EDIT: toned down the term I used.

Way to rationalize stalking away.

They do the same in Chris Hansen's show. They are there only to check upon the safety of the minor.

I do not see how following her every step would help her though.

We are usually in a call whenever she is outside, but I feel like even this is futile were anything bad to happen.

I remember watching my sister and her husband calling each other frequently with, "How far are you away from home?" and just kind of scratched my head. (I think I have sinced talked them into enabling Find My.)

When my wife or I want to call a daughter we can see immediately if they are at work or at home... things like that are nice. There's also an indescribable sweetness to just looking longingly in on a daughter who is far away and wondering how her day is going. Empty nest blues? (Or maybe Miner at the Dial-A-View.)

Can you at least conceive that some people might find it deeply creepy that someone can follow their every step, and equally creepy to be able to 'spy' on another person 24/7?

But I don’t think it’s a distopian nightmare that I want it.

I find data collection and tracking disconcerting not because I'm doing anything nefarious, unlawful or something I'm ashamed of—my life is pretty boring and uninteresting—but because it has the effect of reducing one's autonomy. If one knows one's data is monitored and one is being tracked then one acts differently. For some, they'll make minor changes in behavior, for others a lot. Even for those who've no idea about others tracking or collecting data about them there's the broader issue of how society ought to be conducted. That's a very big issue I can't address here.

Of course, the authoritarians amongst us would argue that monitoring is good thing as people won't be tempted to misbehave, commit crimes and such. I'd answer that by saying those who've nefarious intent will find ways of circumventing the surveillance so the net effect on society is negative as the 'innocent' are the onrs who are targeted without a good or just reason.

Right, pretty much everyone has a mobile phone. What has truly surprised me is how many people are prepared to trade data and being surveiled for convenience. I often wonder if they make such conscious decisions knowing the full implications of that surveillance. I suspect most do not.

Having a mobile phone it's inevitable I will be tracked by multiple entities from government to Google. My response is governed by how much I am prepared to trade privacy and autonomy for convenience and I reckon that's a large amount. Not having Google account and killing and or removing all Google services goes some considerable way but I'm under no illusion that Big Tech is still tracking me. That said, the info colllected wouldn't hold much value.

Not, it's not. You could use a GNU/Linux phone with hardware kill switches for modem and WiFi/Bluetooth: Librem 5. This is what I do.

WiFi is set to only reconnect manually and mobile data is off until needed. There's lots of other protections too such as no Chrome browser and JS is turned off by default on the browsers (I've three different browsers set for different jobs, none keep cookies between sessions). With ad protection and JS off I never see ads. I've no social media accounts, HN is pretty much it—and you can hardly call it social media. YouTube is viewed through NewPipe and so on.

That's pretty tight. But it's easy for me because I've no need of social media and such. Right, my ISP can track me but I'm not in the drug trade or espionage so that's pretty irrelevant.

I've a box of older phones and GNU/Linux is a pending project for them. I'm watching Librem and I'll likely go that way eventually.

What I really want on my phones are manual click-type (air gap) off switches to switch the phone off in a split second, same with WiFi. Unfortunately, I've been spoiled forever. My ancient Nokia had a battery with a quick release button on the back. If say I was in a meeting and wanted to kill the phone quickly I could reach into my pocket and push the button and slide the battery abount 1cm which disconnected it—the phone was off in a fraction of a second, none of this nonsense waiting for the phone to shut down.

I miss that feature with a passion and I want it back.

The loss of privacy was something that was totally foreseeable (by me, at least) but embraced by the general population. The general embrace has meant that we all operate within a panopticon-like system - this itself modifies behaviour. No alternative choices are available - as a collective all have to 'follow the herd', with phones etc being essential to modern existence, despite the privacy reservations felt by many.

I'm taking the opportunity to express the idea that it is possible to find appeal in this or that tech feature and to lose sight of the broader ramifications. Each incremental change can be justified (no batteries makes my phone slimmer, 'finding my' is useful, its good to know my blood pressure, etc) but to imagine that the rollout of these features is a natural unfolding of reality without preordained end goal (technocratic governance) is naive.

Technocratic governance is not a goal that anyone would accept if it was proposed in a straightforward way - hence the duplicity, incrementalism, destruction of existing institutions, etc.