3 ms·

This is utterly terrifying. Maybe the kids are used to this level of obsessive control? I’m not sure if this sounds more damaging for the kids or for the paren

This is utterly terrifying. Maybe the kids are used to this level of obsessive control? I’m not sure if this sounds more damaging for the kids or for the parents. This also sounds only a _really_ small step away from just having cameras everywhere that the parents can watch 24/7. I’d really like to hear a persuasive argument as to why this is at all reasonable.

joe_the_user 7y ago
One company sells the camp facial recognition software to stream the kids and another company sells the parents emotion and danger recognition AI software to scan the video stream and signals the parents if something seems "wrong". And yeah, nightmarish. "Welcome Panopticamp , where everyone is happy or else!"
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I’d really like to hear a persuasive argument as to why this is at all reasonable. Put yourself in the shoes of some jerk from a wealthy suburb. For your kids entire life they have been under the supervision of one of the following: You Your spouse A babysitter hired by you A fellow parent (e.g. soccer coach) A teacher Who are camps staffed primarily by? A bunch of 18 and 19yos. Sending them to a summer camp is downright terrifying. What if they drown. What if they break an arm. What if, what if, what if.... Parents need to grow a pair and let the damn kid out of their sight and under the supervision of someone whom they cannot query for information about how their kid is doing. This facial recognition BS is replacing that feedback. Personally, I think it's all crap but I understand why some people like it.
- mbrumlow 7y ago
  Until you talk to throwaway07Ju19...
lowdose 7y ago
This is next level helicopter parenting in action. Kids these days are twice the age of millennials when they start roaming their surrounding environment without supervision. When I grew up we had a comedy movie called the Truman Show and we were actually laughing about a similar situation. This is guaranteed to set up a generation for failure if kids are never exposed to any risk taking activities.
- novok 7y ago
  My mom brought up a point, that in the 50s-70s, maybe even the 80s, there was a vast informal network of housewifes and grandparents that kept watch on the kids playing outside in the neighborhood, that they felt like they could trust. Also there were not laws that made it kids had to be supervised by adults until age 12. Now CPS will be called on you if you have your kids go on the bus by themselves: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/06/a-dad-in-bc-let-his-kids-ride-the-bus-alone-and-it-sparked-a-national-debate.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/06/a-dad-in-bc-l... In today's dual income norm where you don't know your neighbors, that doesn't exist anymore. That & the new laws creates helicopter parenting to assuage these new anxieties.
  - lowdose 7y ago
    Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This is the kind of nonsense you actually sue a government for. Is Canada providing the support for parents working full time to accommodate these kinds of demands? > After a weeks-long investigation, the ministry concluded that children under the age of 10 cannot be left unsupervised — whether on a bus, riding bikes around the neighbourhood or walking to the corner store, he said. It's so sad our world has never been as safe as today.
    - novok 7y ago
      Basically the expectation is you bring them to school yourself either via driving them or maybe walking them to the school bus, and then they stay at home or they are supervised by other adults in activities, the school/daycare, scheduled play dates and so on. Kids walking over to the neighbors house 'unsupervised', playing in your private back yard and other small things isn't enforced in practice, but stuff like this is.
    - qball 7y ago
      >Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This isn't an administration completely out of control. This is a society completely out of control. The administration simply reflects the prevailing social attitude, and that attitude is that we want to take away the rights of children to properly develop (and more to the point, limit the rights of parents to allow their children to develop) and hand it over to concern trolls and/or the paranoid so that they may exercise power over their neighbors under the guise of looking out for them- remember, abuse from CPS is always initiated by a "concerned citizen". Oppression, after all, is always at its worst when the oppressors act with the approval of their own conscience. Societies typically fail to deal with this kind of person appropriately, because when risk is exposed it both presses emotional buttons and provides an easy way out (by banning the risk). The way it's correctly dealt with is to write laws that ban society from paying that kind of Dane-geld. These laws codify things called "rights"; and their primary function is to prevent unwarranted risk aversity (be it genuine, or fake to score political points) by setting down a baseline beyond which those that spread terror are not negotiated with (that your children will be abducted unless you pay the ransom of never letting them outside, or that they'll grow up to be mass killers unless you pay the ransom of banning rock music, D&D, and video games), even if the allegations are correct (a child raised in a locked cage will by definition never be abducted). Utah has passed such a law (I'm not sure about other places, though Red states are by current definition more likely than Blue ones to do this) explicitly codifying the right of way of minors of "sufficient age and maturity" in its state definition of "neglect" so that State power can't be abused to harass them. While it's not a permanent solution explicitly recognizing the rights of persons of sufficient age and maturity (as it could easily be changed later, and even if minors had the explicit right of way they would be unlikely to realize if it was being infringed), it's a good first step.

joe_the_user 7y ago

One company sells the camp facial recognition software to stream the kids and another company sells the parents emotion and danger recognition AI software to scan the video stream and signals the parents if something seems "wrong". And yeah, nightmarish. "Welcome Panopticamp , where everyone is happy or else!"

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>I’d really like to hear a persuasive argument as to why this is at all reasonable. Put yourself in the shoes of some jerk from a wealthy suburb. For your kids entire life they have been under the supervision of one of the following: You Your spouse A babysitter hired by you A fellow parent (e.g. soccer coach) A teacher Who are camps staffed primarily by? A bunch of 18 and 19yos. Sending them to a summer camp is downright terrifying. What if they drown. What if they break an arm. What if, what if, what if.... Parents need to grow a pair and let the damn kid out of their sight and under the supervision of someone whom they cannot query for information about how their kid is doing. This facial recognition BS is replacing that feedback. Personally, I think it's all crap but I understand why some people like it.

mbrumlow 7y ago
Until you talk to throwaway07Ju19...

lowdose 7y ago

This is next level helicopter parenting in action. Kids these days are twice the age of millennials when they start roaming their surrounding environment without supervision. When I grew up we had a comedy movie called the Truman Show and we were actually laughing about a similar situation. This is guaranteed to set up a generation for failure if kids are never exposed to any risk taking activities.

novok 7y ago
My mom brought up a point, that in the 50s-70s, maybe even the 80s, there was a vast informal network of housewifes and grandparents that kept watch on the kids playing outside in the neighborhood, that they felt like they could trust. Also there were not laws that made it kids had to be supervised by adults until age 12. Now CPS will be called on you if you have your kids go on the bus by themselves: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/06/a-dad-in-bc-let-his-kids-ride-the-bus-alone-and-it-sparked-a-national-debate.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/06/a-dad-in-bc-l... In today's dual income norm where you don't know your neighbors, that doesn't exist anymore. That & the new laws creates helicopter parenting to assuage these new anxieties.
- lowdose 7y ago
  Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This is the kind of nonsense you actually sue a government for. Is Canada providing the support for parents working full time to accommodate these kinds of demands? > After a weeks-long investigation, the ministry concluded that children under the age of 10 cannot be left unsupervised — whether on a bus, riding bikes around the neighbourhood or walking to the corner store, he said. It's so sad our world has never been as safe as today.
  - novok 7y ago
    Basically the expectation is you bring them to school yourself either via driving them or maybe walking them to the school bus, and then they stay at home or they are supervised by other adults in activities, the school/daycare, scheduled play dates and so on. Kids walking over to the neighbors house 'unsupervised', playing in your private back yard and other small things isn't enforced in practice, but stuff like this is.
  - qball 7y ago
    >Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This isn't an administration completely out of control. This is a society completely out of control. The administration simply reflects the prevailing social attitude, and that attitude is that we want to take away the rights of children to properly develop (and more to the point, limit the rights of parents to allow their children to develop) and hand it over to concern trolls and/or the paranoid so that they may exercise power over their neighbors under the guise of looking out for them- remember, abuse from CPS is always initiated by a "concerned citizen". Oppression, after all, is always at its worst when the oppressors act with the approval of their own conscience. Societies typically fail to deal with this kind of person appropriately, because when risk is exposed it both presses emotional buttons and provides an easy way out (by banning the risk). The way it's correctly dealt with is to write laws that ban society from paying that kind of Dane-geld. These laws codify things called "rights"; and their primary function is to prevent unwarranted risk aversity (be it genuine, or fake to score political points) by setting down a baseline beyond which those that spread terror are not negotiated with (that your children will be abducted unless you pay the ransom of never letting them outside, or that they'll grow up to be mass killers unless you pay the ransom of banning rock music, D&D, and video games), even if the allegations are correct (a child raised in a locked cage will by definition never be abducted). Utah has passed such a law (I'm not sure about other places, though Red states are by current definition more likely than Blue ones to do this) explicitly codifying the right of way of minors of "sufficient age and maturity" in its state definition of "neglect" so that State power can't be abused to harass them. While it's not a permanent solution explicitly recognizing the rights of persons of sufficient age and maturity (as it could easily be changed later, and even if minors had the explicit right of way they would be unlikely to realize if it was being infringed), it's a good first step.