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

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.

Why? Because (from experience with that exact same thing) GPS will work where the phone won't.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

I wish you guys would distinguish in your arguments between the case for monitoring a child's cellphone/gps with vs without their knowledge.  To me this is the critical factor distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate.

I politely disagree. To monitor is to send a message you don't trust the person being monitored. And that is corrosive to a relationship regardless of whether the distrust is open or covert. And doing whats "legal" (i.e. what you can get away with) is not the necessarily the same thing as doing what's right.

Much like the NSA's repeated insistence that everything it does is "within the law" it's still all word games.

The fundamental distinction is whether or not you believe someone can be trusted. Once that decision has been made it just becomes a matter of choice of which preemptive actions will be taken plus some spin control afterwards.

I'm still old fashioned enough to not accept somebody needs to "prove" their innocence or integrity in advance. I judge a person for what they've done or not done. Not for something they might someday do. And I flat out reject any attempt at prejudgements based on a hunch or act of imagination fueled by paranoia and one's personal hangups or grudges.

Plus I think there's a knowledge paradigm problem for teenagers. They're used to being "babied" "oh look how cute you drew a horsey in crayon", until one day they break critical mass and suddenly they connect enough skill to go "yeah, look, how cute, I have hardware access to the phone and if I jailbreak it and use a 0day exploit, your monitoring app doesn't work, how cute."

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.

Just like anything else.  It's all related to the use and the foundation of respect.  I trust my kids.  But I verify... not because of a lack of trust, but because I don't necessarily trust everyone else in the world, nor their perceptions of the situation.

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).

It gives an idea that they're in the area, so that even after he was late getting back, the panic button wasn't raised.  I talked with him about the fact that even though he didn't have reception, he could have (and should in other situation) look for another phone (which is what I had to do before the age of cell phones).  There was also the matter of being late.  But the tenor of not knowing at all was removed.

It's been well proven that the first few hours after anything happens with kids are the most important.  So in the case that something untoward happens, I want to not be waiting thinking everything is ok, but to give every advantage I can.

Even if it is "your kids" (insert strongly worded language what one might do to protect "your kids"), I still think that's beginning to slide down the wrong path. Particularly for Teenagers is where it all gets fuzzy.

I think that if there is a meta-theme where the parents have to have Always On monitoring, that resentment will simmer "nice and fine" until it blows up like a volcano. Then in the resulting emotional explosion is when it gets really dangerous because the kid will be in Rebellion Mode!

Plus these monitoring solutions are "lazy" - "I do nothing, I know every step you make". The whole country isn't one gang war zone. And as that resentment builds, the kid will actively try to break the app himself.

Rob Malda of Slashdot fame posted an anecdote once that his parents tried to reprimand something he did as a child, and took away his computer, so he logged into his friend's computer or something.

Then what happens when the kid turns 18? That's why college sees a lot of bumpy stuff, because suddenly after living in a virtual walled room, all that goes away and then the kid has had no practice taking his baby steps to live a real life.

You're missing the whole thing about respect.  Just like anything else, it can be used in the wrong way.  And there are slopes all around us, so that's no excuse either.  We talk about things.  And I make sure that they understand the purpose behind things, and can have a safe environment to express themselves and what they feel.  And they have.  And when they do, I take that into account.  That's respect.  And that's the big difference between altruistic and non-altruistic monitoring- respect.

Monitoring your kids location is entirely appropriate for 8-year olds, and very far from "corrosive".

The responsibility for knowing where your 8-year old is one thing. But I completely reject the notion that some smartphone equivalent of a home-arrest ankle monitor is either appropriate or necessary to accomplish that.

Additionally, how can you ever be sure you, as the parent, are the only person with access to the information that software provides? It's closed source - so you only have the developer's word who has access. And developers have happily lied about such things before. Look at what we've since learned about how far you can trust a privacy policy from Google, Microsoft, and most of the other biggies in the wake of the Snowden revelations.

This is a dangerous product in that it teaches people, at a very young age, that it is somehow perfectly acceptable for you (or others) to electronically monitor another human being purely for your own peace of mind.

Sorry...it doesn't get more corrosive than that.

But that's ok. I'm sure Uncle Sam is all for it. So that should be assurance enough (for those who are still concerned) that it's completely "ok" to hang an electronic snoop on your kids. That will go a long way towards soothing any anxiety they may have when the government starts doing it to them as adults about twenty years from now.

^Granting the horror story (albeit real) scenarios you're offering, why not simply avail yourself of virtually every smartphone's "find device" feature? And also let the ubiquitious "Timmy" simply call home of there's a problem? Why do we need a keystroke recorder, a websites visited logger, and all the other things that come with this product if our only real intent is to know where a child is and provide them with a mechanism to phone home or call for help?

Of course, you could just watch your kid and not farm it out to a device. But I suppose that wouldn't work with the lifestyle many parents choose to pursue for themselves (and impose on their children) these days.

FWIW, last I heard, FBI statistics indicate that the overwhelming bulk of the abductions, along with the murder, physical abuse and sexual assault against minors, are carried out by immediate family members, relatives, and "trusted non-family members (i.e. close friends/lovers of the parent(s), their doctors, school employees, and members of the clergy) rather than that legion of roving nameless predators "we all know" are out there everywhere you turn.

So if you grant the FBI isn't making things up here, perhaps what most needs to be monitored (for Timmy's protection mind you) isn't Timmy himself, but rather his parents, grandparents, aunts & uncles, cousins, siblings, and the family's close personal friends and (unfortunately) their doctors, educators and clergy?

Yes there are the Ambers who are snatched off the street. And that's certainly something to be upset about. But the single biggest potential threat to a child's safety and physical well-being seems to be his own family circle rather than strangers. Talk to any child protective agency in any state you'd care to pick if you don't believe it. And that's very important to keep in mind. Because if the goal is to protect children, we're looking for threats in the least likely places while ignoring the documented danger right under our own noses. Apparently because the actual reality is far too disturbing for most people to contemplate.

Depressing thought isn't it?

And just because there is one way to do such things (the trace the phone bit) does that mean that's the only way you'd want to do it?  Is no one else allowed to provide solutions that might be useful?

Not in my perfect world they ain't!

But since I'm not in charge here - and my perfect world is a very small and wholly imaginary place - that shouldn't bother anybody.

^Actually, no... I'm not.

Just sayin'  

I didn't say something like this shouldn't be allowed to be created - not that you could prevent it anyway. My issue is with the mindset of the people who would employ something like this.

And FWIW, something like this is likely to he illegal in some jurisdictions. There have been cases where courts have determined technology like this goes beyond the remit of being a parent. So I'm not the only person who is concerned about leaving the use of something like this solely to the "discretion" of a parent.

Is it a bad idea to monitor small children that are prone to getting lost?

No, it's not a bad idea to monitor small children, in fact it's a really good one. But what's wrong with monitoring small children the old fashioned way? You know...actually watching them? Small children rarely get lost when they are properly supervised.

Quote from: Renegade on October 06, 2013, 01:55 AM

Is it a bad idea to monitor small children that are prone to getting lost?

No, it's not a bad idea to monitor small children, in fact it's a really good one. But what's wrong with monitoring small children the old fashioned way? You know...actually watching them? Small children rarely get lost when they are properly supervised.

Because every once in a while, your attention may stray for more than 3 seconds, which is twice as long as it takes a kid to do something unexpected.

Paying attention to your kids isn't something that an app can replace, but an app can help.

I'm not trying to advocate people schluff off their parental responsibilities on an app.

For example, if the kids go to play outside, that's perfectly normal. Kids go to play outside so mom or dad can cook dinner or clean the house or whatever. And maybe the kids might even pay attention to you when you say "do go over there". But who knows? A stray cat may be around, and it might "go over there", and simply provide too much temptation for the kids to resist. That's not a matter of bad parenting - it's a matter of "shit happens" that you can't reasonably predict.

With a "virtual fence" built into an app where you could define geographical limits, you could get a warning that little Johnny has just hopped the fence and is heading towards the river where he saw the cat head off to. He's been told not to go near the river without you, but... would you rather be able to get a warning or not?

Or perhaps the pond nearby is frozen over, and you know that it only being -2 outside, it's just not safe to go out on. A virtual fence placed around the pond might be useful, because no matter how often you tell kids anything, something will happen, and you cannot supervise kids 100% of the time. You have to place a certain degree of trust in kids, and sometimes, that trust will be broken.

Who here has fallen through the ice before? On small ponds the ice can be a several inches thick at the edges, and get thinner out towards the middle. A thick bit of edge ice can be a great confidence builder, spurring you on to go further out onto the ice. Stamp your foot? Sure solid enough here. Go on a bit further out. But what did mom say about the pond? Nah... what does mom know? You can clearly see just how strong the ice is... A bit further... Which is all fine if the pond is only a couple feet deep... usually. But with larger ponds, lakes or rivers, you don't get the chance to make that mistake a second time.

Or do you chain your kids to a post in the basement because they'll be safe there?

It's all fine and dandy to talk about "good parenting" and "proper supervision" and have lofty ideals, but the reality is that no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to live up to that 100% of the time. An app can help possibly catch a problematic situation when (not if) your attention lapses.

I've got a good example of a situation where monitoring software simply isn't likely to help.

At the moment I'm working on a large project for an MMO game. The target audience includes younger kids, probably down to around 12 or so.

It's a fantasy type game with monsters, zombies, etc. etc.

However, a lot of the stuff in there is seriously dark. And I don't mean dark like Diablo or Warcrack. This is very different. Much, much darker. Stuff that kids really shouldn't be exposed to. Stuff that makes GTA seem almost tame. Think more along the lines of Rob Zombie ^ 2.

The game initially looks like any other typical fantasy MMO. But what's inside... wow. Just wow.