A sibling comment said “everyone is free to do what they want”. I agree with that, but that doesn’t make everything good.
In general I’m struck at how many people’s sense or “right” leans so hard on what’s available for sale.
"Can I somehow put a tracking device on my young child?" is a question I've thought about for decades since before I had a young child, and now that I do I've been looking for something that will work for him when he's still little.
Obviously as he grows up the plan is to ramp off the updates - i.e. I don't need to know where he is at all times if he's old enough to know to text me if he'll be out late.
Kids certainly reach a stage where not texting you they’ll be out late is an important part of development. Teenage rebellion and all that. I loved telling my mom not to wait for me and staying out way past when she said she expects me to be back.
Good for you and those like you, it's nice when something long-awaited finally drops. I was speaking of the people who, if prompted 20y ago, would have said "that's creepy" but are now cool to track their kids, set up cameras around their house that are controlled by 3rd parties, and be cool with a firm tracking everything they watch, etc.
I'm mostly confused how it seems there's pretty significant evidence that helicopter parenting[0] has resulted in poor outcomes for kids[1] but then we act as if the reason it fails is because we aren't paying __enough__ attention.
I am sympathetic to parents wanting to protect their kids, but if the objective is to turn children into adults that are independent and self-sufficient, then a parent also needs to learn to trust their kids (at different levels of course. Clearly there's a balance).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent
[1] To be clear, this metastudy concludes that there is insufficient statistical power due to scale, the evidence is in the direction of causing harm and of course, there is reason to believe this is a reasonable outcome. It's worth noting the part that says
Overprotective parenting and anxiety: No studies found reduced anxiety following overprotective parenting
I have never been accused of overparenting, yet I preordered one of these google watches. I expect to use it on outings like amusement parks and ski trips. We'll see how it goes.
Also, the Samsung network of devices is quite comparable to Apple's, apparently a lot of people own Samsung phones, TV sets or other devices. So if you have a Samsung phone, give their tags a try, it's definitely a lot cheaper than switching everything to Apple.
> allows kids to roam farther unsupervised, then it fosters independence.
I think you understand then. It depends how the devices are used, obviously. I think no one is really objecting to the utility of being able to use such a device when there is a serious situation, but rather that the reality is that a very large number of parents use these types of devices to constantly surveil their children. There's a difference.
> I have never been accused of overparenting
I'm not accusing you of being one. In context this would depend on your actions and no one can realistically judge that without actually knowing you. But there is a clear general trend. No one knows if you're part of that, so don't be quick to assume you're being singled out.
And of course, I wouldn't use the "no one has accused me of" as a meaningful metric. People might not tell you (I mean every parent knows how common other parents gossip, right?), you might not hear, or it is quite common for these types of things to foster echo chambers as similar parenting styles naturally gravitate towards one another. But of course, no one is accusing you of anything, because this __cannot__ be known without significantly more information. This paragraph was only mentioned because it appears you feel like people are calling you out, so it notes a possibility of how the observations can be in perfect harmony.
Just FYI, this expression is a form of stylized understatement and not meant to be taken literally.
The problem is that, from the child's perspective, there is no difference. The parent can -- genuinely and sincerely -- tell the child that they'll only use the tracking in an emergency, but the child still knows that ever-present tracking means they don't have the freedom to be where they want to be, absent their parents' knowledge and permission.
I was a relatively "good kid" growing up, and mostly did what my parents told me to do, and mostly asked permission for the things I wanted to do that (from my parents' perspective) required permission. But sometimes I did my own thing, went where I wanted, and didn't ask permission. And my parents would have punished me had they found out. I wouldn't want to grow up in a society where I would be too afraid to do those things, because my parents had the capability to track my every movement.
I think we have a different definition of 'unsupervised'; I understand it to mean "no supervision/oversight" where I guess you mean "out of sight"?
Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overparenting", and even if I did I don't know your situation so I wouldn't feel comfortable charging you with it. That said, if I were to put such a device on my kid I'd feel I was doing something wrong.
Regardless of the choice the parent makes, odds are the kid is going to grow up just fine. There was no need for OP to make an incendiary comment.
Honest question.
Doesn't this depend on how the tracking is used, not on whether the tracking is present at all?
My wife and I share our location with each other and I don't actually know if she uses my location at all. If she does, she doesn't mention it. I use it occasionally to get a sense for when to expect her back or to find her when we need to meet up for something.
When our kids are old enough to have phones I imagine that we'll add them to the location-sharing circle we have and continue to use it in much the same way. For us it won't be about monitoring them at all times, it's just a helpful convenience for running a household.
Of course. I think most people would agree that this would be an implicit assumption not worth explicitly mentioning. Do you think that's non-obvious? To me it seems rather obvious since in the extreme case if you bought the device and never actually used any of the features (but still put it on your kid) then clearly it'd have no effect. There's clearly a lot of gray area in between.
But I think it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking. Because the value/utility is significantly lower for those that don't (we can agree that these factors are significantly related, right?).
From your specific example, I don't think anyone arguing against this type of device would be worried about that type of usage. My partner and I often share locations with one another, but honestly we often forget we shared it and end up literally asking instead lol. But my experience has been that we are the abnormal ones and others use the feature much more.
I think you would find that you are the normal ones. My family has had it turned on for over a year now. I don't know I have ever used it to find my wife and I use it ~ once a month on my oldest now that he is venturing out on his own to ensure he got to where he was going. I have discussed it with several friends / acquaintances and their use is similar to mine.
I think your assumption that everyone actively tracks each other and over uses it is assigning an edge case to the majority. Its a simple safety feature to most, there when its needed.
your assumption that "it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking" is flawed and I don't think based on most people experience.
As other posters have pointed out, no one really knows anything about anyone else’s life from an HN post.
That said, the whole point of the panopticon is that if the prisoner doesn’t know when they’re being observed, they’re effectively always observed. It’s a concern that’s at least worth giving serious consideration, not dismissing out of hand because it happens to work for you and your wife.
Just a note that I don't think anyone is thinking of these watches as being for teenagers. They appear targeted at much younger kids, 8-11ish.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents who have given them smartphones and require their kids to always share their location with them, all the way through their teen years.
Yeah I think this is an important point and I think it is also worth adding that this is the same premise of 1984. Not that Winston (or anyone) is being specifically surveilled by a physical person at any given time, but rather that Big Brother __could__ be watching/listening at any time.
And it is important to also stress the difference in power dynamics between husband/wife and parent/child. These are apples and oranges; both round fruit but different categories at an important level. Like you said, the teen is learning who they are while a partner has already made significant strides in this direction and (hopefully) has already learned autonomy. Children must make mistakes, but the goal is to prevent large ones. Difference between getting a burn by touching the stove and catching oneself on fire.
If you do you know that the main goal is to keep your kids safe and healthy. Everything else generally comes 2nd. Now there are of course extremes to this but for most the use of tracking technology is not intended as a crutch for the child but for the parent. So they know the kid is safe. Little Jimmy for the most part is not thinking if I get lost Mommy knows where I am. If they are out, they are free.
A kids ability to be self sufficient is very unlikely to be damaged by a nervous parent peaking at the location of their dot on their phone a block or 3 away.
This type of reasoning is not sound, because you can draw the line literally wherever you want and still make that argument. "Kid isn't allowed to do anything alone without a parent present" satisfies that statement, but I wouldn't want to be a teenager living in a household like that.
> Little Jimmy for the most part is not thinking if I get lost Mommy knows where I am. If they are out, they are free.
I don't think I'd agree with that. Maybe when they're 4 years old, sure. But 8 years old? 10? 12? 15? At some point they will feel stifled, knowing that Mom and Dad can find out exactly where they are with a few taps on their phone. Maybe the parents will decide the tracking is no longer necessary before they get to that point. But maybe not.
Or hell, maybe they won't feel stifled, even by the time they're 15, because pervasive surveillance will be so normalized to them that it would feel strange not to be tracked. IMO that's the worst possible outcome.
To play devil's advocate here - my wife and I, and several of friends that we frequently travel with, all cross-share each other's locations on google maps permanently. Doesn't really feel stifling, and it's come in handy quite a few times. Why is this a terrible outcome?
I think everyone imagines the overbearing parent micromanaging their kids' lives. Maybe the problem isn't the tracking, it's the overbearing parents. As an intellectual exercise, would you rather be a kid of overbearing parents who didn't have tracking technology, or permissive parents that always know where you are?
The grandparent poster literally said that it's the worst possible outcome if the 15-year-old _wants_ to be part of a location sharing group. If they still want it, what's the issue?
I feel like people are bringing a lot of personal baggage from their upbringing into this conversation.
> I feel like people are bringing a lot of personal baggage from their upbringing into this conversation.
Of course? Are we not supposed to learn from the mistakes of our parents? And we're supposed to be aware of the nuances and subtleties that exist.
But I'm confused over your point. Is it "I know people will abuse this, but __I__ won't?" Because I do not think that is a great excuse. You instead need to argue about percentages and the harm. That's the ratio that matters. Because you, and your children, are not the only entities in the world. Of course people bring in their personal experiences. Why should we not be learning from others? Our experiences are limited and not all encompassing. Ignoring others experiences is naive and egotistical. I'm not ignoring yours, I just think the rate of abuse and the harm it does is not worth it. I do recognize there is utility, and I think most here do. It's a common discussion in anti-authoritarian groups about how surveillance becomes pervasive through mostly good intentions. After all, is that not what the path to hell is paved with? And this is why I'd refuse to call you bad, evil, or ill intentioned. In fact, I think you have good intentions. I just think the world is complex and there is more that we need to think about than our individual cases and people similar to us. If it was that easy, we would already be living in a much better world.
My view is tracking might have its place in certain situations, but almost certainly not in a blanket way, and always with an understanding of the threat model.
In my observation, the inability to let a child off on their own without any form of supervision or in this case tracking, means that the parent is not ready to let go of that child when they are an adult and need to be given the freedom to succeed or fail on their own.
I am admittedly biased. My sister was tracked from about 12 until this day and she's now 26, I believe. She gets upset when my mother isn't checking in on her. Likewise, my mother can't go more than a few hours without calling my sister. She will regularly check her phone to see where my sister is and then comment on her whereabouts and call or text her to ask why she's where ever.
Likely there are parents who are going to be able to handle these tools responsibly, but I am not sure there is a responsible way to use these.
But I am also biased against them, hopefully I am wrong. I saw how my sister has turned out from having a late-blooming helicopter parent and my wife (one of a dozen kids, so very hands off parents) and I have tried to give our own kids age appropriate freedoms.
I have been amazed by historic accounts of children. One example that sticks out to me is a letter a man in Texas wrote to his brother. The man's wife had died and he had to take care of some affairs in Texas. The man's brother lived in Kansas and he was writing because he'd sent his two children (12 & 13) to Kansas with his herd of cattle to sell. I don't think I'd ever be there, but I do think children are more capable and trustworthy than we give them credit for and we don't give children enough room and as a result we have some extremely childish adults who have never been given the chance to fail and get back up.
Every 12yo I know has a cellphone already. This watch is not aimed at them.
I’m really sorry about your son’s experience. Getting lost can be terrifying for a kid.
But being lost happens (eg I was lost in hunting woods at 8yo), and many commenters have shared their experiences. Being scared and eventually overcoming the fear is a quintessential growing experience.
Obviously there are countless caveats because each kid is different, and depends on the level of danger etc