8 ms·

This is a bit of projection. I have a child younger than yours and I feel exactly like OP. I’m really sorry about your son’s experience. Getting lost can be te

This is a bit of projection. I have a child younger than yours and I feel exactly like OP. I’m really sorry about your son’s experience. Getting lost can be terrifying for a kid. But being lost happens (eg I was lost in hunting woods at 8yo), and many commenters have shared their experiences. Being scared and eventually overcoming the fear is a quintessential growing experience. Obviously there are countless caveats because each kid is different, and depends on the level of danger etc

wonderwonder 2y ago
That's the wonderful thing though, everyone is free to raise their kids as they see fit. Original comment about "I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline" is obviously ridiculous and attempting to shame parents that opt for this kind of device. Regardless of the choice the parent makes, odds are the kid is going to grow up just fine. There was no need for OP to make an incendiary comment.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It's shaming constant tracking, not anyone that might buy this. And that probably should be shamed.
  - wonderwonder 2y ago
    why? What's the harm with knowing where your minor kids or opted in spouse are? Honest question.
    - godelski 2y ago
      Your kids don't learn independence and how to be self sufficient. After all, the goal is to make your kids into self-sufficient adults who can survive and navigate a complex world without your help. Being over protective (which is a natural instinct) can lead to children being overly dependent and not learning to be (to put in the most HN way possible) generalist agents. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40519118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40519118
      - lolinder 2y ago
        > Your kids don't learn independence and how to be self sufficient. Doesn't this depend on how the tracking is used, not on whether the tracking is present at all? My wife and I share our location with each other and I don't actually know if she uses my location at all. If she does, she doesn't mention it. I use it occasionally to get a sense for when to expect her back or to find her when we need to meet up for something. When our kids are old enough to have phones I imagine that we'll add them to the location-sharing circle we have and continue to use it in much the same way. For us it won't be about monitoring them at all times, it's just a helpful convenience for running a household.
        godelski 2y ago
        > Doesn't this depend on how the tracking is used, not on whether the tracking is present at all? Of course. I think most people would agree that this would be an implicit assumption not worth explicitly mentioning. Do you think that's non-obvious? To me it seems rather obvious since in the extreme case if you bought the device and never actually used any of the features (but still put it on your kid) then clearly it'd have no effect. There's clearly a lot of gray area in between. But I think it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking. Because the value/utility is significantly lower for those that don't (we can agree that these factors are significantly related, right?). From your specific example, I don't think anyone arguing against this type of device would be worried about that type of usage. My partner and I often share locations with one another, but honestly we often forget we shared it and end up literally asking instead lol. But my experience has been that we are the abnormal ones and others use the feature much more.
        wonderwonder 2y ago
        "But my experience has been that we are the abnormal ones and others use the feature much more" I think you would find that you are the normal ones. My family has had it turned on for over a year now. I don't know I have ever used it to find my wife and I use it ~ once a month on my oldest now that he is venturing out on his own to ensure he got to where he was going. I have discussed it with several friends / acquaintances and their use is similar to mine. I think your assumption that everyone actively tracks each other and over uses it is assigning an edge case to the majority. Its a simple safety feature to most, there when its needed. your assumption that "it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking" is flawed and I don't think based on most people experience.
    - hgomersall 2y ago
      I think the question is: what is the threat model, and how would the information change your behaviour? If it's just peace of mind, then the false positives are super super stressful as I have had direct (not mine) experience of. My view is tracking might have its place in certain situations, but almost certainly not in a blanket way, and always with an understanding of the threat model.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      The spouse may have opted in, but the kids certainly didn't. Even if they say it's ok, they likely assume they have to agree, or they don't get to go anywhere alone, don't get to use the phone, etc. Or -- worse -- they just don't yet understand the awful implications of living in a society where everyone can be tracked. And so now they're conditioned from a young age to think this is normal, and then when they're in their 20s they don't bat an eye when the government passes a law requiring that the smartphone OS makers share real-time location data with the government at all times. That may sound sensational and hyperbolic, but I honestly don't see that as particularly farfetched, given the growth of government overreach over the past decades.
loughnane 2y ago
Same. 15/10/8 kids here. These are bad. A sibling comment said “everyone is free to do what they want”. I agree with that, but that doesn’t make everything good. In general I’m struck at how many people’s sense or “right” leans so hard on what’s available for sale.
- XorNot 2y ago
  Why is that surprising? If something isn't possible, then it's not possible and we adapt. If something is possible, then then it's possible and we should consider it. "Can I somehow put a tracking device on my young child?" is a question I've thought about for decades since before I had a young child, and now that I do I've been looking for something that will work for him when he's still little. Obviously as he grows up the plan is to ramp off the updates - i.e. I don't need to know where he is at all times if he's old enough to know to text me if he'll be out late.
  - Swizec 2y ago
    > if he's old enough to know to text me if he'll be out late Kids certainly reach a stage where not texting you they’ll be out late is an important part of development. Teenage rebellion and all that. I loved telling my mom not to wait for me and staying out way past when she said she expects me to be back.
  - loughnane 2y ago
    > "Can I somehow put a tracking device on my young child?" is a question I've thought about for decades Good for you and those like you, it's nice when something long-awaited finally drops. I was speaking of the people who, if prompted 20y ago, would have said "that's creepy" but are now cool to track their kids, set up cameras around their house that are controlled by 3rd parties, and be cool with a firm tracking everything they watch, etc.
- godelski 2y ago
  > In general I’m struck at how many people’s sense or “right” leans so hard on what’s available for sale. I'm mostly confused how it seems there's pretty significant evidence that helicopter parenting[0] has resulted in poor outcomes for kids[1] but then we act as if the reason it fails is because we aren't paying __enough__ attention. I am sympathetic to parents wanting to protect their kids, but if the objective is to turn children into adults that are independent and self-sufficient, then a parent also needs to learn to trust their kids (at different levels of course. Clearly there's a balance). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent [1] To be clear, this metastudy concludes that there is insufficient statistical power due to scale, the evidence is in the direction of causing harm and of course, there is reason to believe this is a reasonable outcome. It's worth noting the part that says Overprotective parenting and anxiety: No studies found reduced anxiety following overprotective parenting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176408/
pard68 2y ago
Ditto I have four kids between 8 and 1. These things keep children AND parents from growing up.
- scotty79 2y ago
  Times change. Two hundred years ago growing up as a parent might have meant accepting one of your kids dying. Things don't stay the same.
  - pard68 2y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your meaning, kids still die. I have lost a child and a tracker that ruins their confidence and privacy wouldn't have done anything. Not that much changes.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      I'm sorry for your loss. What I meant was that it used to be so common that it was something majority of parents (or large enough fraction) expeirienced so those that didn't experience it might have been seen as not experiencing full range of parenthood. One might say that modern medicine that vastly reduced child mortality somehow keeps most of modern parents from "growing up" in that sense that they never experience full range of parenthood from 200 years ago.
      - pard68 2y ago
        Ah, I see. I guess that's possibly true. On the other hand, the loss of someone close to you is practically inevitable. Eventually almost everyone will experience a devastating death (unless the person is the devastating death). In my observation, the inability to let a child off on their own without any form of supervision or in this case tracking, means that the parent is not ready to let go of that child when they are an adult and need to be given the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. I am admittedly biased. My sister was tracked from about 12 until this day and she's now 26, I believe. She gets upset when my mother isn't checking in on her. Likewise, my mother can't go more than a few hours without calling my sister. She will regularly check her phone to see where my sister is and then comment on her whereabouts and call or text her to ask why she's where ever. Likely there are parents who are going to be able to handle these tools responsibly, but I am not sure there is a responsible way to use these. But I am also biased against them, hopefully I am wrong. I saw how my sister has turned out from having a late-blooming helicopter parent and my wife (one of a dozen kids, so very hands off parents) and I have tried to give our own kids age appropriate freedoms. I have been amazed by historic accounts of children. One example that sticks out to me is a letter a man in Texas wrote to his brother. The man's wife had died and he had to take care of some affairs in Texas. The man's brother lived in Kansas and he was writing because he'd sent his two children (12 & 13) to Kansas with his herd of cattle to sell. I don't think I'd ever be there, but I do think children are more capable and trustworthy than we give them credit for and we don't give children enough room and as a result we have some extremely childish adults who have never been given the chance to fail and get back up.

wonderwonder 2y ago

That's the wonderful thing though, everyone is free to raise their kids as they see fit. Original comment about "I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline" is obviously ridiculous and attempting to shame parents that opt for this kind of device. Regardless of the choice the parent makes, odds are the kid is going to grow up just fine. There was no need for OP to make an incendiary comment.

Dylan16807 2y ago
It's shaming constant tracking, not anyone that might buy this. And that probably should be shamed.
- wonderwonder 2y ago
  why? What's the harm with knowing where your minor kids or opted in spouse are? Honest question.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Your kids don't learn independence and how to be self sufficient. After all, the goal is to make your kids into self-sufficient adults who can survive and navigate a complex world without your help. Being over protective (which is a natural instinct) can lead to children being overly dependent and not learning to be (to put in the most HN way possible) generalist agents. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40519118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40519118
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Your kids don't learn independence and how to be self sufficient. Doesn't this depend on how the tracking is used, not on whether the tracking is present at all? My wife and I share our location with each other and I don't actually know if she uses my location at all. If she does, she doesn't mention it. I use it occasionally to get a sense for when to expect her back or to find her when we need to meet up for something. When our kids are old enough to have phones I imagine that we'll add them to the location-sharing circle we have and continue to use it in much the same way. For us it won't be about monitoring them at all times, it's just a helpful convenience for running a household.
      - godelski 2y ago
        > Doesn't this depend on how the tracking is used, not on whether the tracking is present at all? Of course. I think most people would agree that this would be an implicit assumption not worth explicitly mentioning. Do you think that's non-obvious? To me it seems rather obvious since in the extreme case if you bought the device and never actually used any of the features (but still put it on your kid) then clearly it'd have no effect. There's clearly a lot of gray area in between. But I think it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking. Because the value/utility is significantly lower for those that don't (we can agree that these factors are significantly related, right?). From your specific example, I don't think anyone arguing against this type of device would be worried about that type of usage. My partner and I often share locations with one another, but honestly we often forget we shared it and end up literally asking instead lol. But my experience has been that we are the abnormal ones and others use the feature much more.
        wonderwonder 2y ago
        "But my experience has been that we are the abnormal ones and others use the feature much more" I think you would find that you are the normal ones. My family has had it turned on for over a year now. I don't know I have ever used it to find my wife and I use it ~ once a month on my oldest now that he is venturing out on his own to ensure he got to where he was going. I have discussed it with several friends / acquaintances and their use is similar to mine. I think your assumption that everyone actively tracks each other and over uses it is assigning an edge case to the majority. Its a simple safety feature to most, there when its needed. your assumption that "it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking" is flawed and I don't think based on most people experience.
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    I think the question is: what is the threat model, and how would the information change your behaviour? If it's just peace of mind, then the false positives are super super stressful as I have had direct (not mine) experience of. My view is tracking might have its place in certain situations, but almost certainly not in a blanket way, and always with an understanding of the threat model.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    The spouse may have opted in, but the kids certainly didn't. Even if they say it's ok, they likely assume they have to agree, or they don't get to go anywhere alone, don't get to use the phone, etc. Or -- worse -- they just don't yet understand the awful implications of living in a society where everyone can be tracked. And so now they're conditioned from a young age to think this is normal, and then when they're in their 20s they don't bat an eye when the government passes a law requiring that the smartphone OS makers share real-time location data with the government at all times. That may sound sensational and hyperbolic, but I honestly don't see that as particularly farfetched, given the growth of government overreach over the past decades.

loughnane 2y ago

Same. 15/10/8 kids here. These are bad. A sibling comment said “everyone is free to do what they want”. I agree with that, but that doesn’t make everything good. In general I’m struck at how many people’s sense or “right” leans so hard on what’s available for sale.

XorNot 2y ago
Why is that surprising? If something isn't possible, then it's not possible and we adapt. If something is possible, then then it's possible and we should consider it. "Can I somehow put a tracking device on my young child?" is a question I've thought about for decades since before I had a young child, and now that I do I've been looking for something that will work for him when he's still little. Obviously as he grows up the plan is to ramp off the updates - i.e. I don't need to know where he is at all times if he's old enough to know to text me if he'll be out late.
- Swizec 2y ago
  > if he's old enough to know to text me if he'll be out late Kids certainly reach a stage where not texting you they’ll be out late is an important part of development. Teenage rebellion and all that. I loved telling my mom not to wait for me and staying out way past when she said she expects me to be back.
- loughnane 2y ago
  > "Can I somehow put a tracking device on my young child?" is a question I've thought about for decades Good for you and those like you, it's nice when something long-awaited finally drops. I was speaking of the people who, if prompted 20y ago, would have said "that's creepy" but are now cool to track their kids, set up cameras around their house that are controlled by 3rd parties, and be cool with a firm tracking everything they watch, etc.
godelski 2y ago
> In general I’m struck at how many people’s sense or “right” leans so hard on what’s available for sale. I'm mostly confused how it seems there's pretty significant evidence that helicopter parenting[0] has resulted in poor outcomes for kids[1] but then we act as if the reason it fails is because we aren't paying __enough__ attention. I am sympathetic to parents wanting to protect their kids, but if the objective is to turn children into adults that are independent and self-sufficient, then a parent also needs to learn to trust their kids (at different levels of course. Clearly there's a balance). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent [1] To be clear, this metastudy concludes that there is insufficient statistical power due to scale, the evidence is in the direction of causing harm and of course, there is reason to believe this is a reasonable outcome. It's worth noting the part that says Overprotective parenting and anxiety: No studies found reduced anxiety following overprotective parenting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176408/

pard68 2y ago

Ditto I have four kids between 8 and 1. These things keep children AND parents from growing up.

scotty79 2y ago
Times change. Two hundred years ago growing up as a parent might have meant accepting one of your kids dying. Things don't stay the same.
- pard68 2y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your meaning, kids still die. I have lost a child and a tracker that ruins their confidence and privacy wouldn't have done anything. Not that much changes.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    I'm sorry for your loss. What I meant was that it used to be so common that it was something majority of parents (or large enough fraction) expeirienced so those that didn't experience it might have been seen as not experiencing full range of parenthood. One might say that modern medicine that vastly reduced child mortality somehow keeps most of modern parents from "growing up" in that sense that they never experience full range of parenthood from 200 years ago.
    - pard68 2y ago
      Ah, I see. I guess that's possibly true. On the other hand, the loss of someone close to you is practically inevitable. Eventually almost everyone will experience a devastating death (unless the person is the devastating death). In my observation, the inability to let a child off on their own without any form of supervision or in this case tracking, means that the parent is not ready to let go of that child when they are an adult and need to be given the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. I am admittedly biased. My sister was tracked from about 12 until this day and she's now 26, I believe. She gets upset when my mother isn't checking in on her. Likewise, my mother can't go more than a few hours without calling my sister. She will regularly check her phone to see where my sister is and then comment on her whereabouts and call or text her to ask why she's where ever. Likely there are parents who are going to be able to handle these tools responsibly, but I am not sure there is a responsible way to use these. But I am also biased against them, hopefully I am wrong. I saw how my sister has turned out from having a late-blooming helicopter parent and my wife (one of a dozen kids, so very hands off parents) and I have tried to give our own kids age appropriate freedoms. I have been amazed by historic accounts of children. One example that sticks out to me is a letter a man in Texas wrote to his brother. The man's wife had died and he had to take care of some affairs in Texas. The man's brother lived in Kansas and he was writing because he'd sent his two children (12 & 13) to Kansas with his herd of cattle to sell. I don't think I'd ever be there, but I do think children are more capable and trustworthy than we give them credit for and we don't give children enough room and as a result we have some extremely childish adults who have never been given the chance to fail and get back up.