Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Am I the only person that has a real big problem with software like this?
CWuestefeld:
I'm not a parent, but I have been a kid.
It seems to me that the development of any child travels through a world where different types of treatment are appropriate at different times. The youngest kids don't have the understanding of the things that populate the world, nor the thinking skills, to be able to make proper decisions on their own. As they age, they may know what's right, but not have developed the confidence to implement that knowledge. Later on, maybe we want to let them try their independence, but still be there as a safety net if things go wrong.
So I think that for small children blockers are appropriate, just as I keep my gun safe locked. It's too easy to do the wrong thing.
And toward the older end of the spectrum, perhaps we don't want to actively interfere with the child proving to himself that he can do the right things. But maybe it's still helpful to know what situations he's running into, in case there's a need to explain to him. Those animal snuff flicks, or something, certainly warrant a conversation with the kid, even when he has the normal reaction of revulsion.
Many kids have the wherewithal to ask their parents, or someone, about such experiences. Others don't. I'm reminded of a favorite song, "Silent Cries" by Fates Warning. The first two verses go like this:
Born to an air of apathy
Indifference shapes a fragile mind.
Questions formed at an early age
Beg answers unasked
Silent cries
Behind curious eyes resides
A child who cannot speak.
Silent cries
Years find a mind alone whose
Questions flow too deep for words.
Covered in a shroud of silence
Watching the world go by
Silent cries
--- End quote ---
Stoic Joker:
I personally think the child-monitoring "suggested use" for this product got tacked on - either as an afterthought - or with the intent of deflecting criticism and/or to defuse some potential legal complications for the developer down the road.-40hz (October 04, 2013, 01:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
And you're quite likely right. The rather key point that seems to be getting missed here is we're talking about a phone. A phone - more specifically - that said child in question has on or about their person. Think about that carefully for a moment...
It's a phone... So if you really need to know where your child is at... Just call the dam thing and ask them. If the kid will blow off your call, or flat out lie to you on the phone about their whereabouts...(tracking them is about as useful as pumping bullets into a dead hoarse, because)..the war has already been lost. The tracking software just makes it easier to confirm your failure. But it's not going to do a damn thing to or for the child, because they have no respect for you.
Lets pretend I'm a teenaged girl:
Mom I'm at Sally's house.
Mom confirms GPS location of phone.
I sneak out to get high/drunk/laid/run over by a train.
Sally's younger sibling answers mom's texts, and/or calls Sally's phone (we're both out - see above) if mom calls "to-many-times".
<Back to being me - Zoiks! That was weird>
What have we accomplished with said spiffy new technology??? Jack shit.
You either have a child that you know and trust...or you don't. Tracking them is just early training for subjugation by a tyrannical state.
It's a rite of passage to step outside the line at least once or twice...it's just part of growing up. And if you really do know your child, they'll give themselves away. How well you react to that will dictate when/if it happens again. Remember, making them afraid to step over the line is not the same as making them not want to step over the line.
wraith808:
Why? Because (from experience with that exact same thing) GPS will work where the phone won't.
I'll give you a real world example. My son knows that when he's with anyone that's not us, he has to call when he gets where he's going, and when he's on his way home. The first time he went farther away than the immediate area (we live in a rural area) he hadn't called after he should have been where he was going. We tried to call, and it went straight to voice mail. We checked the GPS, and saw that he was in the vicinity of where he was supposed to be.
Tell me which is more responsible. To check the GPS and know he's safe in the area where he's supposed to be? Or to just assume or just plain have no way to know whether he and his friend got into an accident on the way and were on the side of the road with no signal and no help in sight?
Yes, we got by without it before GPS and cell phones. But now that we have them, why not use them for the safety of our children?
And I'm not talking about all children. Do whatever you want to with your own. I'm all over Carlin's skit on that regard.
But the children is a whole lot different from my children. When you're talking about those children? The ones that are entrusted to my care? I'd let the world burn to keep them safe.
TaoPhoenix:
Interesting note:
Although the AlternativeTo webpage talked about monitoring children, I didn't see any mention of that on the product's decidedly unusual website. In fact, there was little mention of what it should be used for.
Sounds like an excellent tool for jealous significant others, jilted lovers, closet pedophiles ("She's not my 18-year old daughter daughter officer! She's only my live-in girlfriend's daughter!"), psychos, pervs, big-brother employers (on company issued smartphones), rogue police officials, wacky politicos, whistleblower-hunters, shady private investigators, and a raft of other weird types as well.
-40hz (October 04, 2013, 01:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
Bingo! "For the Kidz" is the sales meme. But then these companies are making tech that is just horribly abusable!
:o
Stoic Joker:
Why? Because (from experience with that exact same thing) GPS will work where the phone won't.-wraith808 (October 04, 2013, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Simple really, your question is predicated on the assertion that the child in question is in fact carrying said device. Because the GPS tracking feature only guarantees you know the location of the phone...not the person that is supposed to be carrying it. This is why GPS devices are bolted to felons that the court system is (allegedly...) trying to keep track of.
Kids tend to be very smart and rather devious little creatures. So you can either trust them to do the right thing because you've raised them well ... Or you can do your best to console yourself that all is well while staring at a little red dot on a map.
I'll give you a real world example. My son knows that when he's with anyone that's not us, he has to call when he gets where he's going, and when he's on his way home. The first time he went farther away than the immediate area (we live in a rural area) he hadn't called after he should have been where he was going. We tried to call, and it went straight to voice mail. We checked the GPS, and saw that he was in the vicinity of where he was supposed to be.-wraith808 (October 04, 2013, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, but you were already armed with trust understanding and foreknowledge of the situation. Those are the key points that really mattered...the red dot...really more of a placebo level confirmation (I'll explain).
Tell me which is more responsible. To check the GPS and know he's safe in the area where he's supposed to be? Or to just assume or just plain have no way to know whether he and his friend got into an accident on the way and were on the side of the road with no signal and no help in sight?-wraith808 (October 04, 2013, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
And here we get to the true crux of the matter. Because in reality...you still do not know. Because all you can truly confirm is that if there was an accident...the phone wasn't damaged.
Now, if the tracking was normally off...and a child had the option of turning it on (or it was/could be auto activated by an accelerometer) ... that would be an acceptable compromise. Because it gives them a send up a flair safety net, and a modicum of trust/control of the situation. While also giving you some level of true assurance that all is truly well (e.g. no news really is good news).
Yes, we got by without it before GPS and cell phones. But now that we have them, why not use them for the safety of our children?
-wraith808 (October 04, 2013, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not adverse to the technology...It's the force usage of monitoring that I find to be counterproductive.
But the children is a whole lot different from my children. When you're talking about those children? The ones that are entrusted to my care? I'd let the world burn to keep them safe.-wraith808 (October 04, 2013, 05:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Ah yes, other peoples kids...Eek! As it's obvious that you really do care, I'm quite sure yours are just fine. I just think the usage of this technology sends a bad message to the masses. As I mentioned before, if a child doesn't step over the line because they don't want to that's a good thing. But if the don't step over the line because they are afraid to...the end result is destined to fail. I've seen it happen many times when kids get out of a repressive culture and then just go bat shit crazy when they finally realize nobody is watching ... Too many of my childhood friends died that way.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version