This really depends on both the parent and the child in question, but if the parents are the ones paying for the technology, I say they are entitled to use it as a leash if they want to.
They are also entitled to put a tracker on any car that they own, that the kid is driving, or to stop him from driving at all, if it is too much of a risk, to them and other people.

Is this good parenting for most kids, and are you better off trusting your child? Of course, for 90 percent of kids you don't need it, but for the ten percent who need serious monitoring to keep them alive, and out of prison, I say use what you have to.
Children occasionally really cross the line on trust and once that trust is broken, it can be hard to reestablish.

Cell phones and family plans became reasonably priced about the time I had an 18 year old and a 16 year old. i cant tell you how many hours of waiting by the phone to be called for a ride somewhere, and extra trips to the grocery store those phones saved me.
A cell phone was not merely a way to keep tabs on them, it was a way for the family to keep track of each other so that we could be where we needed to be, at the times we needed to be there.
They can be a lifesaver when you have two working parents.

But if you try to take a phone away from a kid because they are misusing it, I can almost guarantee you will hurt yourself more than you hurt them.

I agree with Isab. I would also like to say that there's a difference between having the ability to track your child and tracking him. You may not need it on a daily basis, but for the times (which are hopefully few or none) in which its needed, its beneficial. Looking up their GPS at midnight or reading their texts when there have been behavior changes might be necessary to get to the root of a problem for a sneaky or uncommunicative child.

When the time comes, I will install some related software for those times. I have too much of a life to be a hall monitor for my child's daily movements.

Anyone else think its funny that she thinks activating googles safe search blocks porn?

Well, this is easy. Drug users lie.

So, if anyone in the house uses drugs, they cannot be trusted, period - although you might think that trust can be turned on and off with a switch, subject to conditions. They will lie to you about where they were and what they were doing. If that is important to you, then you might feel better tracking - but then the target of your tracking will know that you can't trust them, and this will start a vicious circle of unmet expectations, self-fulfilling destinies and endless recriminations.

And if you have not shown your child how to behave by about age 6, you have lost already. They learn by imitation. "I learned it from you!"

And if you have not shown your child how to behave by about age 6, you have lost already. They learn by imitation. "I learned it from you!"

Posted by: Radwaste at October 30, 2013 2:16 AM

I have found this to be untrue. I have two children. The one that never lied to me, is a borderline alcoholic, mentally ill, has trouble holding a job, and she admits it.

The sneaky smart one, was disobedient, lied to me constantly, and finished in the bottom 25 percent of his high school class. Joined the army at 19, and served honorably. He now has a very responsible job for which he is extremely well paid. He is absolutely reliable when you ask him to do anything, and a very nice person.
I would not have predicted this outcome when they were young.

I agree with Isab, and NikkiG.

My child has not yet hit those lovely early teen years, but is close. She knows I have her passwords (it has always been a rule, for every piece of tech), and suspects that I might sometimes look but knows that I don't look all the time. And just knowing that, and knowing that I am there to listen when she needs to talk, has guided her behavior (so far).

The key to the one big snoop expedition that I did make, was as NikkiG said, a behavior change that made me suspicious. And my suspicions were confirmed. And I was able to enlist a trusted friend to have a casual conversation in the kids' presence that involved a, ahem, friend of hers who was in a very similar situation. Little ears opened wide, and that situation resolved itself.

It *is* a leash. You can't let them run off with no control, and yet you can't tie them to you - you have to give them some lead, yet keep the ability to pull them back when they're in danger.

I can see that there are times when parents need things like this. Having said that, just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't make it a good idea. This sort of thing easily becomes yet another extension of helicopter parenting -- it raises an expectation in the kid that the parents will always be to ride in like Jones and save the day. At some point, kids have to learn to clean up their own messes.

And keep in mind that cyberwar works both ways. There will be apps (if there aren't already) that kids can download that will defeat these things.

>>Well, this is easy. Drug users lie.

Everyone lies dipshit. And of course, whenever you try to use such sweeping unprovable and incorrect generalizations, you just look like an idiot. I guess it never occurred to you that someone can smoke a joint and be honest bout it. It is very easy to not lie while doing drugs, contrary to your assertion. Pretty much means the rest of your argument is worthless.

>>How far should parents go in monitoring and controlling their kids?

Personally, I have no desire to spy on my 14 year old son. He has a smart phone and access to a computer with no parental controls. I don't believe in censorship. I teach him and observe him. Very few things are considered absolutely forbidden. Drug use is not one of them. Which means he doesn't have to lie to me about drugs. We have had several discussion about the subject. If he lies about anything it is about having his homework done, but he seems to be growing out of it.
Now if I saw a change in his behavior or suspicious activity, I would be much more likely to ask him about it straight up before snooping on him.

Got no dog in this fight. I don't track my kids, but we do keep in touch via cell phone. They know if they need me, they can call me. They know I've got their back in any situation, and if they're wrong, I'll be the first to tell them. I've done my best to teach them to be honest and trustworthy, and they know I am honest with them and that they can trust me. Why on earth would I let any kind of technology fuck with that?

My parents were really good parents. They were not intrusive, smothering, or helicopters. However when my sister went off the deep end from age 16 to 19 they definitely could have used some of these tools. And I think they would have been justified.

So I'd say its overkill on your easy going 14 year old. But when your former little princess is disappearing, doing drugs, dating a jailbird, and is getting into other trouble...... I would totally not judge someone for using these things.

(Fwiw, my sister straightened herself out pretty quickly at about age 20. There have been mercifully few long term repercussions for her actions at that age)

ya know... there was a song lyric once about a father having a "thundering velvet hand..." I think my kids know that... but they also know I can bring the lightning.

Having the capability to do these things... is good for a kid to know. Interestingly I couch it in terms that there are bad guys that could track you, there are trojans that can steal your passwords, and technology isn't 100% secure.

That helps the kids not to do something stupid on the internet, but you can also mention in passing that you could use those technologies should they be needed. A comment during a news story, or about one of their friends that got in trouble.

From there you just have to pay attention. Both of my kids know that I remember how it was to be a kid, and they realize that I can imagine their reactions to things and plan accordingly. Even IF those things are bad things. I don't wish to snoop on them, but they know full well that I could if they gave me a reason to do so, and I would.

I know people that had rough teen years, and yeah, if they had been snooped on, it might have been different.
BUT.
They were also the kind of kids that could circumvent all this, the kinds of girls that changed into skanky clothes on the way to school... The kind that would buy their OWN prepaid cellphone, that would set up a partition on their computer and encrypt the hard drive.

With kids like that, it's an arms race to the bottom, and where will you be then?

You don't control a horse... you guide them.

None of this was necessary. My kids were far too scared of their mother to ever get into trouble.

For Isab: someone had a role model that wasn't you. I wonder who it was.

Also, time to chime in with an Amyism: an anecdote is not data. In you case, it can be an exception. I can cite several cases among my own relatives that bolster my case.

And: drug users lie. Remember that part.

"For Isab: someone had a role model that wasn't you. I wonder who it was."
You seem to believe that drinking and drug use is learned behavior. I would argue the evidence indicates that it is mostly genetic in origin

My children both had the same role models and the same father.

The truth is I know many parents with one or more really good kids, and one really screwed up one.

Back in the fifties, psychologists decided to blame autism, on poor mothering. We now know that isn't correct either.

There are plenty of alcoholics in both my family and my husband's family. My husband watched alcohol ruin his mother's life, and made a decision at a very young age, not to drink.

Few people are that responsible or iron willed.

I have about three drinks a year, so I can assure you, my daughter didn't "learn" how to abuse alcohol by watching anyone she lived with....

Right now, I am living in Japan, and alcoholism is a huge problem over here. There are also huge numbers of smokers. Much worse, than in the US, and the Japanese know it. They are death on illegal drugs as well as prescription drugs over here, and you have to wonder if that isn't why their alcohol abuse is so high.

I think a lot of people kid themselves, that because their drug of choice is legal (booze and cigarettes) that somehow they aren't an addict.

I'm convinced that some children are just born bad and there's nothing you can do.

>>And: drug users lie. Remember that part.

Hmm. Yes I will. But you must remember, that drugs do not, inherently by their existence or by being used, cause people to lie. If you can find a single drug that forces people to lie, I'm guessing you would be in line for a Nobel prize or be a highly paid chemist in the services of the NSA. That is not the case, is it?

.
.
.

*Crickets*

And: drug users lie. Remember that part. -- Radwaste at October 30, 2013 2:12 PM

Obviously you have never seen House M.D.

People lie all the time. It comes from fear, privacy concerns, braggadocio, laziness, legal consequences, respect or disrespect, indifference, anger, or even drug use, among other issues.

The income tax has made liars out of more people than golf has. -- Will Rogers

Have you ever lied

• on your 1040?
• why you were late?
• why you dumped your GF/BF?
• why you left your last job?
• about a past experience to a friend?
• about a past experience to a coworker?
• was your last resume completely honest?
• to a <religious leader>
• lied in your prayers
• about how much you drank?
• your age
• your weight?
• golf score?

It's great if you haven't. But tell me you haven't and I have a problem believing it.

So then we come the question at hand. Do you put spyware on your kid's stuff?

If I had a kid, I would put it on as an emergency tracking setup and would want to know their passwords. But I would also tell them that it is precautionary because I want the ability to find them if they were to "get lost, stolen, or otherwise mutilated." Basically write it down and put it in an envelope.

I can't find it, but IIRC, there was a case that originated from Florida in the mid-90's that between the bank and LEO they kept dumping money into the kidnapped woman's account but she was smart enough to not give them the PIN. They tracked them by the ATM withdrawals. She survived with physical and mental scratches and abrasions, but nothing like being dead.

I don't have kids; but, there are some parents out there who I wish would use this stuff. Their kids are nightmares! But, then, they are just plain bad parents and no "new technology" will help them at all.

And: drug users lie. Remember that part.

Sigh.

Ever pop an asprin? That makes you a drug user

Damnation, I better step it up a bit, all I do is check under my kids' beds to see if they're sneaking food into their rooms.

And Jim P employs the Two Wrongs fallacy.

Why not just try to deny that drug users lie?

"My children both had the same role models and the same father."

These are not causally linked. Your presence - credit to you where such credit is due - does not automatically mean you are emulated by your children. Your own story says that is the case.

Now I know why we have a drug problem in the USA.
People defend their use, and irrationally.

Why not just try to deny that drug users lie? -- Radwaste at October 31, 2013 2:44 PM

The way you are phrasing it is that only drug user's lie. Where did I deny that? I am saying that your declaration is equivalent that only drug user's lie and no one else is ever negligent but the drug users.

You are essentially saying that no one ever skipped a step, check, procedure that wasn't a drug user. It never happened because they were lazy, stupid, ignorant, fatigued, irresponsible, distracted or some other condition that was occurring in their life.

I made a similar comment back here in Amy's Blog here[1] and here[2]. Somehow you failed to respond to either of those.

This particular blog entry is on the freedom and liberties granted to a child. So a child, especially a teen, may have issues with drugs. But it may be a crush/love interest on a fellow student, a friend who is having issues at home, they have a fucked up teacher, a clique issue, pressure from a coach that wants them on a team. Or some other academic or peer issue.

You automatically attributed it to drugs

[1] -- www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/26/8_things_we_won.html
[2] -- www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/24/imagine_if_the_1.html

>>Why not just try to deny that drug users lie?

Because everyone lies. But not everyone lies about drug use.

Your statement: "And: drug users lie. Remember that part." is technically correct because "all people" lie, and "drug users" are a subset of "all people."
However your implied meaning that all drug users lie specifically because they use drugs and are singularly disposed as a class of people to lie universally without restraint or reason is obviously false. You can not show me that there is a single drug that forces people to lie.

That being said, I would not trust a hard core dug addict as far as I could throw his or her withered body. However, I would not attribute their lying to the drug but to their own actions and poor judgement.

"However, I would not attribute their lying to the drug but to their own actions and poor judgement."

Which you may recognize by their drug use. What is so hard to understand here?

"You can not show me that there is a single drug that forces people to lie."

Where the hell do you live? There isn't a single employer that wants to hear about your coke habit, that you do weed or any other damned thing. If you have one who says they don't care, you're looking at an employer who has nothing to lose. Know any employers like that?

Let us say that you're holding, and the nice cop at the traffic light asks you. You will lie because you do not want to be arrested - and THEN you will completely dismiss the idea that your drug was made illegal for a reason. Oh, hell, no, what you want supersedes the law.
Is that a good idea, generally? No. Why do you get to determine the exception? Should you? How about for krokodil? It's your body, it won't affect anyone else, right?

This is nuts. Well-meaning, but clearly Pollyannic people have claimed right here that legalizing drugs (now grow up, everybody, we all know this means illegal, recreational drugs) will magically result in responsible behavior. Thugs will magically become employed citizens holding real jobs, etc., too.

Even the queen of evidentiary blogging has abandoned that principle to cite anecdotes about productive people who use illegal drugs.

Meanwhile, here I am, repeating this: If you want a drug legalized, define the term, tell us all the steps and produce the ROI study, including the protection of industry.

JimP: I work at one of the two safest industrial sites on the planet. That's not a boast - it's the implication that I know the difference between human error and errors of impairment. Every single employee is asked about this at every pre-job brief. I KNOW you do not want anyone working where I do fudging numbers because they are thinking about their next high, or are actually under the influence of a substance that the employer cannot legally test for. I don't know how many times I have explained that, and so I am sorry that I missed what you have missed. I think I felt I explained this adequately elsewhere. I seem to see the need for a lot of repetition, and not just for you. I wonder about that.

Meanwhile: if any of you can show me a user of illegal drugs who does NOT lie about it, have at it. In the process, how about stopping the excuses and diversion of blame?

"Even the queen of evidentiary blogging has abandoned that principle to cite anecdotes about productive people who use illegal drugs."

So if I am a truck driver who used meth to stay awake, in 1971, But then two hours after congress passed a law against taking it without a prescription, I took it again, at which precise moment did I change from a responsible reliable employee, into a lying drug user?
Was it when the president signed the legislation, when my current supply was exhausted, or some other precise moment?

My guess is you had to have been married to an addict. No one else as intelligent as you seem to be could totally lose their ability to reason, in this one specific subject area.

>>Which you may recognize by their drug use.

This is where you are wrong. You believe it is impossible to use any drug with responsibility. I know that it is totally possible to use a drug recreationally and responsibly. Pretty much every drug can be and has been used responsibly throughout the entirety of human history. If this were not the case all drug users would be dead and we would not be having this discussion.

>>There isn't a single employer that wants to hear about your coke habit

Great. But if I use my drugs responsibly, outside of chemically testing me, they will never know I use outside of work and consequently will never ask me about it.

>>and the nice cop at the traffic light asks you. You will lie because ...

Lying to Law enforcement is a time honored tradition going back to the dawn of human kind. You might as well say that breaking the law in any way makes you a lier. Ever speed? Welcome to the lier's club!

>>and THEN you will completely dismiss the idea that your drug was made illegal for a reason.

Oh there was a reason, it just wasn't one of public safety. Propaganda and politics mostly. I'll be happy to let you do the research for yourself. I will be shocked if you dredge up something that supports your position that there was a "reason" backed up by science or study not based in government propaganda or politics. I supposed you think "Reefer Madness" was a documentary.

>> have claimed right here that legalizing drugs (now grow up, everybody, we all know this means illegal, recreational drugs) will magically result in responsible behavior

Uh no. I've generally argued that legalizing drugs won't make people suddenly act in an irresponsible manner which seems to be your position. I believe the vast majority of people who want to use illegal drugs already do and do it responsibly. Not all but most. And of those people who do not use any illegal drugs, making them legal will not be a deciding factor that causes them to suddenly start using.

>>Meanwhile, here I am, repeating this: If you want a drug legalized, define the term, tell us all the steps and produce the ROI study, including the protection of industry.

Actually I believe the Government should have done this prior to making any commonly available drug illegal. The government needs to make its case and this has not been done.

>>Meanwhile: if any of you can show me a user of illegal drugs who does NOT lie about it, have at it.

Well since you've already discounted anecdotal evidence I won't bother. But I could.

Your whole argument boils down to:

"People using illegal drugs lie because the drugs are against the law. People lie when they break the law in any way. And if they will lie about breaking the law they will lie about anything and everything. If you ever break the law you are completely untrustworthy in all walks of life."

So you might as well be honest about it and state it appropriately.

If you want a drug legalized, define the term, tell us all the steps and produce the ROI study, including the protection of industry. -- Radwaste at November 1, 2013 12:53 PM

Rad,

Take a nickel out of your pocket or find one. Hold it in your hand and consider the weight of that. That is about five grams. Now think of that as a volume of cocaine powder.

Then consider that if someone were caught in D.C., at your facility or some other federal institution including the federal parks like the Vietnam Wall, the WWII memorial, or Yellowstone they are now guilty of a federal felony.

That means the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in a federal prison. Parole on a federal felony is 85% of the sentence. So a nineteen year old will finally get out of prison at age 27-28 with a federal felony record that essentially can't be expunged.

So the federal government has spent (35K * 8.5) $297,500 (rough estimate) to incarcerate someone that held a 5¢ weigt of cocaine in his hand. That isn't even considering Amy's link to what destruction is done with the The Police Are Addicted To Drug Money abuses that I have demonstrated.

Let's call it 1000 offenders over 10 years, as it is ridiculously low. So the ROI is that the federal government has spent $297,500,000 (just shy of $300M) to incarcerate people for multiple years. Put them in a position that they probably can't get a decent job. Don't really train them for any true job skills but leave them in the training of professional crooks.

Give me that ROI?