Parental Dilemma: Spy or Not To Spy on Your Kid(s)

[MA-Caver]

On this forum I lament the irresponsibility of a parent when a child goes bad and commits a crime (i.e. story about 2 teenagers robbing a 72 year old man of 7 cents or other examples). Kids are kids and kids will do whatever their minds come up with. Curiosity, rebellion, peer pressure, et al. Then comes parental obligation to ensure their children are safe and free from harm as much as humanly possible. Lots of mean-spirited and terrible people out there and in cyberspace looking for that opportunity to present itself to do whatever their warped minds come up with. Likewise a trust issue between the parent and the child. Trusting the child not to experiment with drugs or sex until a certain age. Thin lines throughout. As usual it's up to the parent to determine that. After all isn't that part of what being a parent is all about?

NEW YORK (AP) — In the 21st century, parenthood and paranoia often walk hand in hand.

For some, the blessed event is followed by high-tech surveillance — a monitoring system tracks the baby's breathing rhythms and relays infrared images from the nursery. The next investment might be a nanny cam, to keep watch on the child's hired caregivers. Toddlers and grade schoolers can be equipped with GPS devices enabling a parent to know their location should something go awry.
To cope with the uncertainties of the teen years, some parents acquire spyware to monitor their children's online and cell phone activity. Others resort to home drug-testing kits.
Added together, there's a diverse, multi-billion-dollar industry seeking to capitalize on parents' worst fears about their children — fears aggravated by occasional high-profile abductions and the dangers lurking in cyberspace. One mistake can put a child at risk or go viral online, quickly ruining a reputation.

http://news.yahoo.com/parental-dilemma-whether-spy-kids-144454961.html

Interesting line from a Senator on the issue.

In New York City, a policeman-turned-politician recorded a video earlier this year offering tips to parents on how to search their children's bedrooms and possessions for drugs and weapons. In the video, State Sen. Eric Adams — who has a teenage son — insists that children have no constitutional right to privacy at home and shows how contraband could be hidden in backpacks, jewelry boxes, even under a doll's dress.

"You have a duty and obligation to protect the members of your household," he says.

Growing up, I recall there were things that I wouldn't want my parents knowing that I did. Sometimes I got caught and sometimes, well... to this day there's stuff that they have no knowledge about, I'm fairly sure because one of those things I confided in with my dad later and he was shocked, so I'm fairly confident that a few other of my "secrets" are safe... but not all. M'dad isn't an idiot and I realize now that he probably knew more about what I've done than he let on. And this is WITHOUT today's technology.

So are these gadgets worth the money spent? Are they "right" for a parent to use? Do they really keep a child safe? Does it violate or does it weaken/strengthen the trust between parent and child?
My thoughts are along the lines of the age of the child determines the type of technology used to monitor them. Infants to toddlers to pre-school... absolutely yes these would be beneficial but not fool proof, nothing beats immediate presence.
Pre-school on up to say... middle school I think those tracking devices are a good idea... I'm iffy on the idea of "implants" sounds too much Orwellian but at the same time useful in cases of kidnapping/abduction ... provided their range and signal are effective. Cyber-monitoring should be used because the net can be a dangerous web to wander about in for the uninitiated, innocent.
Middle school on up to high-school... ehhh, a sticky. Hopefully by then the relationship between parent and child is built up on trust, obedience and confidence. The tools should IMO be used if the trust is violated by the child.

A sticky to be sure. Where to draw the line(s). When to say when.

Your thoughts?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have no children, but I was raised to believe that children have no right to privacy. I didn't. Of course I resented it. Of course I tried to keep secrets from my parents. Sometimes I succeeded, other times not. I'm sure we also had some things we thought were secret from our parents that were not, and vice-versa. Do I think it should be different? No. Kids got no right to privacy, and that's cool.

The Columbine Massacre was perpetrated by a couple kids who were building bombs in their garage and their parents claimed they didn't know about it and had journals full of plans and their parents claimed their kids had a right to privacy.

 

[Blade96]

Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies. Imo a can of worms.

Kids are people, and do have a right to privacy. Imo, because i was a kid once, I believe that if parents foster the right environment where they have a kind of glastnost 'openness' where kids feel safe and they could come to their parents about stuff bothering them, and not feel afraid of scary mom and dad (as I did) they wouldn't feel they had to keep secrets. There was this guy on another ma's forum who complained about his daughter. A bit of discussion brought out the fact that he was very punitive. The daughter lied and didn't tell him a lot of things. (Why would she? He acted very scary. Stuff like 'Her world is what I let it be' and very controlling stuff. Now she still has her problems, but later on the father emptied his cup, came to me, and admitted that I was right. If you start from the very beginning with the right environment, you will have a good base for healthy openness. and no need for all this gadget crap. Go go gadget go.

 

[Stealthy]

I learnt from a very young age to keep everything a secret from my parents not just naughty things I did but everything, hopes, dreams, things that made me happy...everything.

It didn't matter what it was sooner or later my folks would find a way to use it against me even if it was just for a laugh.

The whole turned into a sort of cat and mouse game of espionage where they were constantly trying to find out what I was up to and I was doing the same(so I could stay abreast of them).

To that end, heck yeah it's okay for parents to spy on their kids, they do, ain't nothing gonna stop that but it should be kept on the down low so the kids never find out.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies.

And their bombs still would have been discovered if their parents had snooped. Respecting their privacy resulted in tragedy. I agree that a healthy nurturing environment might have obviated the need for snooping, and if the kids were not bullied and so on they might not have done what they did, but that's completely irrespective of the actual facts. They built bombs in their garage. They bought guns. They wrote of their plans in their journals; and their parents respected their privacy and knew nothing of it. Children have zero expectation of privacy. Doing otherwise results in Columbines.

 

[granfire]

Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies. Imo a can of worms.

Kids are people, and do have a right to privacy. Imo, because i was a kid once, I believe that if parents foster the right environment where they have a kind of glastnost 'openness' where kids feel safe and they could come to their parents about stuff bothering them, and not feel afraid of scary mom and dad (as I did) they wouldn't feel they had to keep secrets. There was this guy on another ma's forum who complained about his daughter. A bit of discussion brought out the fact that he was very punitive. The daughter lied and didn't tell him a lot of things. (Why would she? He acted very scary. Stuff like 'Her world is what I let it be' and very controlling stuff. Now she still has her problems, but later on the father emptied his cup, came to me, and admitted that I was right. If you start from the very beginning with the right environment, you will have a good base for healthy openness. and no need for all this gadget crap. Go go gadget go.

I guess that hits the nail on the head.

There are some things I do control (rather spot check) others, not so much.
But I think we have come to a stage (my 14 yo and I) that he can come to me, and tell me stuff. I get more mad over bad stuff that happened to him he did not let me know or he played down than the other way around.

I in turn do try to minimize my influence in important things (and control my sometimes ugly temper, or apologize when it didn't work as well)

It worked out pretty well when some kid put some nasty stuff on FB geared towards my kid. (he showed it to me, but I think he was surprised about the level of follow up that came from my side - visit to the principal)
And while I never check his computer, we have the understanding that I know his passwords so I could if need be.

 

[granfire]

And their bombs still would have been discovered if their parents had snooped. Respecting their privacy resulted in tragedy. I agree that a healthy nurturing environment might have obviated the need for snooping, and if the kids were not bullied and so on they might not have done what they did, but that's completely irrespective of the actual facts. They built bombs in their garage. They bought guns. They wrote of their plans in their journals; and their parents respected their privacy and knew nothing of it. Children have zero expectation of privacy. Doing otherwise results in Columbines.

I think it was a tragic case of lack of involvement in these kids' lives...

 

[billc]

Yes. Spy, but I would advise wisdom in the spying. Some things are a normal part of growing up, for example, perhaps an adult magazine, when they had those, which could probably be spied out and then ignored, no one the wiser. Drugs, guns or loot from stealing could be dealt with. Spying with wisdom is the key I would think.

Not to sidetrack, Columbine wasn't about bullying. If you read the follow up research the one kid was popular but was a megolomaniac who wanted to kill people, and the other kid followed his lead. Bullying wasn't the issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm

They weren't goths or loners.

The two teenagers who killed 13 people and themselves at
suburban Denver's Columbine High School 10 years ago next week weren't in the
"Trenchcoat Mafia," disaffected videogamers who wore cowboy dusters. The
killings ignited a national debate over bullying, but the record now shows Eric
Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in
diaries about picking on freshmen and "fags."

A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym
for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy
through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and
interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what
the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.

In fact, the pair's suicidal attack was planned as a grand
— if badly implemented — terrorist bombing that quickly devolved into a
49-minute shooting rampage when the bombs Harris built fizzled.

 

[jks9199]

Columbine was NOT perpetrated by bullied outcasts. (More HERE)

Kids have limited rights to privacy, depending on who is doing the probing. A cop can't walk into a kid's room automatically on the parent's say-so; it depends on the age of the kid, the efforts the kid makes to protect and control the space, the respect of that privacy shown by the parents, and more.

Should parents be aware of their kid's actions, associates, and what they have? Absolutely. Should they, as long as the kid's conduct and behavior supports it, allow them reasonable and appropriate privacy as they grow up? Yes. Should that privacy be absolute and inviolate? No. See the conditions above.

By the way, regarding Harris & Klebold:

Since 1999, many people have looked to the boys' parents for answers, but a transcript of their 2003 court-ordered deposition to the victims' parents remains sealed until 2027.
The Klebolds spoke to New York Times columnist David Brooks in 2004 and impressed Brooks as "a well-educated, reflective, highly intelligent couple" who spent plenty of time with their son. They said they had no clues about Dylan's mental state and regretted not seeing that he was suicidal.
Could the parents have prevented the massacre? The FBI special agent in charge of the investigation has gone on record as having "the utmost sympathy" for the Harris and Klebold families.
"They have been vilified without information," retired supervisory special agent Dwayne Fuselier tells Cullen.
Cullen, who has spent most of the past decade poring over the record, comes away with a bit of sympathy.
For one thing, he notes, Harris' parents "knew they had a problem — they thought they were dealing with it. What kind of parent is going to think, 'Well, maybe Eric's a mass murderer.' You just don't go there."
He got a good look at the boys' writings only in the past couple of years. Among the revelations: Eric Harris was financing what could well have been the biggest domestic terrorist attack on U.S. soil on wages from a part-time job at a pizza parlor.
"One of the scary things is that money was one of the limiting factors here," Cullen says.
Had Harris, then 18, put off the attacks for a few years and landed a well-paying job, he says, "he could be much more like Tim McVeigh," mixing fertilizer bombs like those used in Oklahoma City in 1995. As it was, he says, the fact that Harris carried out the attack when he did probably saved hundreds of lives.
"His limited salary probably limited the number of people who died."

(from the article linked above.)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

By the way, regarding Harris & Klebold:
(from the article linked above.)

I was living five miles from Columbine High at the time. All day long I listened to the sirens going by and watched the tragedy unfold on the news. We were, if you will, at Ground Zero.

They build propane bombs in the garage. They purchased firearms and kept them in their rooms. Snooping would have uncovered this. Period.

All the navel-gazing in the world doesn't change that. The weapons were being build and hidden in their parent's houses. Snooping would have found them. I don't know what else there is to discuss about it.

 

[MA-Caver]

Columbine was NOT perpetrated by bullied outcasts. (More HERE)

Kids have limited rights to privacy, depending on who is doing the probing. A cop can't walk into a kid's room automatically on the parent's say-so; it depends on the age of the kid, the efforts the kid makes to protect and control the space, the respect of that privacy shown by the parents, and more.

Should parents be aware of their kid's actions, associates, and what they have? Absolutely. Should they, as long as the kid's conduct and behavior supports it, allow them reasonable and appropriate privacy as they grow up? Yes. Should that privacy be absolute and inviolate? No. See the conditions above.

By the way, regarding Harris & Klebold: <snippet>

"One of the scary things is that money was one of the limiting factors here," Cullen says.
Had Harris, then 18, put off the attacks for a few years and landed a well-paying job, he says, "he could be much more like Tim McVeigh," mixing fertilizer bombs like those used in Oklahoma City in 1995. As it was, he says, the fact that Harris carried out the attack when he did probably saved hundreds of lives.
"His limited salary probably limited the number of people who died."

(from the article linked above.)

That topic alone deserves it's own thread by the way... but my thoughts were, good thing that neither of the two had a decent paying job and that they (obviously) didn't receive the type of "allowance" that a few friends of mine have before they were 18, yeah talking hundreds of dollars a month (parents were millionaires). But then again, it's a different topic.

Related however this does show the need for occasional if not full time scrutiny of a child's life by the parent. I recall once while being a nanny I found a school notebook of one of the older kids. Glancing through it I found that he hadn't done his homework in over six weeks, I showed the notebook to the parents with apologies if I had over stepped my bounds by prying into the boy's school notebook. The gross amount of incomplete homework assignments allowed for grateful forgiveness in that I may have saved this boy's final grades. He was "punished" by doing all of his homework (grounded until they were all complete ... and turned in) that very day-night. I'm happy to say that (years later) he isn't resentful and has plans to enroll into college. So sometimes it is a good thing to be "nosy".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So sometimes it is a good thing to be "nosy".

When *isn't* it a good thing? If a parent snoops and finds out something they prefer not to take action on, then at least they know what's going on and have decided to let it go. If they find something out and need to take action, then they do. The only danger is in *not knowing* what the child is up to.

The problem with Columbine wasn't that their parents weren't communicative enough or didn't open enough channels to build bonds of trust, blah blah blah. The problem was they BUILT BOMBS and their parents DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. I don't give a great diddly-squat about their psychological issues and trust problems and whatever else. They were engaged in a criminal enterprise that was EASILY detectable had their parents SEARCHED their rooms now and again, read their journals, or even (gasp) asked them what the hell those bomb-looking propane tanks with timers in the garage were for. DUH.

This navel-gazing stuff is for the birds. This is why we raise generations of losers. This, right here.

 

[granfire]

I was living five miles from Columbine High at the time. All day long I listened to the sirens going by and watched the tragedy unfold on the news. We were, if you will, at Ground Zero.

They build propane bombs in the garage. They purchased firearms and kept them in their rooms. Snooping would have uncovered this. Period.

All the navel-gazing in the world doesn't change that. The weapons were being build and hidden in their parent's houses. Snooping would have found them. I don't know what else there is to discuss about it.

apparently id didn't take any snooping, just mild interest?

 

[MA-Caver]

When *isn't* it a good thing? If a parent snoops and finds out something they prefer not to take action on, then at least they know what's going on and have decided to let it go. If they find something out and need to take action, then they do. The only danger is in *not knowing* what the child is up to.

The problem with Columbine wasn't that their parents weren't communicative enough or didn't open enough channels to build bonds of trust, blah blah blah. The problem was they BUILT BOMBS and their parents DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. I don't give a great diddly-squat about their psychological issues and trust problems and whatever else. They were engaged in a criminal enterprise that was EASILY detectable had their parents SEARCHED their rooms now and again, read their journals, or even (gasp) asked them what the hell those bomb-looking propane tanks with timers in the garage were for. DUH.

This navel-gazing stuff is for the birds. This is why we raise generations of losers. This, right here.

Well yeah, but imagine the fear that has been put into our nation... when a child can take their own parent to court for whipping them and call it abuse AND WIN the damned case. Perhaps parents are fearful that their child may cry foul and invasion of privacy and take 'em to court... so they leave 'em alone.
More-n-likely they're thinking to themselves (before they even HAD kids or even before they got married and lived out on their own for the first time...) I'll never raise MY kids the way my parents raised me. So no snooping, no spanking, no grounding, no going to bed without supper and all of that... hell they worked didn't they? Let go of the damned resentments and realize how well you turned out... no felonies on your record, no heavy duty addiction to drugs or alcohol, paying bills on time and bla bla bla ... molly coddle kids and whaddya get?

 

[elder999]

Spy. They're your kids.

Not your friends. Not your equals. Not their own person, yet.

"Privacy" is a privelege that comes with respect, and trust-and it's given a little at a time as they get older.

Who cares what anyone else thinks? They're your kids.

"Spy?" It's not spying-it's parenting.

edit: In an age when a parent can lose their home because their kid is dealing drugs, it's not spying.

 

[Blade96]

I think it was a tragic case of lack of involvement in these kids' lives...

Yeah. and be involved.

I think people shouldn't NOT spy (there is a place for it, they are just kids) but they also have a right to privacy, so it can be 'nice spying' i guess respectful spying too.

 

[Steve]

Columbine was committed by boys who were very unpopular and were targets of bullies. Imo a can of worms.

Kids are people, and do have a right to privacy. Imo, because i was a kid once, I believe that if parents foster the right environment where they have a kind of glastnost 'openness' where kids feel safe and they could come to their parents about stuff bothering them, and not feel afraid of scary mom and dad (as I did) they wouldn't feel they had to keep secrets. There was this guy on another ma's forum who complained about his daughter. A bit of discussion brought out the fact that he was very punitive. The daughter lied and didn't tell him a lot of things. (Why would she? He acted very scary. Stuff like 'Her world is what I let it be' and very controlling stuff. Now she still has her problems, but later on the father emptied his cup, came to me, and admitted that I was right. If you start from the very beginning with the right environment, you will have a good base for healthy openness. and no need for all this gadget crap. Go go gadget go.

The kids from Columbine built the bombs they used in the garage. At any point, I wonder why the mom or dad didn't poke their head in and ask, "Hey guys do you want something to drink? What's that you have there?" Might have saved some lives.

No. Kids don't have a right to privacy. Kids are entitled to the illusion of privacy. Hell. Even as adults, we operate under the illusion of privacy, pretending (or ignoring) that our every move isn't being recorded by someone, somewhere.

I would assert that if parents were less hands off with their kids, allowing them LESS privacy than they currently are afforded, we'd be a lot better off. My kids get exactly as much freedom as they earn. When they come home late, next time they're required to come home earlier. When there's a reason to snoop, they would expect nothing less.

 

[Cyriacus]

Its a Matter of Trust.
(Bear with me)

If you Consumately Trust that your Kid wouldnt do anything nefarious, based on their overall Persona, and not just on their Appearances, by all means, Refrain from it.

If your Kid is any other way, keep an Eye Open, and Circumvent any Negative Influence. Nip it in the Bud.

 

[Steve]

When *isn't* it a good thing? If a parent snoops and finds out something they prefer not to take action on, then at least they know what's going on and have decided to let it go. If they find something out and need to take action, then they do. The only danger is in *not knowing* what the child is up to.

The problem with Columbine wasn't that their parents weren't communicative enough or didn't open enough channels to build bonds of trust, blah blah blah. The problem was they BUILT BOMBS and their parents DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. I don't give a great diddly-squat about their psychological issues and trust problems and whatever else. They were engaged in a criminal enterprise that was EASILY detectable had their parents SEARCHED their rooms now and again, read their journals, or even (gasp) asked them what the hell those bomb-looking propane tanks with timers in the garage were for. DUH.

This navel-gazing stuff is for the birds. This is why we raise generations of losers. This, right here.

LOL... exactly. Had I read the entire thread before posting, I could simply have thanked Bill.

Parent's aren't doing their jobs as parents if they're not actively impeding their kids' from doing things they'll regret. Whether it's posting the wrong thing on facebook, smoking weed, drinking booze or just failing to do their homework. There's a careful balance that must be struck between riding their asses, prodding them to do the right thing, guilting them, guiding them, mentoring them and teaching them. And sometimes, just watching them fail because otherwise they won't learn. But never, ever stop snooping around. That's just plain irresponsible.

IMO, the sad truth is that the kids in Columbine (and many others) would have been fundamentally different kids had they benefited from having the kind of parents who barged in without knocking sometimes, and opened even their private junk drawers. While mental illness can make people do many very bad things, so can the neglect that comes from having parents who are indifferent.

 

[Blade96]

The kids from Columbine built the bombs they used in the garage. At any point, I wonder why the mom or dad didn't poke their head in and ask, "Hey guys do you want something to drink? What's that you have there?" Might have saved some lives.

No. Kids don't have a right to privacy. Kids are entitled to the illusion of privacy. Hell. Even as adults, we operate under the illusion of privacy, pretending (or ignoring) that our every move isn't being recorded by someone, somewhere.

I would assert that if parents were less hands off with their kids, allowing them LESS privacy than they currently are afforded, we'd be a lot better off. My kids get exactly as much freedom as they earn. When they come home late, next time they're required to come home earlier. When there's a reason to snoop, they would expect nothing less.

But you're also saying that you do believe in privacy, because well they get what they earn.

and yeah i agree with the building bombs in the garage and hey guys do you want a drink and what do you have there.

Like criminals. Sometimes criminals have tracking devices and they have to let people know where they move to (sex predators) Like you. You seem to have a good outlook on it. In society people are watched like you said and if they are criminals their privacy is taken away.