3 ms·

No, we don't have to worry about this situation, and using them to justify this technology is wrong. Child abduction by a non-parent is exceptionally rare. Eac

No, we don't have to worry about this situation, and using them to justify this technology is wrong. Child abduction by a non-parent is exceptionally rare. Each year there are around 200 of them, of which 90% make it home safely. That means that your child's risk of being abducted is about 0.00027%. That's absolutely no basis to justify this awful technology on, and no reason for you to worry as a parent. Not to mention: the abductor could just take your spyware watch off of the kid. source: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2016-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2016-ncic-missing-person...

zestyping 8y ago
I'm trying to understand how you got 200 from this report. On page 2, I see this paragraph about the Missing Person Circumstances (MPC) field in their database: "Of the 647,435 records entered in 2016, the MPC field was utilized in 315,995 (48.8%). When the MPC field was utilized in 2016 entries, 303,237 (96%) were coded as Runaway, 2,107 (.7%) as Abducted by Non-custodial Parent, 303 (.1%) as Abducted by Stranger, and 10,348 (3.3%) as Adult - Federally required entry." So it looks like one should take the number 303 for "Abducted by Stranger" and perhaps, since only 48.8% of records had this field populated, extrapolate to about 620 cases. Does that sound right, or should it be 200 based on a different reasoning? Of course, 620 cases is still a pretty small number. I just wanted to understand where your numbers came from. How did you get the figure of 90% making it home safely, and how did you calculate the probability of 0.00027%?
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Actually I have to admit that I originally wrote my numbers based on a random article I found which summarizes this source: https://www.creditdonkey.com/kidnapping-statistics.html https://www.creditdonkey.com/kidnapping-statistics.html Then I went to the source to verify that the information was there, but didn't re-run my numbers. I apologise, that was lazy and misleading.
  - zestyping 8y ago
    Oh, okay, cool. Thanks for clearing that up! I just happened to dive in because I also believe the panic about abductions by strangers is overblown, and wanted to be able to quote numbers with confidence.

zestyping 8y ago

I'm trying to understand how you got 200 from this report. On page 2, I see this paragraph about the Missing Person Circumstances (MPC) field in their database: "Of the 647,435 records entered in 2016, the MPC field was utilized in 315,995 (48.8%). When the MPC field was utilized in 2016 entries, 303,237 (96%) were coded as Runaway, 2,107 (.7%) as Abducted by Non-custodial Parent, 303 (.1%) as Abducted by Stranger, and 10,348 (3.3%) as Adult - Federally required entry." So it looks like one should take the number 303 for "Abducted by Stranger" and perhaps, since only 48.8% of records had this field populated, extrapolate to about 620 cases. Does that sound right, or should it be 200 based on a different reasoning? Of course, 620 cases is still a pretty small number. I just wanted to understand where your numbers came from. How did you get the figure of 90% making it home safely, and how did you calculate the probability of 0.00027%?

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Actually I have to admit that I originally wrote my numbers based on a random article I found which summarizes this source: https://www.creditdonkey.com/kidnapping-statistics.html https://www.creditdonkey.com/kidnapping-statistics.html Then I went to the source to verify that the information was there, but didn't re-run my numbers. I apologise, that was lazy and misleading.
- zestyping 8y ago
  Oh, okay, cool. Thanks for clearing that up! I just happened to dive in because I also believe the panic about abductions by strangers is overblown, and wanted to be able to quote numbers with confidence.