Slashdot Mirror
GPS Wristwatch for Kids
1010011010 writes "A company called 'Wherify Wireless' has created a $400 watch with a built-in pager, GPS unit and wireless data connectivity. It's targeted at families with kids. According to their website, 'Wherify's GPS Personal Locator helps keep loved ones safe by combining Wherify's patented technology with the U.S. Department of Defense's multi-billion dollar Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites plus the largest 100% digital, nationwide PCS wireless network.' It includes a pager, clock, two-button '911' calling (parent can disable this), and remote-control keyfob (to lock and unlock it) for the parents. It is apparently water- and kid-resistant, and can be locked onto the wrist so that it cannot be removed (easily). $400 plus $35 a month... that's a lot more money than those stretchy wrist-leashes I see at the mall." There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
waterresistant I can believe.. now kid resistant.. THAT I gotta see..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I don't think that the locking is intended to stop the child removing the beacon; rather, I think the idea is to ensure that any abductor would not be able to remove it.
e d-by-a-paedophile market, I'd say that the locking makes perfect sense.
Given that most of the market for such gadgets comes from the oh-no-my-child-is-going-to-be-abducted-and-tortur
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
What is wrong with this? There is absolutely nothing more important to a parent than the safety of their child. Of course you're not going to tag your child with it 24/7 but if you're going to say Disneyland, or the beach or some other large public venue, it would be an excellent idea to place this on your child.
Would you want to lose your child because you were too busy being a conspiracy theorist and trying to think up reasons as to why tagging your child is morally wrong? No.. I didn't think so.
Sure, I've got no problems strapping it to a little kid at the beach (though, frankly, it's hardly necessary - child abduction by strangers is *very* rare). Its use with older children, though, concerns me greatly.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I'm always losing my watch, so this would be fantastic.. All I need now is one for my keys.
# ping johnny
PING 12.21.87.193 (12.21.87.193) from 12.21.87.194 : 56(84) bytes of data.
From 12.21.87.194: Destination Host Unreachable
From 12.21.87.194: Destination Host Unreachable
From 12.21.87.194: Destination Host Unreachable
Uh oh..
Take life easy: one bit at a time.
I think this is a really marvelous idea. Please don't mod me down as flamebait here, I've heard of some AWFUL things happening to kidnapped children. Out here in SoCal we had thousands and thousands of posters with Danielle Van Damme's picture on it until she was found, dead, and burned, in the boonies. I think the /. eds are too rabid about this with the constant slippery-slope arguments about how the government's going to mandate this on all citizens to enforce the dictatorship. Please. I think this company has a great idea, and if they can get the price down to something reasonable I think it would be great.
And while you're in the rabid dog civil rights mood, think about this. Danielle had every one of her civil rights taken by the creep who murdered her. On your guys' level, she did have all her privacy taken away by all the posters posted looking for her. This wristwatch idea could have _SAVED HER LIFE_. And in fact, _PROTECTED HER PRICACY_. This wristwatch is heavy on the scales of civil rights compared to some paranoid concerns. Accept it for what it is, don't bash it for something it's not.
beep! It's 10pm, do you know where your children are?
Yes, with 1m resolution..
This wristwatch is much more practical for this use.
You're either not a parent or forgotton how easy it is for a 2 or 3 year old to get lost. I have not yet met a parent who has NEVER lost sight of a child for a few seconds, even on reins they can wriggle out, or remove it when your attention is elsewhere - shopping is a classic example.
If you're in the UK, you'll remember Jamie Bulger? Do you suppose his parents would have had this device if they could?
Perhaps if you do have kids, and do momentarily lose sight of him/her and they tyhen go missing, you might change your mind. I sincerely hope it never happens to you.
We had a child wander off, took us 5 minutes to find him, i have never been so panic-struck in my life. It happens, even to the very best parents.
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Yes, that happens all the time...not. Why do you think that stuff makes big news? It's extremely rare. Your child will not be safe with this watch or the shock collar or the leash, or ... There is just no 100% safety and you have to accept that.
Statistically, children are most often abducted by someone they know. Kidnapping is very very rare according to crime statistics:
2000 Juvenile Justice report on kidnapping
1,214 kidnapping cases in the U.S. in 1997. That is a miniscule number and if you think big brother wrist watches are going to prevent them, you're deluding yourself into a false sense of safety.
I understand that parents want to protect their children, but in "the real world", abductions are exceedingly rare. "One tenth of one percent of all the crimes against individuals".
There are real problems that affect children and imiginary problems borne of paranoia. I believe that children are better served by targetting more statistically significant problems like poverty, drug abuse, parental abuse, and so on. And finally, don't forget that it's my neighborhood too when you whip out the "if it was your child!!!" bullshit. It's not that I don't care; I care very much. It's just that I'm realistic and concerned with more important problems that can actually be addressed. I find it ridiculous that I have to shoulder the burden of child paranoia by funding TV controls, CD labelling, and all that stuff, that does nothing. Get those kids out of that dysfunctional family with the alcoholic father that beats them or the drug-addicted mother that can barely afford food. I mean, really, _that_ is more reality than the kidnapping silliness.
-Kevin
A lot of folks are saying positive things about this because protects children against abduction.
This system offers a means for someone to totally track every movement of a child. While the parent is intended to receive the data, what prevents someone else from hijacking this data? Wouldn't it become easier than for a potential abductor to observe the habits of the child and choose a time when the band was known to be off?
Let's say that an abductor abducts a child with one of these things. What's to stop him from just wrapping something around the device to block the signal?!? It surely wouldn't be too difficult.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
> I have not yet met a parent who has NEVER lost sight of a child for a few seconds
Fair enough. You're a parent, you're out shopping, your kid suddenly disappears. Do you:
a) Call his/her name;
b) Find the nearest assistant and tell them you've lost your child;
c) Look for him/her, heading first towards the toy department;
d) Go find the nearest Internet cafe, log on, type in your account number, wait a few minutes for them to tell you that they can't locate the device because it's inside a large building...
Responsible parents wouldn't pick (d), even if their child did happen to be wearing one of these things. On top of which, I don't think the company would stay solvent very long if every parent who loses sight of their child for thirty seconds starts ringing them up demanding that they be found immediately. Unfortunately, I think the majority of parents who would buy these contraptions in the first place are the kind of people who would do exactly that.
The real use intended for this is locating children who have actually gone missing (i.e. who are feared abducted). In that scenario, I do not doubt for a minute that serious crimes could be prevented. But my personal feeling towards this company is one of revulsion - they are preying on the fears of parents for commercial gain.
Your child is hunreds of times more likely to die while crossing the street than be abducted and killed. So does that mean you're an irresponsible parent because you don't make your child wear luminous clothing and head-to-toe padding whenever they leave the house? Please.
</rant>
These sigs are more interesting tha
So, all that happens now, is that the kid *does* get abducted, and one of three things happens:
....
1. The abductor is an idiot and doesn't discover the 'watch'
2. The abductor manages to defeat the lock.
3. The abductor removes the kids hand *and* watch.
Either way, a determined abductor is not going to be concerned
gus
.. if only.
I saw a story on the local news about this product and it does work indoors. They have their own PCS network that works with the GPS to track the location even without a clear view of the sky. If you dig into the web site far enough the information is there as well.
This thing is actually a 2-way device like a cell phone. We all know it doesn't take GPS to find the location of a transmitter. If your phone will work there, this thing can be located.
I guess the question comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Sounds cold doesn't it? But really, this seems like a company that is trying to make a profit on fear. Trotting out the Jamie Bulger case only helps them in the fear-mongering.
Let's look at what they're offering for a service and the average scenario where you'd need it. A lot of lost/wandering children occur in large busy places. They get turned around or distracted by something and then they can't see their parent in the sea of people surrounding them. (To get an idea, walk into the local department store, get on your knees and then try to spot someone, then try this at Christmas time.)
So, kind wanders off, gets lost. Parents rightfully panic. Turn on the old homing beacon. Interesting, GPS doesn't work too good in that three story department building does it?
So, the big question is, does the product that is being offerred actually work? Looking at their web site they're offering a web lookup and a 800 number that will allow them to "give you the nearest street address". Wow, they give you the address of the mall. THAT was worth the $400 up front plus $35/month.
So, all that money spent. You're a good parent. But would it have done anything to decrease that 5 minutes of complete terror?
BTW, I'll be joining the parenting crowd in a few months myself so I'll try to see how much my attitudes about things like this change.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Here's my 2 cents -- while I agree with the privacy advocates that there limits (at some point kid's old enough to take care of himself, deserving of privacy, etc), I also think that for younger kids this device is very useful. When I was two, I followed my grandfather's beagle into the woods when he turned his back for a second. I was gone all afternoon, and luckily was found before dark.
I now live on the same property. It backs up to a huge state forest and mountains, and I hope my son (coming up on his first birthday now) will someday enjoy the same hiking, exploring, climbing and wandering that I did growing up (/. will be for rainy days!). A device like this would make me feel a LOT more secure about letting him ramble solo. Looking back, I did a lot of stupid things when I was 8 or 10, playing soldiers and running & jumping from rock to rock, climbing too high by myself in trees, not watching out for snakes on sunny rocks, etc. It's easy for a kid to get hurt and immobilized, and when you're talking about a couple thousand acres, finding them is not easy. Hell, this is exactly the kind of device that serious climbers, hikers and backpackers wear on purpose for exactly that reason - they want to be found if they're injured!
I want my kid to grow up competent and able to handle himself outdoors, and to feel that I trust him to go out exploring on his own (at an appropriate age), but at the same time, if you can ameliorate some of the risk through technology, why not? It's not like this device is going to be permanently implanted; at some point, they'll outgrow it.
My wife and I are expecting our first child in about three months. It'll be a couple of years before we have to worry about the wandering problem, but I, for one, am willing to give this product a long, serious look when that time comes. In fact, I had talked (half-jokingly) with a friend of mine about building something similar a few years ago.
Why am I interested? It's not that I need to know where he'll be 24/7. It's not because I want to track him as a teenager. It's because children disappear just often enough that it's something I'll worry about in the back of my mind until the day he leaves for college. And a device like this is something that might help prevent that from happening. I really see it as something where, if I used it, it would be during the toddler years - when he could wander off on his own in a flash without thinking twice about it. I'm more worried about his getting lost than I am about someone snatching him, and the odds are much better that he'll get harmlessly lost. But it's still a nice way to let child's first watch increase his mom and dad's comfort level.
Start putting them in adult watches, and then I'll worry about privacy issues. When my child is old enough to be aware of privacy, it's time to give him a regular watch.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
...psychopathology, do you? Since most abusers don't choose their victims at random (more than 90 percent of victims know their attackers), this logic is badly flawed and is a good reason why this device is a bad idea, since it fosters a false sense of security.
Virg
The best way to protect your child or yourself is to give them a de-activated cell-phone.
Go out and but a cell-phone (can be damn cheap) and use it for the first month or whatever they require. After that, cancel the service. Far too few people realize that even an unserviced cell-phone MUST be able to call 911. Older cellphones might be difficult to locate, but newer ones come with GPS with the very intent that emergency personell may locate the origin of the emergency call.
Now, that may not be an option for extremely young children, but after they can talk, the first thing every kid has hammered into his head is how to call 911.
So, you have a much less potentially intrusive option, which just happens to not cost you anything per month.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
So, why can't the abductor (who is overwhelmingly a non-custodial parent, other relative, or boyfriend/girlfriend[*]) just cut the thing off with a pair
of snippers?
Even if it's the classic melodrama of seedy pervert hanging around the mall looking for the random abductee, it's a case of 1) find person; 2) grab person; 3) snip off watch; 4) toss in garbage.
Meanwhile the idiotic parents, completely self-absorbed in their deluded state of irresponsibility, just think that Johnnie is taking an awfully long time at Sbarro's...
[*] in this situation the kidnapped has run away or eloped, and the parents attempt to stop it from happening by filing charges of kidnapping on the other party.
Given that most of the market for such gadgets comes from the oh-no-my-child-is-going-to-be-abducted-and-torture d-by-a-paedophile market, I'd say that the locking makes perfect sense.
Yes, but look at the facts. Parents are SO worried about strangers abducting their kids, but it would appear that parents and other adults they are in regular contact with are a FAR greater threat to kids than strangers are.
I don't have any stats to quote yet, but most of the time you read about a court case involving sexual abuse or abduction, it is a parent or trusted adult who is the culprit. THAT is the real tragedy.
We warn kids about strangers, we want to "street-proof" our kids, but the most dangerous people are the ones they know.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
This right here is a perfect example of why so many good kids go bad. You can't rule your house with an iron fist .. that sort of extreme is just as likely to result in rebellion as giving them 'too much' privacy.
A parent-child relationship should be built on trust. Just like a husband-wife relationship. Do you think it's a great idea to invest in a bunch of technology to constantly check up on your wife to make sure she remains faithful?
When I was a kid, if my parents had imposed this sort of restriction on me, it would have sent the clear message that they don't trust me one damn bit. Maybe other people would become submissive to this sort of thing, but I'd be more of the type to reflexively trust my parents as little as they trusted me.
Sure, you should know what your kid(s) is/are up to, and of course you have the right as the owner of the house to know what is going on under your roof. But to enforce things in this fashion is asking for disaster just as much as being a lazy, uncaring parent. There is no peace of mind in extremes. Building a trusting family is the only answer.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
Whack the kid over the head from behind; remove watch at leisure. [etc]
The website clearly says that interfering with the device automatically initiates a tracking of the last location of the device and informs the parents.
possible abuses, not by law enforcement, but by psychotic parents
Again, RTFM. The parents must specifically request for the child to be tracked--I don't think they're going to sit in front of their computer and on the phone, constantly requesting for child tracking. No doubt this is only used for stress situations, like an alarm company does--my 10 year old was supposed to walk to my neighbor's house, and is nowhere to be found, etc. I don't think any parent's going to be locking these Pikachu-looking devices on a 17 year old's wrist. And if they are, the kid definately has bigger problems to worry about than privacy.
Look, all doubters who love to flame based on Michael's half-baked criticism, just read the damn web pages for these stories before you go on an orgy of digital/children's rights protesting.
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
Yeah, why spend your time adding information and opinions to the topic when you can spend it looking for more redundant writeups contributed by unpaid volunteers.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It was called SA. The Gvmt turned SA off a couple of years ago - there was even a story about it here. But even without SA, the GPS signal isn't good enough to get better than about 5-10m. Enter differential GPS. These are an additional set of sattelites that know their position exactly. They monitor the GPS network and then send out separate corrections to the GPS signals. This allows for much greater vertical accuracy, and gives a 1-5m accuracy.
Cheers!