Slashdot Mirror
Would You Put a Tracking Device On Your Child?
Hugh Pickens writes "In 2007 businessman Russell Thornton lost his 3-year-old son at an amusement park. After a frantic 45-minute search, Thornton found the boy hiding in a play structure, but he was traumatized by the incident. It spurred him to build a device that would help other parents avoid that fate. Even though most statistics show that rates of violent crime against children have declined significantly over the last few decades, and that abductions are extremely rare, KJ Dell'Antonia writes that with the array of new gadgetry like Amber Alert and the Securus eZoom our children need never experience the fears that come with momentary separations, or the satisfaction of weathering them. 'You could argue that those of us who survived our childhoods of being occasionally lost, then found, are in the position of those who think car seats are overkill because they suffered no injury while bouncing around in the back of their uncle's pickup,' writes Dell'Antonia. 'Wouldn't a more powerful sense of security come from knowing your children were capable, and trusting in their ability to reach out for help at the moment when they realize they're not?'"
It's really simple. I expect my kid will actually want a phone. Leaving location services on is a condition of getting to keep the phone. If I ever check on him and find it is disabled, or is reporting him to be somewhere he is not, then he loses the phone.
The risk isn't worth the lost of privacy. If we teach our kids it's ok to be tracked anytime and always, it won't be long until all the kids wear government mandated trackingdevices. Which they get to keep to wear when they grown into adults. So no. It's not worth it, the risk is so small, don't do it. Keep an eye on your kids, make sure your kids know when to kick, bite and scream, but don't go tracking them with hardware. It's stupid.
Right, and because they know about it - they can give their phone to a schoolmate who plans on going to school, while they head off to the local crack den.
You aren't describing a problem that technology can fix.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
It would be essentially a phone, only with no ability to place calls—just data+GPS.
I don't really see why this is remotely controversial. The point at which the kid starts to think about disabling it is the same point at which the kid is probably capable of making rational decisions. A three-year-old is not yet capable of doing that, and having a device like this would be a major anxiety-reducer for parents. It's not likely to make the kid hugely safer, but who cares?
Back in the olden days, when my kid was very small and most phones didn't have GPS, she carried one of those mountaineer walkie-talkies with GPS when we were on vacation. She had fun playing with it and it helped guarantee that we could find her when she got lost in a crowd. Later when she got better at identifying her position, she carried a smaller walkie-talkie strapped to her wrist. (The first day she wore it, she wandered off during a parade and got separated from us. She called and said she was by "the big lemon" -- a lemonaid cart a few blocks away.)
Later, she carried a smartphone with GPS turned on. I periodically looked her up in Latitude, called her when her position was not where I expected. I did this because she traveled a lot between 12 and 18, to tutors, night classes, and various school functions.
Now she's 18, has her own car, and the GPS in her Bionic is routinely turned off, because, apparently, it's no longer my business to know where she is. I have learned to accept this. She will turn on the GPS if she gets lost or has an equipment failure, and I can then pinpoint her position and send help or go myself.
Regarding having the satisfaction of getting un-lost yourself, there is truth to that. At six or seven, she was quite proud of the fact that she was able to identify her position (the big lemon) well enough for us to reconnect with her. (That may not be the best example.) She liked knowing where *I* was (I keep gps on all the time) through Latitude, and enjoyed using this knowledge to find me. More recently, she called me, said she was lost trying to drive to a friend's house, was very frustrated, and wanted me to go get her. As it was 11:00 PM on a work night, I was reluctant to do this, as she had gas and wasn't in danger. She figured it out on her own and was quite proud of herself afterwards. (The solution, by the way, was quite clever: The problem was a hiccup in Google Maps, which steered her to the wrong place when she entered a certain address. She tried an address close to her goal, and that worked well enough to find her goal.)
So yeah, I recognized very early on that my daughter doesn't have the instinct to cling to a parent, and as a result, we were early adopters of technological solutions, upgrading as new solutions became available. These days it's hard to find a phone that *doesn't* have GPS. Parenthetically, I'm all for giving a kid a cell phone (one of the cheap ones) at an early age. For her to be able to contact me in emergencies trumps other considerations.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
That's why you imbed the device into his skin, cover it up with a cheezy tatoo and call it a day. Yeah my toddler has an anchor tattoo, big whoop.
Right, and because they know about it - they can give their phone to a schoolmate who plans on going to school, while they head off to the local crack den.
You aren't describing a problem that technology can fix.
Exactly. But this is a problem that proper parenting can fix. My daughter is 13. I can track her phone. I also know her bank password and can see the transactions on her debit card. Nearly every weekend she goes to her BFF's house to "study", but the two of them really go hang out at the mall (according to both the phone and the bank transactions).
Here is what I have done about the situation: nothing. Lying and deceiving your parents is a normal part of growing up, and the point of spying on your kids is not to prevent them from being normal, but to protect them from real dangers. If you use your spying to keep your kid from occasionally skipping a class, then you will not be able to protect them from the crack dealers.
Trust you kids. Let them do stupid stuff, make mistakes, and grow up. Only intervene when they make the big mistakes.
The tracker needs to go on mom and dad. Ask any 3 year old and they'll tell you "I never get lost but mom and dad get lost sometimes and they freak out when they do"
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
No, things are not more dangerous. Today, kids are statistically safer than they were in the 60's.. But, we now have 24-hour news that needs to fill time... Lookup the book "Free Range Kids".. You are 20 times more likely to kill your own child while driving, than to have a stranger take off with them. Yet parents still, every day, pile little junior into the SUV to drive 1 mile to school.. (placing a child in a car is the single worst thing you can ever do for their safety, apparently)
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children flat out says "stranger danger" is wrong, and very dangerous to teach kids: http://us.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2034
What are we going to do tonight Brain?