Children's Watch Allows Parents To Track Their Kid 607
pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that a new wristwatch called num8 has a GPS tracking device and satellite positioning system concealed inside so parents can locate the wearer to within 10 feet with Google maps. The watch sends an alert if it is forcibly removed. The makers of the watch claim it gives peace of mind to parents and makes children more independent. 'Losing your child, if only for a brief moment, leads to a state of panic and makes parents feel powerless. The overriding aim of num8 is to give children their freedom and parents peace of mind,' says a company spokesman. Critics of the watch say tagging children is a step too far in paranoia about child safety. 'Is the world really that unsafe that parents need to track their children electronically? I don't think so,' says Dr Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape."
So? (Score:2, Interesting)
So what's to lose? Say you have a 6 year old kid: is it really going to harm them to wear one of these? Sure, chances are very very high that this'll never be needed, but so what? It's kind of like Pascal's wager, isn't it?
The bit that irritates me most about this is the retailer's website "Loc8r", "Where R U" etc. I'd be more worried about the effects of this on their spelling than their general well being.
How is the alert and position sent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Training (Score:3, Interesting)
Pull the battery. The thing must be transmitting to a local basestation somehow, since GPS is passive (despite the popular press not understanding that basic fact).
Faraday cages aren't exactly high tech and would defeat this also (if you wanted to abduct a kid a van with wire mesh on the inside would do just nicely).
Re:Good for pre-teens, but not older (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that it leads to a false sense of security and/or a state of hyper-vigilance. When you say "If they're not at those places, then they're generally in trouble (whether they've wandered off on accident, been abducted, or are just being mischievous)", it implies (by a logical fallacy, I know) that is they are at those places, then they are safe.
So Jane Parent sends her kid off to Tommie Walker's house. She drills the specific route to there, so as to avoid the sex offender she found on the web (public urination) and tracks him on her computer, confident in his safety. Of course, the fact that Billie's uncle Ernie and cousin Kevin are visiting doesn't show up on the bracelet's software. So as she's checking every 5 minutes, confident that the sex offender hasn't snatched him up and taken him to his secret lair, while instead she is "witnessing" he precious be molested in front of her virtual eyes.
As for the other 2 examples, if a child goes wandering off, they shouldn't be allowed to go places alone - they are either too young or have attentional problems and need more supervision. As for being mischievous, that's a discipline problem - if a kid goes where he isn't supposed to KNOWING he's being tracked, the parents have bigger problems.
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:2, Interesting)
I could where one at the mall myself.
Then I could wander around and get lost, and when shopping was done my wife could find me, wherever my whims took me.
Re:Good for pre-teens, but not older (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would people under the age of 17 have to have little locational privacy? Personally when I was 13-ish I simply stopped telling my parents where I am, usually through either flat out lying or through giving nonspecific information,
If they accepted non-specific info then they allowed you that privacy as a privilege for you out of their own free choice, which is different from you having a right to that privacy.
As for flat out lying, that's misbehavior, and prone to result in the grounding response when eventually discovered by parents either by asking around, or by covert tracking (covertly following you, or sending someone to covertly follow you and report on your whereabouts to the parents).
Re:please... (Score:1, Interesting)
It depends upon the age and the rationale.
My child was a "wanderer" and a "puzzle solver" -- as in, from about the age of 3 to 5, we had a tough time getting him to stay in the house when we wanted him to, and if he got out he would start wandering the neighborhood exploring. Child-proof locks, you say? Bah. Those lasted a couple of days. He watched how we disengaged it, and when we weren't looking for a few minutes (I think we were doing laundry in the basement), he dragged a chair up to the door, unlocked it same as he saw us doing it, and then went out. Yeah, yeah, we were irresponsible parents. But this was the same kid that could pry off those "child proof" electrical socket plugs that are supposed to keep them from sticking things in there. We learned to watch him constantly, but he was a sneaky, quick, and smart little critter who was very persistent. And we had to sleep sometime!
I figure he has a future in burglary or breaking encryption systems.
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's take an example. Who is responsible for keeping you safe from criminals? Most would say "the police". But are you aware that, legally, the police are NOT responsible for that?
Warren v. District of Columbia [wikipedia.org] is one of the pertinent cases on this subject. From the link:
Warren v. District of Columbia is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.
Cute, isn't it? The police "lose" the phone calls, don't respond for hours and then get absolved of all liability for the hell that those people had to go through. Remember that story the next time you are talking to someone who tells you that the police will protect you. They won't -- even if you live somewhere with a police force that's more competent than DC, it will still take them several minutes to arrive. Until they get there you are on your own. You'd best be prepared.
Re:Good for pre-teens, but not older (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly!
We live in an age where we learn about children being kidnapped thousands of miles away as if it was local news. We and our kids are safer than any time in history, but thanks to instant mass communication and the simple fact that bad news gets more attention and therefore sells more ad space and Lemon Joy, we hear about a number of kidnappings on a daily basis. I'm not saying the world is absolutely safe, and kids do get kidnapped, but we hear about it so much today that the risk rules a lot more of our world than it should. Of 1,000,000 kids, let's say one gets kidnapped by a stranger. But if all 1,000,000 parents keep their kids indoors, probably 20 of them will die of something related to the fact that they aren't outside burning off energy like kids should be.
Result: A *Big Deal* is made of a mother allowing a preteen to ride the subways alone. Parents can no longer allow their 10-year-olds to play at the park all day, unsupervised, because someone from Child Protective Services will be knocking on their door as soon as it is discovered.
If this tool allows a parent (who otherwise lives in fear of Something Bad happening to their child the instant the child leaves the house) to let Little Jimmy or Janie engage in a solid day of unsupervised free play, then for that family it's probably the single greatest tool they could purchase for the mental and emotional development of their child. Unsupervised free play is incredibly important to fostering the development of an independent, imaginative child.
The kid doesn't need this. But some parents do.
Is it right that the parents need this? No, of course not. But we live in an age of paranoia and fear, and this might help overcome that fear for a few parents.
Is this profiteering on irrational fear? Yes, it is. But it may also help mitigate that fear.
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. like karate lessons. How about teaching your kid how to defend themselves, along with all the goodness that comes with learning a discipline and being able to utterly kick the crap out of the playground bullies.
$250.00 USD will pay for a few months of kids Karate, and the monthly fee for the watch will make up 1/2 the cost of the rest of their education.
Plus, they are highly active 2 times a week, learn focus, attention and a skill that will save them a lot of pain and grief throughout life. You carry yourself differently when you can easily rip off someone's ears and shove them in their nose. This makes you less of a target to the scum of the world, and even gives you an air of confidence that get's you further.
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, the watch is said to send an alert signal if forcibly removed. I'm guessing that the system will be swamped with false alarms by bedtime. That, or the child-abducting pedophiles prowling the streets will get a hold of the manual to figure out the correct way to remove it without sending an alarm.
And they'll find these kids by cracking the tracking system. /alarmism
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the fact that he didn't "take them on" that shakes my confidence. From the account of the incident that I read it wasn't as simple as him handing over his wallet and going on his way. He went with them off the main drag into an alleyway, surrendered his wallet/car keys/cell phone/etc and was then clubbed over the head and left for dead.
Anyone that would allow such a thing to happen to themselves while they still draw breath is not someone who has any business teaching self-defense. I would happily surrender my wallet to avoid a confrontation. I'd hand it over even if I knew I could win, because a wallet is not worth killing or maiming someone over.
I draw the line at going with them. If someone demands that you go with them you should fight as though your life depends on it. Whatever they intend to do to you they obviously aren't comfortable doing it in your current location. It's sheer dumb luck that the instructor lived through this incident. He surrendered control of the situation and left himself at the mercy of criminal thugs. The fact that he's still in business amazes me.
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who has lost a family member to kidnapping, I see very little wrong with such technology. Spot on with Pascal's wager, too.
Re:ZapEM! (Score:3, Interesting)
Extend functionality to provide automatic electroshock to BRAT moving beyond configured away-from-home radius
This has existed for dogs for about a decade...
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:3, Interesting)
What it boils down to is that you never let your attacker get total control over you. If you do, then you are reliant only on either their mercy or their incompetence for your survival, and neither is something you should bet your life on. Someone with a gun demands your wallet/purse/phone, whatever, yeah you give it to them because you are not giving them any more control then they already have. HOWEVER, if that person tries to enter your home with you, get you into a car, or tries to drag you off somewhere, that means that they are trying to take away the chance of you even running away. Don't let them do that.
I told my niece and nephew this, also, when they were young. If someone tries to get you into a car, you fight like a maniac, and when you can, you run away. Even if they have a gun, run away. Even though that runs counter to what a lot of people think (that you always obey someone with a gun) you're better off running and hoping they either won't shoot or that they're a lousy shot than you are in hoping they will let you go relatively unharmed once they finish doing whatever it is they want to do to you.
Re:Kid won't know what to do when an adult (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets not also forget the dangers of teaching a whole generation of kids that its perfectly okay for those in authority over us to track our every movement.