The Ethicist had an interesting (and in my mind well stated) item on online publishing this weekend.
After my niece's 1st birthday party, her parents sent videos and I uploaded them to YouTube for family members to view. My sister-in-law sent me a stern note saying that unless images of my niece are accessible only to people approved by her and my brother, I may not post them. YouTube lets you restrict access, so I complied, but isn't her request overprotective and unfair?For what it's worth, I am actually rather protective of my online presence. I have no photos online that I wouldn't mind a stranger seeing, and I don't post anyone (or anything about anyone, for that matter) who may be an unwitting subject.
Nathan's photos on this blog and on Flickr are not password protected, so the world at large can see them. I hope they are not being reused or misused anywhere, but one never knows. Of course, the Ethicist summarizes this as well:
The only videos more tedious than other people's vacations are videos of other people's babies. (I cower at the prospect of vacationing-baby videos.).Oh well. Maybe it's okay that I haven't posted a new picture in 10 days.
