Can you give a justification for either of those things? Would you not let your older child be on your phone plan or drive your car under your insurance 20 years ago because both of these things weren't really trackable back then? If you would, what changed? I simply don't get what 'lesson' this is meant to impart on them.

First, I responded to examples of 23 and 29 year olds. Second, I pay for my adult children's phones and don't track their locations, but I would if they asked me. They have lost phones and mentioned that they should at least setup find-my-phone and give access to someone. I would let them track me, but I'm still using a flip phone.

Vehicle insurance and owner liability is a whole different topic. I prefer to have them hold title and therefore liability, even if I were to give them the money to purchase and insure.

I don't see how that follows, at all. You can pay the bill and not track them. Do you have them hand over their phone everyday to check their Internet history because you pay the bill? If you don't want to pay their bill, don't, but spying on your kids isn't justified and is a weird control issue.

this "weird control issue" is SOP for like any organization, anywhere.

if you have a corporate cell phone it's telling on you. they pay for it, they have the right to track and read anything your doing on it.

As I responded below, I do pay but have never tracked. The point is if you want to be independent of a parent that does not respect your privacy, then pay for own cell plan.

You sound like a parent that would charge their kids rent and not claim it on your taxes.

So, my kids are in their mid-thirties, I pay for their phones and I never tracked them. Also, they can and do at times live with me rent free. I am a safety net, not an umbilical cord. Just as my parents were for me.

So from this I sound like I would cheat on my taxes?

Most safety nets don't require you to agree to their terms. If the kid is a drug addict or there are other circumstances, tracking might be reasonable but not as a precondition of "if you want me to pay for your phone I get to track you".

Absolutely, unequivocally: I reject this line of thinking.

My parents were these types of people. It's bullying. A grown adult with a degree and full-time job justifying this behavior is ridiculous. Where does a kid with a part-time minimum wage job and undeveloped brain get the money to afford a fully independent life? They simply can't and the adult saying that knows it. It's a way to feel good about exerting power.

If a person is so perturbed at the idea of providing something to their child while simultaneously not having full surveillance into its use, they should've worn a condom. People like this make stupid decisions, have a kid as a result, and then make it the kid's problem that they exist in this world.

Unfortunately, some parents don't understand the idea of respecting boundaries of their child. It is _their_ child after all. An object to do with what they wish.

"My cousin still tracks her 23-year-old daughter's location - I thought that was bananas, but in this article there's a 29-year-old who's being tracked by her mother. WTF??"

My comment is regarding the 23 and 29 yo examples in the parent comment. If you as a 29 yo consent to your mom tracking you in order to get a free phone, then that is your choice. Can't you just disable tracking or buy your own phone?

I clearly was not referring to 'a kid with a part-time minimum wage job.'