6 ms·
I see the creepy potential. I don't see the danger.
by rocqua 5y ago
I see the creepy potential. I don't see the danger.
- beaconstudios 5y agoThe danger is that predators could track a child to a secluded area and abduct them.
- kayodelycaon 5y agoThe vast majority of abductions of children are by family. Same with other crimes against children. People they know are far more dangerous than people they don’t. The predators aren’t hiding in the bushes, they are already in the house.
- xwdv 5y agoThis is some kind of bias, the reason this is true is because it’s far easier for those people to abduct a child whose habits they know well. Now that the technology to track anyone is far easier to come by, maybe that will change.
- lazyasciiart 5y agoNo, that is not the reason. Most children are abducted in some kind of custody dispute, by someone who believes that they already have some kind of rights over the child.
- beaconstudios 5y agoThat's true but I don't see how it negates my point.
- lazide 5y agoDo you go around telling people they should be worried about shark attacks, because someone could put a shark in their pool without telling them?
- desmosxxx 5y agoshark attacks in pools never happen where as abduction by strangers does. Just because something happens at a lower frequency than something else doesn't mean we shouldn't protect against it or that it is not a danger to a particular person. The fact that most abductions happen by family members has nothing to do with OPs point.
- newaccount2021 5y agomy kids are more likely to die choking on a hotdog than shooting themselves with an AR15, which is why I encourage them to play with guns
- spinach 5y agoHuman trafficking is a huge problem even in America. This includes many children sold for sex. They often find and groom victims online now though, so yes, perhaps they aren't hiding in the bushes.
- batshit_beaver 5y agoOr you can just find a random kid in a secluded area and abduct them? Why bother tracking a specific one? And if someone wants your particular kid for some reason, then they'll probably get them without Apple's assistance.
- rocqua 5y agoThat is indeed creepy! But it is unlikely enough that I would not call it dangerous.
- endisneigh 5y agoCouldn't someone just slip a phone in a bag to do the same thing?
- tshaddox 5y agoYes, but that’s probably a larger and more expensive device.
- solveit 5y agoI don't think the limiting factor in child abductions is a few hundred dollars in the kidnapper's possession.
- rootusrootus 5y agoI can buy a battery powered GPS tracker with 4G LTE uplink on Amazon for $30. A bit larger than an airtag, considerably smaller than a smartphone.
- lazide 5y agoStranger danger is ridiculous and harmful. Most abuse, abductions, and harm to kids comes from those close to them who already have access to them, not some rando somewhere. Putting everyone into ‘oh my god, some rando is going to kidnap and kill your kid’ just amps up the already insane anxiety overload everyone is in.
- mdoms 5y agoYou don't see how creepy + children = danger?
- seadan83 5y agoI think they do. It's more, which should you fear more: your bath tub or someone rampaging in the street with a knife? The statistics say you should be far more afraid of your bath tub, there is a decent chance it will be your cause of death. The 'stranger' in the street is about as likely as lottery odds. So when it comes to children, abuse at home is several (if not many) magnitudes more likely than a stranger trying to track and abduct your children.
- newaccount2021 5y agoyou can care about vectors of harm that are not highly ranked....
- 323 5y agoDepends on the street. If you are in downtown San Francisco for example, all bets are off...
- seadan83 5y agoAt the risk of being offensive, it does not matter if you are in downtown SF - stop being afraid of the homeless and black people and assuming that they are more likely to harm you than someone you know. That statistics are not with you there. But let's look at some statistics: https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm Bathtub: 341 Assault by sharp object: 1,805 From that, assuming their data is correct, for every one person that falls in a bathtub and then drowns, there are 5 that are killed via assault with sharp object. The latter includes premediated and not, the number of those from a 'rampage' would be a fraction. So, if you change the side of street you are walking on to avoid walking near someone homeless out of fear they would go on a random stabbing rampage, and if you do not also have traction stickers attached to your bathtub, then you are exhibiting rational irrational fear.