Stop Reading Your Kids' Text Messages

[Mav451]

Transparency in a parent-kid relationship comes with respect, even more than trust. My father didn't give me an ounce of respect, so I returned the favor. My mother, the actual breadwinner in my family anyway, gave me some - but it came with the offsetting love = invasion of privacy, *shrug*. Who do you think I actually go to when I need to talk?

Even after college graduation, my father remains as naive, stubborn, bitter and as close-minded as he was when I was in high school. My mother never was close-minded, and b/c of that she gets the respects she deserves. Remember that respect is a two-way street. I also had the unique experience of being primarily raised by my mother until high school (father was never home), so you can imagine, again, who I respect more.

 

[leezard]

I think your taking that statement TOO personal I hardly think they where trying to offend anyone.

Very likely, I'll have a Coke and a smile now

On a side know Gratz on your daughter becoming a teacher I wanted to be a teacher myself but ended up in IT ROFLMAO

Thanks. I wanted to be a fireman like my grandad (who raised me) Closest I've gotten is putting out a grease fire in the kitchen when above mentioned daughter started to learn how to cook.

 

[Adisharr]

I don't understand all these people, parents included, claiming that it is there right to read their children's text messages. Do you insist on being on the phone with them whenever they make a call? Do you follow them around when they leave the house? Do you read their email?

If they are old enough to have a cell phone they should be old enough for you to trust their unrestricted use of it. I had my own PC in my room at age 12-13 (because I built it, but that fact notwithstanding) and I had access to a lot worse thing than cell phone text messages, and my parents trusted me and my use of it and I never got into any real trouble.

I think it's more of a sad statement about your level of trust for your child than anything else, really.

It would be nice if the world was a perfect place. Last time I looked however, it is not. You can trust your kids all you want but unfortunately kids get psychologically manipulated all the time.

I've heard this argument before - it's usually from a parent who 'trusted' their kid to do the right thing right before authorities discover their body in a ditch somewhere.

No thanks - I'll be watching.

 

[Majinhoju]

My Two Cents:

I'm 24, married, but I don't have any kids yet (though my wife and I are planning to raise a family in the near future). My parents were very lenient and very laid back. In return, they probably were the luckiest parents on their planet and managed to raise a very well mannered and very well behaved teenager. They never gave me any reason to rebel and I never gave them any reason to be strict. I always told them were I was when I went out and they trusted me. There was always communication and trust between my parents and I.

While I never had a cell phone until a couple years ago, they never monitored my internet use (also note, that we didn't get the internet until i was in my teens). And to be honest, if they did (in my later teen years) I would have felt greatly insulted. The teenage years are crucial years where a kid begins to turn into an adult. They are trying to establish their independence. They're building their self-esteem at very sensitive age. And if they feel that their parents don't trust them, that can have very adverse affects on them.

It all depends on the child. Some children will make mistakes and need to be monitored. Other children have really good heads on their shoulders, and by over monitoring them, you're just going to to be telling them that regardless of they're good behavior and decisions, you still don't trust them. That I'm afraid could have very bad consequences; if your child desperately needs your council, they may seek it from their friends instead. Scenarios in which your child may come to you for help they just go it alone.

Anyways, Just remember, It is your duty to protect your child and keep your child safe. but it also your duty to prepare your child to be able take care of him/herself and to be able to make sound decisions on their own when they do enter the adult world.

While I didn't have very harsh or strict parents, my parents were always there for advice, support and council.


Here's a little song from someone who's parents were a little too strict
Metallica's Dyers EVE
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Metallica/Dyers-Eve.html

 

[Trepidati0n]

raise your kids right, and u won't have to snoop hardly any. duh

ZOMG. You are brilliant. Can you please post the ISBN of the book which teaches how to raise the perfect child? I mean...we all need this. All the hate in the world will magically stop!

 

[dmagro]

I have a much younger sister, who is 16. Her parents let her do as she pleases when it comes to communicating with her "friends" over MSN/AIM, etc. They never check up on her messages to see with whom, and what about they're talking.

She just went missing on Wednesday, leaving a note indicating she was going to be with one of her online friends.

On Friday, we found out she's alive, despite still being with this "guy" - she made an attempt to leave the country. We consider ourselves lucky, because she's not dead and could so easily have been by now.

We'll see how this turns out, but I sincerely regret that she was not policed at least to an extent.

 

[Nanan]

My kid can get a cell when he or she is old enough to pay for it themselves.

 

[Majinhoju]

Another note:

When I do have kids. They won't be getting a cellphone until they're at least in their mid teens. And it'll be prepaid phone that they will pay for and be responsible for.

 

[ianken]

When the little punks pay their own bills is when they can escape the lidless all-seeing, all knowing eye of Dad. My house is not a democracy, so my wife tells me. Freedom? WTF is that?

Too many parents are so techno ignorant their kids could be pimping on craigleist and they'd not even know it.

 

[ianken]

I have a much younger sister, who is 16. Her parents let her do as she pleases when it comes to communicating with her "friends" over MSN/AIM, etc. They never check up on her messages to see with whom, and what about they're talking.

She just went missing on Wednesday, leaving a note indicating she was going to be with one of her online friends.

On Friday, we found out she's alive, despite still being with this "guy" - she made an attempt to leave the country. We consider ourselves lucky, because she's not dead and could so easily have been by now.

We'll see how this turns out, but I sincerely regret that she was not policed at least to an extent.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot, over.

She's 16. How old is "the guy?" Was NBC involved?

 

[Living Weapon]

Personally, I am “appalled” by these types of people….you all know the type, the “know it all” that has expert advice for everything from raising kids to lunar landings…although they’ve never had kids and never been to the moon. As a parent myself, I think:

• A.) A parents JOB is to protect their child.
  .
• B.) A cell phone is a privilege, not a right
  .
• C.) If a parent is held accountable BY LAW for a child’s actions until they are 18, that parent has the right…scratch that…an obligation to the rest of the world not to have their kid out there breaking the law.
  .
• D.) Children have no business having conversations with 40 year old pedophiles. How do I know they are 40 year old pedophiles? Because I took an active interest in my child and I read the text message.

I could go on and on and on. I apply the same rules to MySpace, if you want to use it, there has to be a 100% open door policy to your parents. When you are an adult, you can do as you please, until then…those are the rules.


man, I'm a dick.

I agree completely - and that's an example of why I choose not to reproduce: I'd feel obligated to parent, and it looks like a lot of work!

I hear from friends and co-workers that raising children can be very rewarding, and to all the parents out there: I'll take you word for it ... but maybe, some day, I'll change my mind about the lunar landings

 

[chrisf6969]

Full disclosure: I don't have kids

</end her yapping there>

Seriously, she has no kids, so she can be all for privacy, kids rights, teens who want drugs/kids, whatever, etc.

Until she has her own kids and experiences the instinctive/primal call to protect your kids from danger or the intimicy of having a child then she has no clue.

I'd rather her a kid's side of the story than this dumb "b".

 

[Dan_D]

</end her yapping there>

Seriously, she has no kids, so she can be all for privacy, kids rights, teens who want drugs/kids, whatever, etc.

Until she has her own kids and experiences the instinctive/primal call to protect your kids from danger or the intimicy of having a child then she has no clue.

I'd rather her a kid's side of the story than this dumb "b".

Ok while I understand that those of us who don't have kids don't have some of the practical experience that some of the parents do but outright dismissing what some of us say because of that basis alone is a bit much.

Some points I'd like to make:

1.) There are plenty of people who don't have kids that would do a better job at raising kids than many of the parents out there do.
2.) Some people who don't have kids can actually look at the issues objectively and come up with courses of actions that are logical and might actually work.
3.) Many of us who do not have kids can remember being children and can also look at these things from that perspective as well. We can also see the challenges our parents faced looking back at things in hind sight.

Do not dismiss the arguments of non-parents just because they don't have kids. That being said this woman in the article in question seems like an idiot. If you give children too much latitude they will abuse it. It seems to me that if you raise the child properly (which is another whole debate on its' own) and that child learns the differences between right and wrong, fact from fiction, reality vs. fantasy and learns to understand that their actions have consequences then that child will likely have a solid foundation from which to approach most situations they'll run into. If you have forged a solid relationship tempered with trust with your child you can probably afford to give them more latitude than some parents can with their kids. Being open with that child can lead them to learn to trust you and your experiences to a large degree.

 

[sirus20x6]

parents snooping on their kids? it's good enough for the NSA right?

seriously I don't care how good you think your kids are. there is always the side the parents see, and who the kids really want to be. the closer you are to your kids the more you see how they really are like real people and less like pawns in a chess game. If my parents would have tried to snoop on me I would have just used an easy cypher, but then again my father can't change the channel on the tv let alone read IM speak which is getting much harder to decode then 133t $p34k ever was.

Remember kids are people too if your kids don't see you as a scary authority figure then there wont be anything for them to rebel against. Hope your children still talk with you when they grow up.

 

[HardOCP News]

Based on the general consensus in this thread I guess it's a wonder I wasn't abducted or molested as a child

Actually, it is always the lucky ones that talk like they know it all. "C'mon Jimmy, run across the melting icepond! I do it every year and nothing happens!!" Obviously since a person wasn’t abducted, molested or a victim of a sexual predator…it doesn’t happen at all...to anyone.

From what you are saying here it is painfully obvious that you are closer to the age of the kids in question than being an actual parent or you would sing a different tune.

But, I know lots of parents that think the same as you, some get by with nothing ever happening to their kids (like your parents)….and some end up being the parent of the kid that shot up the school, planned to kill his classmates or opened fire in a mall. I bet the parents of those kids wished they’d “SPIED” on their kids.

And that's another thing, you keep saying spied. No one is “spying” when the agreement is that, as a condition of you even having a phone, is that I have access. Same with MySpace.


I am not picking on you, I am merely pointing out that ALL the parents here are saying the same thing. That is NOT a coincidence.

I am willing to bet that your parents did the same to you...they were just GOOD parents and good at what they did, so you didn't know their ninja skillz were as strong as they were.

 

[farfromhome]

Actually, it is always the lucky ones that talk like they know it all. "C'mon Jimmy, run across the melting icepond! I do it every year and nothing happens!!" Obviously since a person wasn’t abducted, molested or a victim of a sexual predator…it doesn’t happen at all...to anyone.

The converse is also true, though. Just because there was a big abduction in the news doesn't mean it happens to every kid, or even every kid without snooping parents. The chances of a child being caught up in something like that are downright minuscule, especially if you're good at teaching the whole "don't talk to strangers" bit. And the perpetrator is far more likely to be in your circle of friends and family than a random stranger the kid happens to be IM'ing, despite conventional wisdom.

There's also situation to take into account. While it can happen anywhere, the child is going to be in more danger in downtown Detroit than in rural Kansas. If I was raising a kid in the former location, I'd be a lot more cautious than in the latter.

But, I know lots of parents that think the same as you, some get by with nothing ever happening to their kids (like your parents)….and some end up being the parent of the kid that shot up the school, planned to kill his classmates or opened fire in a mall. I bet the parents of those kids wished they’d “SPIED” on their kids.

Somehow I think that the parents of those kids had far greater problems than lack of a surveillance routine. That reeks of the parents completely ignoring said kids. There is a happy medium between being completely hands-off and being paranoid, and that is what I believe should be aimed for. By all means, be involved in your childrens' lives and watch for warning signs to see if something seems wrong. If there are, then I can see the spying being justified.

 

[w1ngzer0]

I AM a parent of 2 kids and I can tell you that there is NO privacy when it comes to cell phones, regular phones, internet, or any other social activities for my kids. I WILL know what they are doing, who they are talking to, and where they are at ALL times till they move out of the house. This has NEVER caused a problem with my kids and they expect this behavior from me. They know that daddy will find out if they do something they aren't suppose too. I have some VERY good kids because of this and they are very much respectfull to me and those around them.

and to quote one of the posts before this one. YES invasion of privacy IS LOVE!!!

DING! You win the good parent award.

 

[FrgMstr]

I think if my mom ever looked at my texts in high school she'd have a heart attack.

I was a naughty boy.

Dude, let me email you some of the ones your mom sends me.

 

[idividebyzero]

You dont have to be a parent to know how incredibly damaging it is to kids. It doesnt matter who invades your privacy, it only makes the kid very insecure and can cause irreversible damage to the relationship. A parent who constantly invades their kids privacy will end up with a kid who tries to distance themselves from that parent as much as possible, making the situation worse and eventually permanent. People need privacy, even kids, they will get privacy even if it means they have to go to extremes like becoming a hermit.

If a parent is concerned over text messages then TAKE AWAY the phone. What the hell does a 13 year old need a cell phone for anyways? Taking it away will cause them to be angry with you for a little while, but it will not cause them to be embarassed, emotionally scarred, and learn to hide EVERYTHING from you in order to get an ounce of privacy. Its probably a good idea to only allow them to have a phone when they can pay for it themselves.

If parents want to protect their teens then they need to protect them through educating them and hope they learn from their mistakes. Spying on them doesnt protect them from jack, and the only thing that will happen is that they will despise you a little bit more and learn to hide things better.

A lot of parents have forgotten what its like to be a kid, or they make up some fantasy about 14 year olds that still need mommy to tuck them in. Sometimes its the parents who have the problem and not the kid, and they are passing on those problems to their kids by psychologically torturing them.

 

[Vashypooh]

If you have done your job correctly as a parent you should have faith in your child's judgment on what they do. If you are second guessing and feel the need to pry into every little thing, you are going to fuck up your relationship with them.

Once again it comes down to do your job correctly and you will have no issues. If you feel the need to have to pry into their usage of the cell phone, perhaps you shouldn't give them one.

The best parenting you can do is prepare them for issues and how to handle them, if they cannot handle the issue you should show them that they can trust you and you are there for them, they will come to you with problems and feel open enough to talk about things.

It's an issue of respect, if you don't respect your child as an individual they will not respect you.

How many of you who pry into every detail of your child's life would let their parents read your diary? I really doubt you would let them.

 

[BallerX]

Come on people. Your not supposed to trust your kids. You should pretend like you do yet always keep a watchful eye. Parenting is not a democracy where children have rights. It's a carefully planned dictatorship. It's ok to give them some rope. Just don't leave any slack in the line for them to tie into a noose.

 

[MrAgmoore]

Snooping is a second-best substitute for proper parenting imho.

It would be nice if parents, prior to procreating, had to take a mandatory, college-level psychology course:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Psychol...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214963275&sr=8-1

I started using an early generation Nokia cell phone - chunky but smaller than a walkie talkie. Since I studied advanced physics, I started to ponder about electric fields, magnetic fields and the affect of the antenna on my head. I stopped using cell phones outright, after the contract ran out after a year. I just wanted to see what the new technology could do and was worried abou health implications.

About 10 years ago, The Fifth Estate had a program that pointed out that cell phone manufacturers and sellers had been burying scientific data, and pulling funding on scientific research that was not favourable to cell phone companies. The results would then be published as inconclusive. The whole scheme was reminiscent of tobacco companies.

One interesting case was where a woman developed brain cancer on the same hemisphere as the cell phone, in the same line of direction as the antenna.

Anyway, I figured that if that were the case, brain cancer should rise 10 - 20 years later.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=cell+phone+brain+cancer&btnG=Search


Lawsuit victory is a first for cellphone users

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bI9lVT9WyU


I have not used a microwave in six months, either. Russia banned them for 10 years and you can search for the data on why they were banned. I've been eating vegan for the past year so I can get away with eating cold food. We just got a toaster oven though...

 

[squares]

Reading their text messages will only freak you out more than you needed to be.

 

[Rizen]

Actually, it is always the lucky ones that talk like they know it all. "C'mon Jimmy, run across the melting icepond! I do it every year and nothing happens!!" Obviously since a person wasn’t abducted, molested or a victim of a sexual predator…it doesn’t happen at all...to anyone.

From what you are saying here it is painfully obvious that you are closer to the age of the kids in question than being an actual parent or you would sing a different tune.

But, I know lots of parents that think the same as you, some get by with nothing ever happening to their kids (like your parents)….and some end up being the parent of the kid that shot up the school, planned to kill his classmates or opened fire in a mall. I bet the parents of those kids wished they’d “SPIED” on their kids.

First off, I'm 23, so yes I am "closer" in age to some of the kids in question, more so than say you or Kyle at any rate, but that doesn't really invalidate my opinions. I grew up with technology and I have my own experiences and the experiences of my peer group to look at and see how different parenting styles worked out for different people. Being an overbearing parent might seem like a great idea when your kid is in highschool but when the kids go off to college and act like fucking lunatics with their new found freedom you might think differently. I think the most true thing posted in this thread is that every child is different and you should treat them as appropriate to their needs and situation.

I also find it offensive that you seem to be implying my parents were bad parents. I had a 1350 SAT, graduated college in four years on tuition that was almost entirely scholarship based, I've never done drugs, drink only rarely, and landed a job within a month of graduating college. I think most parents would have been lucky to have me as a kid.

Additionally, I think you have a terribly unrealistic view of the world. Yes there are predators out there, but it is far less likely than the sensationalist media of this country would have you believe. And parents who have children who are out unleashing shooting sprees have already failed as parents and it was far before they neglected to read someone's cell phone text messages.

And that's another thing, you keep saying spied. No one is “spying” when the agreement is that, as a condition of you even having a phone, is that I have access. Same with MySpace.

That's fine I guess, if you are the one paying for the equipment. When I was in highschool I built and assembled my own computers, ran my own websites and paid for my own internet access (my room was like a LAN party) so my parents left me well alone with that.

I am not picking on you, I am merely pointing out that ALL the parents here are saying the same thing. That is NOT a coincidence.

I am willing to bet that your parents did the same to you...they were just GOOD parents and good at what they did, so you didn't know their ninja skillz were as strong as they were.

I doubt it, my parents know nothing of computers and my PCs were locked up tighter than your kid's cell phone priviledges.\

 

[falconman]

The Bottom Line

Parents are responsible for their kids, even legally until they are 18 in most states.

 

[p4gs]

Kids don't know any better. Especially teenagers.

This is coming from someone who used to be a teenager in the recent past.

Going to the extreme (reading diaries, constantly reading texts, logging IMs, etc.) is not a good sign for the parent. That much paranoia is saying something about the insecurity of the parent.

 

[jimmyb]

If you feel it necessary to be reading through all your kid's text messages, emails, and web browsing, you've probably already failed as a parent.

(and no I do not have any children)

 

[NKDietrich]

Seems to me that you aren't really teaching your kid to do the right thing if they never have the opportunity to do the wrong thing.

Its easy to do the right thing when your parents are looking over your shoulder and you know about it. It's alot harder when you are accountable only to yourself. Thats why so many over-protected kids end up being the biggest boozers while away at college, or end up just getting fed up and going as far overboard as possible to tick off their folks.

My parents were very lenient with me, I was almost never punished, and I turned out just fine. I learned on my own to do the right thing. Doing what is right only because you are under threat of severe punishment is not a mindset to have.

Protecting your children is absolutely the thing to do. But is a little short term protection worth raising a child with a distorted sense of why not to do stupid shit? It makes you feel better as a parent Im sure, and eases your worries, but what happens when they turn 18 and go absolutely out of control because they've never learned from mistakes made?

 

[sirus20x6]

Snooping is a second-best substitute for proper parenting imho.

It would be nice if parents, prior to procreating, had to take a mandatory, college-level psychology course:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Psychol...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214963275&sr=8-1

I started using an early generation Nokia cell phone - chunky but smaller than a walkie talkie. Since I studied advanced physics, I started to ponder about electric fields, magnetic fields and the affect of the antenna on my head. I stopped using cell phones outright, after the contract ran out after a year. I just wanted to see what the new technology could do and was worried abou health implications.

About 10 years ago, The Fifth Estate had a program that pointed out that cell phone manufacturers and sellers had been burying scientific data, and pulling funding on scientific research that was not favourable to cell phone companies. The results would then be published as inconclusive. The whole scheme was reminiscent of tobacco companies.

One interesting case was where a woman developed brain cancer on the same hemisphere as the cell phone, in the same line of direction as the antenna.

Anyway, I figured that if that were the case, brain cancer should rise 10 - 20 years later.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=cell+phone+brain+cancer&btnG=Search


Lawsuit victory is a first for cellphone users

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bI9lVT9WyU


I have not used a microwave in six months, either. Russia banned them for 10 years and you can search for the data on why they were banned. I've been eating vegan for the past year so I can get away with eating cold food. We just got a toaster oven though...

I worked for a cell co. Cellphones today only put out 1/8th a watt of RF radiation max, the old bag phones of the day put out 5 watts. not only that but the type of radiation they put out is non ionizing radiation, which by definition means that it doesn't even have enough influence on the body to excite electron states.
Cancer is going up for a lot of reasons, from living longer with better health care in other fields, to all the modern day carcinogens we put in ourselves / lack of a lot of natural anti-oxidants in todays food. but cell phones and wi-fi and regular rf equipment like walki talkies it's not really going to have an effect on cancer rates that are statistically significant.

 

[NickS]

My 'rents don't. They have no desire to either. They trust me a LOT, but I've earned it.

 

[pfunkman]

No they can't there are programs that I have that logs ALL key stroke entries ALL the time. Verizon has special phones that allow you to recive ALL the txt messages sent and recived to there phone.

Linux live CD or pendrive OS is an effortless way around your keylogger.

Most phones anymore have an IM client built in and no you cannot get logs of those conversations through your cellular provider.

I see EVERYTHING even if they try to keep it from me I have the logs to see it. Parenting is a job and you have to be good at your job

If your kids are good kids then your right and all is well with the world. If your kids are not however you only see what they want you to see.

The fact is if you tell your kids and show them that you can see everything they do then guess what... they DON'T DO ANYTHING BAD.

The trick is not to trick them or try to keep it from them. Let them know that you can see everything they text, sms, or anything they do on the internet then they don't try to do anything.

This is where your so terribly wrong i actually wonder if you have kids at all.

If your kid dont want you seeing what thier doing its easy as hell to get by you, Even if the kids cant get past your keyloggers and cell phone logs, kids have friends with computers and cell phones out of your control anyway.

You might not be aware of this (most of the negitive comments on this subject are from NONE parents) But if you are honest with your kids they WILL be honest with you.

If you have picture perfect, poster children (No such thing) then yeah they will be honest with you but if your kids are human you need to keep an ace up your sleeve. Relying on keyloggers and text message logs to keep your kids honest is a futile attempt especially if they know about it.

 

[HardOCP News]

First off... <*snip*> stuff/stuff/stuff<*snip*>

I have a "terribly unrealistic view of the world"? Tell that to the 800,000 missing kids last year. If you were the parent or relative of one of those kids, you wouldn't be saying any of the stuff you are saying.

I'll give you credit, you are almost single handedly going against every parent in this thread. I hope (and pray) that all kids are as lucky as you were and nothing happens to them. Most parents don't leave things up to "luck" or the judgement and wisdom of a 13 year old.

No one said your parents were bad, I said the exact opposite...well, that and that they were Ninjas. You got your underwear in a knot over me saying you had GOOD parents with ninja skills??? I think you are talking about someone else here.

Anyhow, it is like I said earlier, it is always the lucky ones that talk like they know it all.


In the TWO MINUTES it took me to respond to your post, another 3 children went missing. That is 2,200 a day. 66,000 a month. Almost 800,000 a year.

 

[farfromhome]

I have a "terribly unrealistic view of the world"? Tell that to the 800,000 missing kids last year. If you were the parent or relative of one of those kids, you wouldn't be saying any of the stuff you are saying.

Of course not. If you or someone close to you had some incredibly rare fatal disease, all the statistics in the world showing just how rare it was wouldn't console you. That is irrelevant.

In the TWO MINUTES it took me to respond to your post, another 3 children went missing. That is 2,200 a day. 66,000 a month. Almost 800,000 a year.

The USA is an incredibly large country. According to one source I found, there were 73.7 million children under 18 in the USA in 2006. Assuming your number of missing children is accurate, that amounts to just over 1% of kids. Which still sounds like a (relatively) large amount, but according to the same site, only 115 of them were "traditional" kidnapping scenarios (the kind that make it to the news). According to a US Department of Justice study, the vast majority are either (a) runaway/throwaways where the child themselves voluntarily runs away (47%), or for some benign reason (say, they got lost in the mall) (34%). That leaves only 19% of the 1%, or 15,200 out of a child population of 73.7 million that are actually abducted. Most importantly:

Only a fraction of 1 percent of the children who were reported missing had not been recovered by the time they entered the NISMART–2 study data. Thus, the study shows that, although the number of caretaker missing children is fairly large and a majority come to the attention of law enforcement or missing children’s agencies, all but a very small percentage are recovered fairly quickly.

So Rizen is absolutely right in denouncing the hysteria surrounding child abductions. If you trust the sensationalist media over a US DOJ study, I don't know what to say.

 

[farfromhome]

Two more questions for those so concerned about child abductions: (a) how many of you actually know somebody whose kid was abducted, and (b) do you think all the surveillance in the world could stop a determined adult who likely knows the measures you are taking (as the majority of kidnappings are done by family)?

 

[HardOCP News]

O.K. I officially give up on this thread. I'm not getting baited into debating with anyone that thinks 800,000 missing kids a year is just "sensationalist media" or anyone else that thinks 13 year old kids can make rational adult decisions at that age. Only 200,000 were family related (vast majority?) and all of these, even the runaways could have possibly been avoided by simply knowing what your kids are texting.

Although it is sad to see some people's opinion on this subject, it is also very comforting to see where most of you guys stand on the issue.

 

[farfromhome]

O.K. I officially give up on this thread. I'm not getting baited into debating with anyone that thinks 800,000 missing kids a year is just "sensationalist media"

I quoted sources, if you think they're wrong, come up with some of your own. Notice that the 800,000 wasn't actually wrong; the US DOJ study I linked to had approximately that amount. It's just that the vast, vast majority of them (all but a fraction of 1%) are "recovered fairly quickly" according to the DOJ. And the majority of them are runaways, throwaways (the parents kicking them out), or benign misunderstandings. While I understand it's a very emotionally charged issue, it still should be discussed on a factual basis.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Regardless whether I am for or against reading your kid’s text messages, it would probably be a good idea to have some experience in the area of parenting before calling something an “appalling breach of trust.”

lets see here

kids want freedom, parents want to keep their kids safe.........

since when are you guarenteed privacy when you live in your parents house and they pay for your phone and all your other needs?

first thing that happens when the kid screws up is "the parents are at fault" but at the same time, the parents are getting their hands tied behind their back........

 

[farfromhome]

I find it ironic that the source you quoted in your edited post was where I originally found the 115 per year "traditional" kidnappings. Just to clarify though:

Only 200,000 were family related (vast majority?)

Yes, if you read the DOJ study, it confirms what the page you linked to hints at: around 200,000 family abductions, and around 50,000 non-family (which includes friends, neighbors, etc... aside from strangers). The remainder are all throwaway, runaway, and benign causes.

lets see here

kids want freedom, parents want to keep their kids safe.........

since when are you guaranteed privacy when you live in your parents house and they pay for your phone and all your other needs?

first thing that happens when the kid screws up is "the parents are at fault" but at the same time, the parents are getting their hands tied behind their back........

I think you hit upon a lot of the issues. It is a delicate balance to strike, and I do not believe that any black-and-white view of it is correct.

Regardless of any other issues (safety, paying the bills, etc...), kids in general, especially in the teenage years, need some amount of privacy. It is a basic human psychological need, and no amount of excuses will take that away. On the other hand, it is also the parents' responsibility to keep them safe and watch out for them.

Why not aim for a balanced approach? Surely one can conceive of looking out for your kids in many ways, some of which might sometimes violate privacy, but most of which do not. The kids should not have an absolute guarantee of privacy/freedom, but it should be very possible to give them as much as they can prove they can handle responsably.

 

[Azhar]

I quoted sources, if you think they're wrong, come up with some of your own. Notice that the 800,000 wasn't actually wrong; the US DOJ study I linked to had approximately that amount. It's just that the vast, vast majority of them (all but a fraction of 1%) are "recovered fairly quickly" according to the DOJ. And the majority of them are runaways, throwaways (the parents kicking them out), or benign misunderstandings. While I understand it's a very emotionally charged issue, it still should be discussed on a factual basis.

you're being a fucking bean counter. Children aren't statistics. I don't care if one child was abducted or 1 million, steps should be taken to prevent that. PERIOD! Fuck the statistics.

 

[farfromhome]

you're being a fucking bean counter. Children aren't statistics. I don't care if one child was abducted or 1 million, steps should be taken to prevent that. PERIOD! Fuck the statistics.

Yes, but one also shouldn't act like looking away from the child for one second will get him or her abducted either. Let's put it this way: Locking up a kid in the basement is nearly 100% sure to keep him or her from being kidnapped. The only problem: You are in effect kidnapping him or her yourself in order to prevent somebody else from taking them. The same is true with extreme violations of privacy. Yeah, it might keep somebody (theoretically) safer, but at the expense of certain psychological damage. Now, did I say you shouldn't do anything to keep your kid safe? Of course not, but taking it to the extreme, like I see lots of people here advocate, is a sure way to mess kids up.

So why bring up the statistics? To put it into perspective. If there really were cradle robbers left and right like some people seem to think, perhaps locking the kids up seems less extreme after all. There aren't, though, as least not as many as some seem to think. You want to protect children? Great, focus on real problems such as alcoholism and teenage pregnancy. Oh, and teach them to drive well too.