Have These Parents Gone To Far ?

Yeah, REALLY, parents don't have the right to know where their kids are! They could be abducted from the gravel pit, but really, who cares?!?!?! [/sarcasm]

No, quite frankly you don't have the right to monitor your child's whereabouts through an electronic tracking device. Nor do you have the right to read their journals, children are just that, children. But they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and they have a right to be disobedient and not listen to their parents. The parents consequently have the right to punish and reprimand their child as they see best, but it is a cyclic pattern. The Supreme Court would never ratify any proceeding that required all convicted felons to have tracking devices imbedded under their skin...and yet its considered 'okay' in the land of the free to shackle its minor population? ? Children have rights, whether they're willing to demand them themselves, or if they need an adult advocate, no child should ever be forced to live under the watchful eye of a satellite (Or, more specifically, a triangulation device I believe). Look at the protection afforded to the child molestors in our country, *they* have a right to not be under constant surveillance, and oftentimes, their presence is not even required to be known in their neighbourhood. If a convicted child molestor could be coaching Little League, because the courts say he has a right to unrestricted movement without a monitoring device...why should the kid playing baseball have Mommy online every 15 minutes checking her son is really at the baseball diamond, not at the corner store?

 

"why should the kid playing baseball have Mommy online every 15 minutes checking her son is really at the baseball diamond, not at the corner store?"


Um, because parents are responsible for the actions and whereabouts of their children.

I would be happy to go along with your view in life about giving a child their "space", as long as I don't have to hear the public cry about how parents should know what's going on in their kids' lives.

My main example is Columbine High School.

After that, all I heard was how the parents should have known what their kids were up to, and if they had, the shootings never would have happen.

Do I think kids should have their own space. Sure, but I am not every child's parent, and unfortunately, children are under the "rule" of their parents until they are 18.

So unless you want to pay for the window that Johnny broke while he was out with his friends, when he told his parents he was going to the movies, I suggest that you parent the way you want to, and let others do the same, whether that means they know where their child is every moment of the day, or not.

But, once again, that is not what we are talking about here. It is about the safety of children.

If your child went missing, don't tell me that you wouldn't want them to have a chip so you could find them. I find it hard to believe that you would rather just search blindly, rather than have a devise that would assist you in locating you child quickly.

But, if that is how you choose to be a parent, I guess that's your right.

Latre!

 

No, quite frankly you don't have the right to monitor your child's whereabouts through an electronic tracking device. Nor do you have the right to read their journals, children are just that, children. But they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and they have a right to be disobedient and not listen to their parents.

Hmmm... I think my parents would disagree with you. If I want to read my child's diary, or keep them in a room with no door so I can always keep an eye on them, or insist that they share my room so I always know what they're doing - that's kind of my right as a parent. Parents have a lot of control over their children, because they hold a lot of responsibility for the child's wellbeing. I don't think that you'd get a court to agree that a parent can't monitor their children while they're still their legal guardian. Parents aren't allowed to abuse their children, but beyond that, we let them do pretty much whatever they want when raising them.

 

If I want to read my child's diary, or keep them in a room with no door so I can always keep an eye on them, or insist that they share my room so I always know what they're doing - that's kind of my right as a parent.

Legally perhaps, but not morally.

The mere thought of a parent reading a diary is enough to make me shudder. That kind of intrusiveness strikes to my core.

 

Legally perhaps, but not morally.

But we're talking a legal issue here, aren't we?


The mere thought of a parent reading a diary is enough to make me shudder. That kind of intrusiveness strikes to my core.

And there are parents who are appalled at the thought of being kept out of any aspect of their child's life. Scary thought, maybe, but you only get to choose how to raise your own children, not anybody else's.

 

Because they crave and desire control, if not power. They are so insecure that they need to know everything that's going on.

 

Maybe so, but again - we leave the childraising up to the parents, to do as they see fit.

Bringing it back to the original topic, however, I got the impression that this wouldn't be some tool that the parents had constant access to (just like having Lo-Jack doesn't mean you can always tell where your car is). You'd have to alert the police to start tracking.

 

My opinion is that a parrent has the right to read a diary or whatever if there is a reasonable cause. Not just "is my kid doing anyhting I should know," but instead "I know he has lied about this or that, so..." However random checks is in my opinion an invasion of privacy.

Back on topic... Kids will still be abducted, and if somehow the abductor finds out about the chip, what will he do? Probably drop the kid off, or kill him/her hoping it will turn off.

Again, I said it a while ago, if there is some reasonable cause to believe or fear that your kid may be abducted, then yes, get it. But parrents who want it in their kids because they are as paranoide as I am of the level of privacy being dropped should not get it. Yeah, someone mentioned that people may (probably would) put a value of worth on kids if done that way, but still. That very well could happen, but it is better than just randomly tagging kids IMHO.

Also my biggest complainte about this is that it does nothing to solve the problem. Kids will still be abducted, a part of me worries that abductors may kill the kid quickly if he figures it out that the kid is leading the police to him. Then again, I cant really see anything being done to effectivally solve the problem that is not too extream.

 

My opinion is that a parrent has the right to read a diary or whatever if there is a reasonable cause. Not just "is my kid doing anyhting I should know," but instead "I know he has lied about this or that, so..." However random checks is in my opinion an invasion of privacy.

Yes, I agree. If that applies to the cops, it should apply to parents.

 

As long as you live under the roof they provide for you then your journal and your whereabouts is free game.

 

That's ridiculous. It's your own private and personal thoughts. Technically it may be all under their roof, but that doesn't give anyone a right to go reading it. That's part of what creates the secrecy in the first place.

If someone doesn't feel safe with their own thoughts, it's both sad and dangerous for a person's psychological state of mind.

 

Does anyone here realize that child abductors can easily circumvent the *powers of the chip*?

 

That's ridiculous. It's your own private and personal thoughts. Technically it may be all under their roof, but that doesn't give anyone a right to go reading it. That's part of what creates the secrecy in the first place.

So what if their kid runs away? Should the parents then have the right to read the diary,, to try and find out where the kid went? Because if they don't, I can't respect your opinion. A child's safety should come before their privacy until they are old enough to care for themselves.

 

Okay, I can see that being a reasonable exception.

 

I just thought of that as an example. There probably are other reasonable ones too, but I'm too tired to think of any right now.

 

I think suspected or known drug abuse, criminal activity, or major depression would be reasonable as well. If something is going on with the kid that is or could be very serious, then the parents have every right to find out any "secrets".

However, I think parents who randomly search their kid's belongings without any reason are really going to end up biting themselves on the butt because the kids will not feel secure and will feel like they are always under suspicion.

 

Thats what I said

more or less.

 

What makes this even more crass and premature, in my eyes anyway, is the development likely came about in part due to the recent media feeding frenzy over child abductions 'anytime, anywhere' when it's just that: a media feeding frenzy designed to sell papers by blowing things way out of proportion. Last year it was shark attacks. Did they close coastal beaches everywhere over that one? No, of course not. It's a summer fad.

 

Well I think it's a too bad too sad mentality with me.

If parents don't trust their kid for some reason and think something is up then by all means do some investigating. It's better than doing nothing and your kid ends up dead, in jail or on the run.

However until your 18 years of age your under your parents rule and what they say goes. Heck I wasn't even allowed to have my bedroom door closed when I lived at home.

 

I found the following on:

http://www.missingkids.com/download/2001MC.pdf.

I think it helps to put some numbers to what we are talking about here.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACT SHEET 2001 MISSING CHILDREN STATISTICS * In 2001, 840,279 missing persons (adults and juveniles) were reported missing to the police and entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). This represents the smallest number of missing persons reports since 1992 (801,358). *

The FBI estimates that 85 ­ 90% of missing persons are juveniles. Thus, in approximately 725,000 cases (or 2,000 per day) the disappearance of a child was serious enough that a parent called the police, the police took a report and entered it into NCIC. *

For just the fourth time in the twenty years since the passage of the Missing Children's Act in 1982, the number of missing persons reported to the police declined from the previous year. The 2001 reports were down 4.1% from 2000. The total increase since 1982 is 444% (154,341 entries in 1982 vs. 840,279 entries in 2000). *

In 1990 Congress passed the National Child Search Assistance Act, mandating an immediate police report and NCIC entry in every case. Since 1990, NCIC missing persons reports have increased 27%. *

The primary NCIC categories in which missing children reports are entered are "Juvenile" ­ 651,209 cases, down 5% from 2000(police enter most missing child cases in "Juvenile," including some nonfamily abductions where there is no evidence of foul play)

"Endangered" ­ 119,237 cases (adults and juveniles), a decrease of 1.2% from 2000(defined as "missing and in the company of another person under circumstances indicating that his/her physical safety is in danger")

"Involuntary" ­ 28,765 cases (adults and juveniles), a decrease of 8.8% from 2000(defined as "missing under circumstances indicating that the disappearance was not voluntary; i.e., abduction or kidnapping")

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Missing Person File




As you can see, there is more than just abduction or kidnapping.

I'm sure that most of the parents in the statistics above would like to recover or find their missing child, and the chip would be one more tool to help them do that.

And as someone mentioned before, I would think in order to get the location of a child, the parent would have to notify the authorities/law enforcement. This would greatly reduce the number of "random" check ups on a child, if that is what alot of you are worried about.

Latre!

 

The Bill of Rights gives criminals the right to privacy unless there's a reason to suspect them of a crime. Cops can't search your house unless there's a legit reason to suspect you of something. If your diary is free game to your parents, that means you have less rights than a criminal.

 

Yes, but kids generally have less "rights" with regard to their parents than the average adult has under the law.

You have freedom of speech - but your parents can punish you for saying naughty things.

You have freedom of religion - but your parents will most likely raise you to follow theirs.

You have freedom of assembly - but your parents can make you stay home.

There's a reason for it; parents are expected to raise their children to be productive citizens, and the government leaves the methods of how best to accomplish this up to the parent so long as the child doesn't come to any real harm.

 

Before people start buying into this chip-security thing, there should be some long-term studies into what effects the chip will have on the human body.

Let's wait till this high-tech girl grows up. Install the chip into an infant and observe it for 18+ years, to see how it functions. They'll need to do this on many different people for different periods of time, at different times in their lives.

I guess that's out of the question. We want it all now.

 

I'm a conservative, and I don't think this is a good idea.

I don't want to see anyone implanted with chips.

 

YES!

Talk about over reacting! Just because something bad happens to children around you, or in the news, it doesn't mean that you get a computer chip placed inside of your child to track his/her movements! I find the very idea sick. What will they tell people? What would the child think of getting a computer implant placed inside of them that they didn't need?

The child could be stolen nevertheless. By the time they would find her who knows what could happen? A chip could locate her, yes.

But it would do nothing to save her life.