If you can microchip your kid, would you?

[ForteKitty]

haha you guys realize that nothing is ever really private anymore, right? (unless your'e a hermit and have zero connection to the outside world) If they wanted to, they can find out almost anything they want. There are facial recognition programs being used already. They can track your financial records, where you visit online, what you buy, where you go, your phone calls. But i really dont think they want to waste their resources on 99.999% of us. My life is boring as heck.

It's kinda funny to see so many big-brother reactions. What are you guys hiding?!?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Fortekitty - have you read 1984? If not, read it and then get back to us.

 

[ForteKitty]

Yes, of course i've read it. Isn't it a 7th grade requirement?

1) if the govt. really want to, they WILL chip everyone. if the technology is available, dont you think they have ways of doing that at birth w/o your knowledge?
2) what makes you think they're not monitoring us already? lamp posts, new stands, parked cars, buildings, your very own car or house? There are a lot of places for cameras.
3) i'm not going to waste my time worrying about being monitored when i know there is nothing i can do. Paranoia is more crippling than fear. W/ fear, at least i know something is coming to get me.

I dont have kids, and probably wont. But if that were to ever happen, i will do anything to keep them safe. We just had another amber alert yesterday. We get them a lot in southern california, unfortunately. The thought of not being able to find a child is terrifying, and if that means i have to track my kid for even 16 years, i will do it.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

You already sound paranoid. Just thinking up all the ways we're being monitored and worrying about a hypothetical child being kidnapped. hahaha

The 1984 point I mean isn't so much that we're being monitored, but that the government will begin controlling our movements/discussions more and more and before we know it, guys show up at the door if we say someone in office sucks.

 

[ForteKitty]

actually, i admit it... i was paranoid for a while after my uncle showed me some stuff the govt is able to do. it just blew my mind! after that, i said to heck with it since they're gonna do it anyway.

This tracking discussion came up after that amber alert was issued yesterday, and someone at work mentioned that children should come w/ a tracking device... and i thought, genius!! Plus i watch criminal minds, and they've had a ton of kidnapping kids stories on there. Makes you more paranoid about walking down parking garage stairs and taking out the trash in the middle of the night!!

back to 1984. Here's a random food-coma infused thought. Instead of letting this happen to us, wouldn't it be better if we took control of the technology? We're not passive people, and if we're controlling the technology, it's harder for it be used against us.

eta: now i sound really crazy.

 

[TravelingGal]

FK, it's not the govt I'm concerned about. It's just that I think my kid deserves some privacy from ME.

I believe the worry for my kid would be so great, I'd be more tempted than think to use the tracking more often than I should. Prom night? Where is that bastard who has my daughter. What? That's a HOTEL ROOM! Honey get your gun....

I can't barely even read about Amber Alerts anymore (although I do in case I can be of help someday). It just guts me. So yeah, should my kid get kidnapped, I'm sure I would wish I chipped her. But in all things, I have to carefully weigh the pros and cons. And to me, the cons way outweigh the pros.

So no, I would not do it.

 

[Sparkalin]

1) if the govt. really want to, they WILL chip everyone. if the technology is available, dont you think they have ways of doing that at birth w/o your knowledg There are a lot of places for cameras. The thought of not being able to find a child is terrifying, and if that means i have to track my kid for even 16 years, i will do it.[/quote]

I have to say, off topic, I love your ring. On topic, I think it will be a cold day below before the people of the U.S.A. would allow such invasive measures to "keep track" of us.

Linda

 

[TravelingGal]

Yes, of course i've read it. Isn't it a 7th grade requirement?

1) if the govt. really want to, they WILL chip everyone. if the technology is available, dont you think they have ways of doing that at birth w/o your knowledge?
2) what makes you think they're not monitoring us already? lamp posts, new stands, parked cars, buildings, your very own car or house? There are a lot of places for cameras.
3) i'm not going to waste my time worrying about being monitored when i know there is nothing i can do. Paranoia is more crippling than fear. W/ fear, at least i know something is coming to get me.

I dont have kids, and probably wont. But if that were to ever happen, i will do anything to keep them safe. We just had another amber alert yesterday. We get them a lot in southern california, unfortunately. The thought of not being able to find a child is terrifying, and if that means i have to track my kid for even 16 years, i will do it.

FK, when you have your own child, the thought is even more terrifying.

However, when you have kids your job is not only to take care of them...it's to teach them to be responsible ADULTS. It's so that when they are 18, they can strike out on their own and have the skills, personal strength and wisdom to make the right decisions, and the heart to accept defeat and move on when they don't. That means while you are raising them, somewhere along the way you have to LEAVE THEM BE. Let them cook on the hot stove. Let them go out with their friends and try to make it home at a reasonable hour. Let them know you TRUST them and to make decisions that hopefully won't abuse your trust.

If I was a kid who knew I was on a virtual leash, even if my parents claimed that they wouldn't use it until they had to, it would affect the way I see the world, and not always in a positive light.

The chance of kidnapping is small. The chance of screwing up your kid is greater. I think I'll do my best to make sure I don't do the latter instead of worrying about the former.

 

[ForteKitty]

TGal, i completely agree. By tracking, i really do mean in the missing child scenario, nothing more. My siblings are 7 and 9 years younger than me, and my mom was a single parent, so i practically raised them. Re: the cooking.. it's awesome having a personal chef. (brother)

eta: I actually have issues w/ overbearing parents. My cousins are useless. Just yesterday, i had to walk her thru the steps of ordering musical tickets. the girl is 18. it's amazing. I've been ordering my own stuff since i was 12. back then it was by phone, and it was harder!

 

[ForteKitty]

I have to say, off topic, I love your ring. On topic, I think it will be a cold day below before the people of the U.S.A. would allow such invasive measures to "keep track" of us.

Linda

Thanks!!

 

[TravelingGal]

TGal, i completely agree. By tracking, i really do mean in the missing child scenario, nothing more. My siblings are 7 and 9 years younger than me, and my mom was a single parent, so i practically raised them. Re: the cooking.. it's awesome having a personal chef. (brother)

Ooh, personal chef. Niiiiiiiiiiiiice.

I just think it'd be too tempting to use. The kid comes home 30 minutes late and all hell breaks lose. Perhaps you might be a more restrained, level headed mother than I am, but I'd be horrible!!!

 

[ForteKitty]

Haha, i'm really not that bad. They had a lot of freedom when I was in charge. My mom was more strict with them than with me, and it was weird having to convince her to let them go anywhere. After a while, she simply said, "go ask your sister if you can go"

Raising kids is hard. I dont ever wanna do it again.

 

[kittybean]

i wish kids were born w/ a tracking device/link to the parents.

For some children, that could be incredibly dangerous, if not fatal. Parental kidnapping is much, much more common than the "perv in an unmarked van" scenario. A child is more likely to be intentionally killed, kidnapped, or seriously injured by a parent or other caregiver than by a stranger. A majority of child abusers are family members or others close to the child's family.

I also think that Honey's point about the lengths someone might go to in order to "de-chip" their victim is a valid one. People engaged in criminal activity will do things beyond the pale of the normal, non-sociopathic imagination in order to prevent themselves from being caught. I would perhaps support a discreet bracelet, shoe, pin, or other object with GPS in it that could be used in the case of a possible kidnapping, but I would worry that that information might fall into the wrong hands, as described above.

I think that tracking anyone is something that should be treated with extreme caution. There are benefits, of course, but there are so many collateral consequences that I think it is ultimately not worth the risk.

 

[ForteKitty]

Very true, there are some effed up parents out there.

.
.
.

Another tangent:

How do you guys feel about tracking criminals like this guy? He's the one who abducted the girl yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39519581/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I'm not even going to write what i would suggest they do with people like this. It's too inhumane. But that doesn't mean i can't think it.

 

[kittybean]

Tracking "criminals" is a topic I find fraught with conflict as well.

Cautionary example: in recent years, there was a run-of-the-mill domestic violence case involving an allegation of simple assault (a slap, if I recall correctly) perpetrated by the male party on the female party. The parties had had an acrimonious separation, and the female had a new boyfriend. The male party was arrested, and as part of the conditions of his bond, he was put on a GPS ankle monitor that tracked him in real time. The female party could call the monitoring service and get his location at any time. What the court didn't take into account was that the female party's new boyfriend was a convicted violent felon who had made threats against the male party on at least one occasion. One night, the female checked on and was given the male's location. The next morning, police found the male dead of close-range gunshot wounds in the motel room where he was staying for the night. The new boyfriend later confessed and noted he wouldn't have known where the male was but for the help of the monitoring service.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Very true, there are some effed up parents out there.

.
.
.

Another tangent:

How do you guys feel about tracking criminals like this guy? He's the one who abducted the girl yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39519581/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I'm not even going to write what i would suggest they do with people like this. It's too inhumane. But that doesn't mean i can't think it.

Maybe tracking criminals with specific histories such as sex offenders who refuse to register. Not just any criminal but someone who's made a point to refuse following the laws once released. ...though, I guess those types probably shouldn't be out of prison. . .but that's another topic!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Tracking "criminals" is a topic I find fraught with conflict as well.

Cautionary example: in recent years, there was a run-of-the-mill domestic violence case involving an allegation of simple assault (a slap, if I recall correctly) perpetrated by the male party on the female party. The parties had had an acrimonious separation, and the female had a new boyfriend. The male party was arrested, and as part of the conditions of his bond, he was put on a GPS ankle monitor that tracked him in real time. The female party could call the monitoring service and get his location at any time. What the court didn't take into account was that the female party's new boyfriend was a convicted violent felon who had made threats against the male party on at least one occasion. One night, the female checked on and was given the male's location. The next morning, police found the male dead of close-range gunshot wounds in the motel room where he was staying for the night. The new boyfriend later confessed and noted he wouldn't have known where the male was but for the help of the monitoring service.

Perplexing. Why would the girl date another guy with a violent history?

 

[kittybean]

Perplexing. Why would the girl date another guy with a violent history?

I've found that people inexplicably adhere to patterns sometimes with seemingly little regard for the logical consequences of repeating the initial course of action.

ETA: I just read over my post and realized I was still in overly-wordy-lawyer mode when I wrote it. In plain English: history repeats itself.

 

[ForteKitty]

KB, doesn't that happen a lot? (repeat behavior of dating violent criminals) you're an attorney, right? you must see a lot of this...

 

[Callisto]

SO and I have had some hypothetical conversations about things like this. He's very anti-anything that resembles Big Brother, and I can totally see where he is coming from. But when it comes down to it, if I lost my child I'd hope there was every Big Brother tracking measure in place to find my kid. So yeah I think I would...

 

[somethingshiny]

I figured out one of my biggest reasons why this feels wrong to me. You teach your child to be truthful and trustworthy. The way they actually LEARN those behaviors is to be given the CHOICE to tell the truth in the first place. If they are constantly monitored, they no longer have a choice to make. By not allowing a most basic behavior that is necessary in every day life, I believe children would be set up for failure. Sure, they wouldn't lie about where they'd been, but it wouldn't be because lying is WRONG, it would be because they can't get away with it.

 

[Gypsy]

Sure, as long as it is like low-jack... you use it in emergencies. And I don't think governments should have access except with a warrant or parental consent.

 

[ForteKitty]

Sure, as long as it is like low-jack... you use it in emergencies. And I don't think governments should have access except with a warrant or parental consent.

That is exactly what i meant, but i didnt use the right words.

 

[ForteKitty]

I figured out one of my biggest reasons why this feels wrong to me. You teach your child to be truthful and trustworthy. The way they actually LEARN those behaviors is to be given the CHOICE to tell the truth in the first place. If they are constantly monitored, they no longer have a choice to make. By not allowing a most basic behavior that is necessary in every day life, I believe children would be set up for failure. Sure, they wouldn't lie about where they'd been, but it wouldn't be because lying is WRONG, it would be because they can't get away with it.

I didn't mean for it to be an every day tracking device. Of course kids still have to learn right from wrong.

.
.
.

Okay, i thought of something else.

WHAT IF.... this device is sensitive to perspiration, elevated heart rate, and elevated stress hormones, and turns on automatically during those times? (I'm talking about fear triggering these symptoms and not ... well, sex. this still needs a lot of hypothetical work )

If the presence of these symptoms can trigger the chip to turn on and beacon home, then the parents can track their kids when their kids are in danger. During normal circumstances, it wouldn't be on.

eh?? ehhh??? whaddya think?!?

sorry guys, it's raining and dark by the time i get out of work. i'm really bored and imaginative right now.

 

[katamari]

Not no, but heck no to both questions. What is the point of releasing incarcerated individuals if we want their punishments to be life-long?

Generally, I'm more scared of a public who surrenders their rights than a government who attempts to take them.

 

[ForteKitty]

katamari, but these criminals are being released, whether we like it or not. blame overcrowding. And I dont believe that they can be rehabilitated. nor do i believe they really suffer in jail. They're just sorry they got caught, not for raping and murdering... again, i'll keep my thoughts private on what we should do with them, but most of you should be able to figure it out.

I dont think we should surrender our rights, that's why it should be ours to control. We set the parameters, and how to use it. hypothetical technology shouldn't be feared.