• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should parents use a GPS tracking device to monitor their children?

Should parents use GPS tracking to monitor their children?


  • Total voters
    34
All that I see in his profile is that he was born on March 28. No year given.
Then you need to check your scope with a bit more attention, he is also listed (not stating WHERE) as a student, though I guess he could be a "student of the geriatric" that has not learned much that a geriatric would have, I suppose............:doh
 
Although I do not support the idea, I don't think it is bad enough to warrant the government banning it either. Parents need lots of freedom in raising kids, and as a result the law cannot reasonably prevent people from making many bad choices either.

I find is disgusting how easily corporations, politicians and the news can make parents dance to their tune using fear. Need to pass a draconian law? Claim that it "protects our children". Need to sell some snake-oil product? Claim it protects children or "gives them a head start". Need to bump up your viewership? Run a few stories about children getting abducted and how dangerous the streets are, with an extra bonus for putting up cute white girls.

Parents really need to stop being emotional puppets and actually use their ability to reason. I know that most people love their kids, but that is no excuse for making stupid choices out of fear. Fact is, zero tolerance policies don't help our schools, baby einstein doesn't make your kid smarter, and a GPS tracking device will do little but satisfy your own paranoia.
 
You know Kandahar I find it amazing that you can dismiss so many things as being trivial to the extant that you don't need to worry about them. You don't have kids do you?

Random kidnappings (by someone other than the family) and school shootings ARE a trivial danger. There is a huge gulf between the things that people SHOULD worry about and the things they ACTUALLY worry about...and it's entirely due to the media hyping grotesque but rare events.

If you want to protect your kid, you're much better off never letting them go swimming than you are in trying to keep them safe from random kidnappings or school shootings. That's a much more likely source of danger. But drowning isn't as sexy as kidnapping or school shootings, so it doesn't get as much air time on the 7:00 news.
 
Last edited:
And are you telling me that if you will be put in a situation to make a choice: to sacrifice your dog, or your daughters, you would choose to sacrifice your daughters?

That is not the debate here. The debate is can there be unconditional love for things other than your child, and there can be. I unconditionally love my wife too, yet if it was between her and one of my daughters drowning overboard, I would jump in to save my daughter first. She would do the same if it were me. I think most parents would. I would risk my life to save my dog too. Please tell me you are not simply arguing just to argue, since you are, again, simply wrong.
 
If your kids are doing things like that, then perhaps you need to do a better job of raising them instead of expecting a machine to do it for you.

My kids are five and six years old...
 
If your kids are doing things like that, then perhaps you need to do a better job of raising them instead of expecting a machine to do it for you.

Yes, because properly raised humans never make bad decisions....:roll:
 
The thing I'd be worried about is acclimation. Basically, if we aggregate the use of this device to too large a level you have kids running around whom have always been monitored. Their parents tracked them when they were kids, the authority is presumed right and with rightful power to watch your every move to "protect" you and to ensure you're behaving as to their rules. If the government wants to do it, why not? What's really the difference between parents and the government, the government is merely a higher form of authority. If it was ok for your parents to track you, you've been monitored all your life; why would you really object to the government doing it?

While it takes some time to get from A to B, I would worry about the real world affects of teaching kids that they should expect to be monitored at all times by the authority.

I agree here, somewhat, but can't the same argument be made about parents providing food, clothing, shelter, etc.?
 
Should they?
That depends on the parent and the kid.

Should they be able to?
Absofrigginlutely.
 
I agree here, somewhat, but can't the same argument be made about parents providing food, clothing, shelter, etc.?

I mean, most of those things are definitely taught that eventually they have to figure out how to get it themselves. I could agree in principle if it's taught as an acceptance thing. Go to this place, hit this button, get food. Don't question where it came from or anything, just take it as a given. Sure.

In the end, I wouldn't stop parents from doing this. But I would strongly warn against it. Or at least done with some amount of teaching that eventually the kids will be responsible for themselves and that mommy and daddy can't track them anymore. Eventually they have to learn to defend for themselves.
 
Random kidnappings (by someone other than the family) and school shootings ARE a trivial danger. There is a huge gulf between the things that people SHOULD worry about and the things they ACTUALLY worry about...and it's entirely due to the media hyping grotesque but rare events.

If you want to protect your kid, you're much better off never letting them go swimming than you are in trying to keep them safe from random kidnappings or school shootings. That's a much more likely source of danger. But drowning isn't as sexy as kidnapping or school shootings, so it doesn't get as much air time on the 7:00 news.

Have you ever heard of the term "Multi-Tasking"? IE can you not protect them against both? Do you not have a right to do everything possible to protect them from everything possible..no matter how remote?

BTW when you do have kids, if you don't already, then I'm quite sure you'll feel the same when your kids are kidnapped. Won't you?

"Kandahar to the cops after kids were kidnapped: Oh don't worry about it! It's just a trivial little thing, I'm sure everything will be alllllrrriiiiggghhhttt!"
 
Have you ever heard of the term "Multi-Tasking"? IE can you not protect them against both?

OK, let's say you prevent them from ever going swimming. Are kidnapping and/or school shootings next on the agenda? Well...no. How about preventing them from ever riding in a car? Or how about ever being in a tall building? Or how about learning the Heimlich Manuever?

The point is that there are literally thousands of tragedies more likely (but not as sexy) as your kid being kidnapped or killed in a shooting spree. And everyone just ignores them. I'm not talking about the dangers that parents try their best, but fail, to prevent...I'm talking about the dangers that people just flat-out ignore.

Kal'Stang said:
Do you not have a right to do everything possible to protect them from everything possible..no matter how remote?

I guess you have the "right" (whatever that means), but it's still stupid.

Kal'Stang said:
BTW when you do have kids, if you don't already, then I'm quite sure you'll feel the same when your kids are kidnapped. Won't you?

:roll:
It doesn't happen often enough to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Why is it stupid to do everything you can to protect your child from harm?

Because you undoubtedly don't protect your child from everything. And chances are very good that you're ignoring a much larger danger than kidnapping or random school shootings. :roll:

Not only is it unhealthy to stress over incredibly unlikely dangers that are hyped by the media, but it distracts from preventing ACTUAL dangers. For example, here are the most common accidental deaths in the United States:

1. Car crashes (43,200 per year)
2. Falls (14,900)
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids (8,600)
4. Drowning (4,000)
5. Burns and fires (3,700)
6. Suffocation (3,300)
7. Firearm accidents (1,500)
8. Gas poisoning (700)
9. Surgical and medical complications (500)
10. Machinery (350)

But those things are so much less sexy than school shootings and kidnappings! So they don't get nearly as much airtime on television. By comparison, the number of children who are kidnapped (including those who AREN'T killed) by strangers each year is about 115. And as for random school shootings? Over the last ten years, the annual number of victims in the US has ranged from a low of ZERO to a high of 32, with an average of 5.
 
Last edited:
Because you undoubtedly don't protect your child from everything. And chances are very good that you're ignoring a much larger danger than kidnapping or random school shootings. :roll:

Not only is it unhealthy to stress over incredibly unlikely dangers that are hyped by the media, but it distracts from preventing ACTUAL dangers. For example, here are the most common accidental deaths in the United States:

1. Car crashes (43,200 per year)
2. Falls (14,900)
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids (8,600)
4. Drowning (4,000)
5. Burns and fires (3,700)
6. Suffocation (3,300)
7. Firearm accidents (1,500)
8. Gas poisoning (700)
9. Surgical and medical complications (500)
10. Machinery (350)

By comparison, the number of children who are kidnapped (including those who aren't killed) by strangers each year is about 115. And as for random school shootings? Over the last ten years, the annual number of victims in the US has ranged from a low of ZERO to a high of 32, with an average of 5.

You are assuming that people will only focus on one or two types of dangers. Again I ask. What is wrong with people trying to protect their child from ALL types of dangers...including those that you listed?

And here's another point. By getting a GPS tracker for their kid don't you think that it might free up their time (no matter how small that time might be) to worry about other things? Like the ones that you have listed?
 
You are assuming that people will only focus on one or two types of dangers. Again I ask. What is wrong with people trying to protect their child from ALL types of dangers...including those that you listed?

Because you CAN'T protect your child from all types of dangers, even if you wanted to. Besides, you probably DON'T want to. Are you really going to ban your children from ever riding in automobiles, swimming, being in tall buildings, and being near firearms...and insist on getting every meal they eat analyzed by a lab? Even if you went to this ridiculous extreme, there would STILL be lots of things far more dangerous than kidnapping by strangers or school shootings!

Kal'Stang said:
And here's another point. By getting a GPS tracker for their kid don't you think that it might free up their time (no matter how small that time might be) to worry about other things? Like the ones that you have listed?

No. The fact that you got the GPS tracker means that you'll continue to worry about these things, and other things the media tells you to worry about, instead of REAL dangers.
 
Last edited:
Because you CAN'T protect your child from all types of dangers, even if you wanted to. Besides, you probably DON'T want to. Or are you going to ban your children from ever riding in automobiles, swimming, being in tall buildings, and being near firearms...and insist on getting every meal they eat analyzed by a lab? Even if you went to this ridiculous extreme, there would STILL be lots of things far more dangerous than kidnapping by strangers or school shootings!

You're right that we can't protect them from everything. But with the stuff that we can protect them from then..what is the problem with it? The device in the OP gives parents the option of protecting them from something that they really couldn't do effectively before. So if you have the means to do so why not use it?

No. The fact that you got the GPS tracker means that you'll continue to worry about these things, and other things the media tells you to worry about, instead of REAL dangers.

Why would you continue to worry? 1 second of looking at a screen will tell you were your child is. Then you go about your business. I'm sure that your parents were always wondering where you were at. So instead of having to call all over the place spending possibly hours looking, parents now can find out pretty much instantly.
 
1. Car crashes (43,200 per year) So we use seatbelts and car seats
2. Falls (14,900) We use gates and barriers
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids (8,600) We use locked cabinets and out of reach places
4. Drowning (4,000) We use fences
5. Burns and fires (3,700) We use smoke detectors and evacuation plans
6. Suffocation (3,300) We keep plastic bags away from children
7. Firearm accidents (1,500) Trigger locks and locked vaults
8. Gas poisoning (700) WTF gas poisoning?


So explain to me again why it is so crazy to also attempt to protect children from yet another threat?
 
My posts are buried deep and I'm not sure how much of this monstrosity can even be salvaged, but we're now seeing more organized opposition expressed:

GPS tracking device, LittleBuddy or Big Brother | kids, parents, nadel - Top Story - CBS Channel 12 News

West Palm Beach- A tiny new G-P-S product set to hit store shelves this month could make it easier and more affordable than ever before to keep a digital eye on your kids. It's called the "LittleBuddy" and it's about the size of a flash drive. But one youth civil rights advocate worries the product will be used for spying more than to keep kids safe. The device is sold only at Best Buy and cost less than $100.

"It should give you real time updating where the person is...it will also allow you to view a log," said Best Buy Manager Nathan Hourani.

The device works anywhere in the US. Parents can even get alerts at home on their computer or even on their smart phones if their child goes someplace he or she shouldn't.

"I guess it would be a good thing, because i lose my kids all the time," said Stacy Ortiz, a mother of three

But Jeffrey Nadel is one teen who is not a fan of devices like the LittleBuddy.

"You know you care a lot about your spouse, but do you really think it would be appropriate in your wife's purse or your husbands pocket. Probably not, but for young people that's seen as something that's ok to do," Nadel told CBS 12.

The 17 year heads up the National Youth Rights Council, advocating for the civil rights of minors.

The group does things like suing the City of West Palm Beach because they say the city's curfew is unconstitutional.

So when it comes to GPS tracking devices for kids, Jeffrey says unless parents talk to their kids first, the LittelBuddy might only create more distance between parents and their kids. Even the FBI agrees.

"If parents are relying strictly on technology to monitor where their kids are, they're not parenting," said FBI spokeswoman April Langwell.

So Nadel says if parents really want to know where their kids are at all times, open the lines of communication, then they can introduce new technology to make their kids safer.

"And if they understand if you trust them to make decisions, they will take a hands on roll and they will be responsible for their own safety and their own well being," said Nadel.

There is about a 15 dollar monthly monitoring fee. It should be in Best Buys stores on the 17th of november.

I'll uh...attempt to come back. :2wave:
 
You're right that we can't protect them from everything. But with the stuff that we can protect them from then..what is the problem with it? The device in the OP gives parents the option of protecting them from something that they really couldn't do effectively before. So if you have the means to do so why not use it?

Because it isn't worth the monetary cost, the time cost, the stress cost, or the cost of invading your child's privacy to be so overprotective about something that is not a serious threat outside of the media's imagination.

Kal'Stang said:
Why would you continue to worry? 1 second of looking at a screen will tell you were your child is. Then you go about your business. I'm sure that your parents were always wondering where you were at.

Nope. When I got my driver's license, I'd just tell my parents I was going out. They only occasionally asked where, and never checked up on me. And I never got in any trouble. They respected my privacy.

Kal'Stang said:
So instead of having to call all over the place spending possibly hours looking, parents now can find out pretty much instantly.

If being able to spy on your kid is what this is about, that's a different matter entirely from worrying about kidnapping. :roll:
 
1. Car crashes (43,200 per year) So we use seatbelts and car seats

You could ban your kid from riding in a car at all, under any circumstances, and it'd go a lot farther to save their lives than worrying about silly things like school shootings. But most people don't do this, because presumably it isn't worth the inconvenience to them.

Phoenix said:
2. Falls (14,900) We use gates and barriers

Do you really? Or do you just SAY that, and then not actually use them? And will these prevent ALL deaths by falling?

Phoenix said:
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids (8,600) We use locked cabinets and out of reach places

This includes food too.

Phoenix said:
4. Drowning (4,000) We use fences

Do you really? Or do you just SAY that, and then not actually use them? And will these prevent ALL deaths by drowning?

Phoenix said:
5. Burns and fires (3,700) We use smoke detectors and evacuation plans

Admirable. But this still will not prevent all burn/fire deaths. Any improvement you can make beyond that (such as removing ALL flammable objects in or near your house) would go a lot farther than worrying about silly things like school shootings.

Phoenix said:
6. Suffocation (3,300) We keep plastic bags away from children

Do you really? Or do you just SAY that, and then not actually do that? And will doing so prevent ALL deaths by suffocation?

Phoenix said:
8. Gas poisoning (700) WTF gas poisoning?

Exactly. In an average year, that "WTF" cause of death kills 140 times more people than school shootings. And yet no one even THINKS to worry about this, because it isn't sexy and therefore isn't hyped in the media.

Phoenix said:
So explain to me again why it is so crazy to also attempt to protect children from yet another threat?

It's such an insignificant threat that it isn't worth worrying about. It's called being an overprotective parent...and it isn't something to be proud of. Let me give you another piece of data to put this in perspective: Remember how I said an average of 5 people per year are killed by school shootings in this country? Well, 13 people per year are killed by vending machines falling on them. You're better off worrying about THAT than you are about school shootings...but no one even THINKS to worry about that.
 
Last edited:
Ooh, I just found something else that you're better off worrying about than school shootings. Bubonic plague. That's right. In an average year in the United States, about 15 people will contract bubonic plague, and about 7 will die from it. That makes it 40% more deadly than school shootings.
 
Last edited:
Because it isn't worth the monetary cost, the time cost, the stress cost, or the cost of invading your child's privacy to be so overprotective about something that is not a serious threat outside of the media's imagination.

Monetary cost? A kids life and well being has a monetary limit? Sides the device is less than $100...how much was your gaming console?

Stress? Such a device relieves stress.

Childs Privacy? As I've said before, when it comes to the parents that child has no privacy except that which the parent gives them...if any.

Nope. When I got my driver's license, I'd just tell my parents I was going out. They only occasionally asked where, and never checked up on me. And I never got in any trouble. They respected my privacy.

And how old were you? 16? 17? At that age you should be able to go out on your own. But we are talking about kids here...not young adults.

If being able to spy on your kid is what this is about, that's a different matter entirely from worrying about kidnapping. :roll:

Kidnapping was just ONE of the many things that a gps device would be useful for. As I've stated before there are many reasons. But you scoffed at most of them thinking that kids don't do that kind of stuff except the rare bad kid....because, according to you, of bad parenting. Of course you never considered the single parents in that summation of yours either.
 
Monetary cost? A kids life and well being has a monetary limit? Sides the device is less than $100...how much was your gaming console?

Why don't you ban your kids from ever riding in a car then? That would be a much better investment in their safety. But like most everyone else, you DO put a cost limit on your kid's life...if not in terms of money, then in terms of the inconvenience of getting them from Point A to Point B without a car.

Kal'Stang said:
Childs Privacy? As I've said before, when it comes to the parents that child has no privacy except that which the parent gives them...if any.

And as I've said before, I'm glad you weren't my father. You sound like an authoritarian whose kids are probably going to go absolutely wild the day they leave for college. If you have so little regard for your kids' privacy, they'll hate you...or at least distrust you.

Kal'Stang said:
And how old were you? 16? 17? At that age you should be able to go out on your own. But we are talking about kids here...not young adults.

Oh. Well at younger ages, my parents almost always knew where I was. Without the GPS.

Kal'Stang said:
Kidnapping was just ONE of the many things that a gps device would be useful for. As I've stated before there are many reasons. But you scoffed at most of them thinking that kids don't do that kind of stuff except the rare bad kid....because, according to you, of bad parenting. Of course you never considered the single parents in that summation of yours either.

Are we still talking about kids, or about young adults now? Because the things you mentioned were things like stealing cars.
 
Last edited:
You could ban your kid from riding in a car at all, under any circumstances, and it'd go a lot farther to save their lives than worrying about silly things like school shootings. But most people don't do this, because presumably it isn't worth the inconvenience to them.

Do you really? Or do you just SAY that, and then not actually use them? And will these prevent ALL deaths by falling?

This includes food too.

Do you really? Or do you just SAY that, and then not actually use them? And will these prevent ALL deaths by drowning?

Admirable. But this still will not prevent all burn/fire deaths. Any improvement you can make beyond that (such as removing ALL flammable objects in or near your house) would go a lot farther than worrying about silly things like school shootings.

Do you really? Or do you just SAY that, and then not actually do that? And will doing so prevent ALL deaths by suffocation?

Exactly. In an average year, that "WTF" cause of death kills 140 times more people than school shootings. And yet no one even THINKS to worry about this, because it isn't sexy and therefore isn't hyped in the media.

It's such an insignificant threat that it isn't worth worrying about. It's called being an overprotective parent...and it isn't something to be proud of. Let me give you another piece of data to put this in perspective: Remember how I said an average of 5 people per year are killed by school shootings in this country? Well, 13 people per year are killed by vending machines falling on them. You're better off worrying about THAT than you are about school shootings...but no one even THINKS to worry about that.

As a general rule, yes, I do these things to protect my child. (except trigger locks to be honest) I don't get your line of reasoning, "will it prevent all deaths?" Well no, but I assume you already knew that. I am not concerned about ALL deaths or just merely death. Injuries occur also. And I am mostly concerned about MY child.
And what's with the school shooting infatuation? Let's face it a GPS dongle isn't going to help in a school shooting (a .45 may) unless it's to help locate your child in the aftermath so let's dismiss that now.
If a child were kidnapped the GPS locator may help. As unlikely as it is, it gives parents piece of mind.​
The use I see in this piece of equipment is less the absolutist "in case they get kidnapped" scenario that most have alluded to here, but more the oh **** where did he go while in a store or the woods or in a crowd of people like at the amusement park. Or as some have mentioned maybe the parents give the child MORE freedom to do things on their own if they can keep some type of handle on them. Drop this thing in the trunk of the car for a teen, see if they tell you the truth about where they are going. Trusting your children is certainly a great thing. Nothing wrong with checking behind them to make sure.​
The privacy rights of a minor child argument is a strawman. Mostly since parents make those decisions for the child in most cases anyway. Even if it's decided that parents can't make those decisions, it's up to the child, the first time the child can't go to the movies unless they take their GPS, they would relinquish their "right".​
 
Last edited:
Why don't you ban your kids from ever riding in a car then? That would be a much better investment in their safety. But like most everyone else, you DO put a cost limit on your kid's life...if not in terms of money, then in terms of the inconvenience of getting them from Point A to Point B without a car.

Nothing is ever 100% safe in this world. But that doesn't change the fact that a person can't do all that they can to protect their child. Sometimes concessions must be made...like driving a car with them in it. Other times concessions don't have to be made. Like putting a GPS tracker on em. Besides didn't you hear? Seat belts save lives!. ;)

And as I've said before, I'm glad you weren't my father. You sound like an authoritarian whose kids are probably going to go absolutely wild the day they leave for college. If you have so little regard for your kids' privacy, they'll hate you...or at least distrust you.

You should prolly know that my folks never even let me out of the yard unless it was to go to school...until I was 17. I have 3 other siblings to thank for that. And yet, despite what you think I love my parents very much. More so than the other kids that had more freedom than me. Yes tough love is a B***H. But in the end it is worth it. To both the child and the parents.

And yes I'm would have to agree with you. I'm glad you weren't my kid either.

Oh. Well at younger ages, my parents almost always knew where I was. Without the GPS.

Almost? So they didn't know where you were all the time. That is the time that kids usually get into trouble.

Are we still talking about kids, or about young adults now? Because the things you mentioned were things like stealing cars.

Still kids. Haven't you ever heard of a 14-15 year olds stealing a car before?
 
Back
Top Bottom