public profile.

I feel, therefore, that there is little difference between posting an image on Facebook with a "Friends Only" setting and sending an email. Now, making an image public, I would agree. The only real argument, in my mind, is that FB has a habit of changing it's policies on privacy every 24 hours.

I believe that there is a middle route that allows for some convenience and reasonable protections for the child's future dignity. School photos, group photos (the whole soccer team, etc), and the like are highly unlikely to cause future embarrassment. Similarly with photos of a new baby (they all look alike) that is untagged and has generic text such as "New arrival."