Would you track your child's online activity?

jelem

Triangle wrote: »

Ireland does comply with GDPR as far as I'm aware, I've had notifications from the DP commissioner saying so. Also stating they have the power to enforce the fines set out in GDPR.
I don't know the legal part, just what the Dpc tells me.

Fact and i hold the evidence for which irish dpa refused to "consider" (polite corrupt word).
just for you and your innocence - why does france take and win cases against large tech.
ireland does not pursue - hint the alleged "jobs\economy" excuse is rolled out.
Add just when have tech in ireland been raided and servers seized to check what data is being transfered to usa
"in breach" it is very doubtful the garda if got urge had man power and if government would allow.
At local level == government dept. prints lies and hence fraudulent accounting by staff whom work with
power of court order.(dont have to put case before court before acting).
this one office and you think garda have manpower to "raid" all offices of that dept. to check\audit how many cases
in ireland.
the response to me in nov 2019 by garda at counter was Data Protection Act and get a solicitor.
this despite eu directives in dealing with reports from citizens.
try article 19 criminal justice___ - how does a citizen find out if a minister has complied with the act and if not
then charged.
YOU are unfortunately blind to what is going on and "children alng with protection" is a main deflection and
method to keep you and children ignorant

One eyed Jack

Triangle wrote: »

GDPR is fuzzy in general but the concept in it is that as a child gets older they get more ownership of their data.
A 16/17 yo would have no problem legally getting an order to prohibit their parents reading their messages (unless there was underlying issues).
GDPR aside, it's a parents job to get their kids ready to be adults. Part of that is making mistakes and learning from them. They can't do that with micromanagement as it undermine the person being micromanaged.

They would have considerable difficulty in doing so and it would have nothing to do with GDPR. I already gave the example of a parent trying to have Facebook close down their children’s numerous alias accounts due to their children giving out personally identifying information online as an example of one of the quirks of data protection legislation, which was a thing before the GDPR ever was enacted in Irish law. What PCB was suggesting though is that the child is regarded in Irish law as the data controller of another persons communications, and therefore it is the child who would be in violation of any laws relating to data protection if the parents viewed the communications of another party with their children, and that’s simply not the case and has never been the case.

I do agree with you about micromanaging children though. I said it myself earlier that neither extreme of helicopter parenting nor absentee parenting is healthy for any child’s social and personal development in preparation for adulthood.

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

Fact and i hold the evidence for which irish dpa refused to "consider" (polite corrupt word).
just for you and your innocence - why does france take and win cases against large tech.
ireland does not pursue - hint the alleged "jobs\economy" excuse is rolled out.
Add just when have tech in ireland been raided and servers seized to check what data is being transfered to usa
"in breach" it is very doubtful the garda if got urge had man power and if government would allow.
At local level == government dept. prints lies and hence fraudulent accounting by staff whom work with
power of court order.(dont have to put case before court before acting).
this one office and you think garda have manpower to "raid" all offices of that dept. to check\audit how many cases
in ireland.
the response to me in nov 2019 by garda at counter was Data Protection Act and get a solicitor.
this despite eu directives in dealing with reports from citizens.
try article 19 criminal justice___ - how does a citizen find out if a minister has complied with the act and if not
then charged.
YOU are unfortunately blind to what is going on and "children alng with protection" is a main deflection and
method to keep you and children ignorant

Ireland 'does not pursue '?

https://fod.ie/publications/irish-dpc-fines-twitter-e450000-for-data-breach/

jelem

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

GDPR is legally binding in Ireland and all EU countries.

yes if an irish citizen takes a case against the irish government to eu court
and that is some job as you need to prove "dealt with at first instance in local
courts" but garda and bar council\law society hinder one by brush off the
other by demand large cash.
yes i know complain about garda on official form then maybe 6 months later
some outcome and hence time limits abused as you find restrictions in place
on differing issues.

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

yes if an irish citizen takes a case against the irish government to eu court
and that is some job as you need to prove "dealt with at first instance in local
courts" but garda and bar council\law society hinder one by brush off the
other by demand large cash.
yes i know complain about garda on official form then maybe 6 months later
some outcome and hence time limits abused as you find restrictions in place
on differing issues.

Gardai have no role or function in data protection matters.

You don't need to go to Court to make a data protection complaint. You go to the DPC.

jelem

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ireland 'does not pursue '?

https://fod.ie/publications/irish-dpc-fines-twitter-e450000-for-data-breach/

On 15th December 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) announced its decision to impose an administrative fine of €450,000 on Twitter International Company (“Twitter”) following an investigation into a personal data breach reported by Twitter, under the self-reporting obligations of General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”). The breach arose as a result of a bug in Twitter’s android app which caused Twitter to unintentionally make some of its users’ private tweets public.

---

imposed =====
next will be either proof of payment or court case for NOT paying ( different law\legislation) the fine
unless you can prove it has been paid and whom too.
oh yes lets recall Apple and a tax mater for whom the government used taxpayers money (some could say
to defend) whilst reeling out pages of fishnet irish legislation and law.
look forward to the public announcement the fine has been paid

Ubbquittious

If the giddapoor isn't being enforced here you can bet your bottom dolla that it's done at the behest of Apple, Yahooglesoft and the other privacy invaders

ILoveYourVibes

danslevent wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Last night I was on a zoom call with some friends who are abroad. We all had a few drinks and just started chatting.

One of my friends is several years older than me and stepfather to a 17 and 14 year old. Him and his wife have a tracker on their online devices so they see every bit of activity their kids do, which obviously includes every message they both send and receive.

Personally, I was really shocked and said so. However, I don't have kids so I guess I don't know how they feel...what do you think? Bad form or necessary?

If I was 17 and found out my parents did that, I think I would be so angry. Especially since they were laughing at a certain genre of porn their 17 year old likes...

They are good parents.

Sensible enough to track him...and sensible to laugh at the porn he watches rather than freak about it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you haven't. You said "expectation of privacy" and I debunked that. Now, if there's a specific part of the act (or any other legal reference) that overrides that - and there may well be - then just tell me what part of the act defines who is a controller and what limits they have to controlling someone else's data without that person's consent.

Throwing insults at people doesn't make you look mature or knowlegable.

You’re mad in the head if you don’t think children under 17 should be monitored online. Have you ever seen those docus and videos online showing how easily kids are preyed upon online?

Absolutely not all children are at risk - there’s plenty of kids who would tell their parents or someone at least if they were approached by an unsavoury person online, cyber bullying, etc.

However, some kids are more vulnerable or easily preyed upon for one reason or another. Since it’s not like they have this stamped on their forehead, the only way to know is parents to keep an eye on their kids and who they speak to, follow, etc online.

This isn’t a matter of being nosy, it’s making sure your kids are safe online, the internet is a bloody expansive and can be a seriously dangerous place. Between cyber bullies, fraudsters & pedos its hardly somewhere you’d let any kid roam unsupervised & since this kind of monitoring software is a lot less intrusive than standing over their shoulder while online, I can’t understand anyone’s issue.

Like would you let a young child or teenager wander alone in an area well known for crime or where sketchy people tend to live? Would you allow them to be left alone with known pedophiles - or indeed any strangers?

People don’t (regularly) allow children and young people to be alone unsupervised outdoors, so why is it acceptable to do so online? They’re very similar to each other & outside of real life dangerous such as kidnapping or physical rape or assault, it doesn’t make the internet any safer a place for young kids or teens.

As for reading their conversations, in cases where you notice them speaking to someone new, I don’t see any harm in verifying the person isn’t interested in harming your child in any way etc.

I can only conclude from your arguments that you are either willingly ignorant or just deciding to ignore what knowledge of the dangers and stupidity of allowing kids free roam of the internet unsupervised to argue some fallacy that kids have a right to full privacy. All kids have levels of privacy as they get older obviously, I don’t think if you’ve got a child above 17 you should be spying on them - no more than you’d be in the same room as they got dressed, where you would be for a much young child, for one reason or the other.

Granted there’s a difference between doing this secretly which I wouldn’t condone because at that point you’re toying with trust. Unfortunately trust has to be earned & while a child first begins to explore the internet they haven’t built trust. How you’d think allowing a child to run rampant online without keeping their activity in check is beyond me.

And I’d love to know where this idea that in order to read a conversation my child has with another I need their parents consent? What a load of ****e.

A lot of people here obviously have no kids and probably say ridiculous things any time the topic of supervising and caring for children in a safe and loving manner is brought up - because when you don’t have kids or training to deal with them, you literally haven’t a clue.

That’s from someone who has kids, however I wasn’t born with them - so there was a good number of years I didn’t have them & had these same ignorant opinions.

One day, if you do have kids, thankfully you’ll grow up a bit before they’re looking to go online & won’t think such ridiculous and frankly, dangerous things.

Allowing kids online unsupervised.. God help me

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

On 15th December 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) announced its decision to impose an administrative fine of €450,000 on Twitter International Company (“Twitter”) following an investigation into a personal data breach reported by Twitter, under the self-reporting obligations of General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”). The breach arose as a result of a bug in Twitter’s android app which caused Twitter to unintentionally make some of its users’ private tweets public.

---

imposed =====
next will be either proof of payment or court case for NOT paying ( different law\legislation) the fine
unless you can prove it has been paid and whom too.
oh yes lets recall Apple and a tax mater for whom the government used taxpayers money (some could say
to defend) whilst reeling out pages of fishnet irish legislation and law.
look forward to the public announcement the fine has been paid

It's more likely that the next step will be an appeal in Court against the fine. That's the way the process works.

The Apple tax issue is nothing to do with GDPR or data protection.

beauf

danslevent wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Last night I was on a zoom call with some friends who are abroad. We all had a few drinks and just started chatting.

One of my friends is several years older than me and stepfather to a 17 and 14 year old. Him and his wife have a tracker on their online devices so they see every bit of activity their kids do, which obviously includes every message they both send and receive.

Personally, I was really shocked and said so. However, I don't have kids so I guess I don't know how they feel...what do you think? Bad form or necessary?

If I was 17 and found out my parents did that, I think I would be so angry. Especially since they were laughing at a certain genre of porn their 17 year old likes...

17 should earn some money and get his own device and data.

If the kids want to use free WiFi at home it's house rules.

Those parents are not policing they are snooping. Big difference. As for discussing it with others. That's just dysfunctional.

SineadSpears

beauf wrote: »

Those parents are not policing they are snooping. Big difference. As for discussing it with others. That's just dysfunctional.

Thats what stood out for me from reading the OP. & I'm surprised it hadn't been mentioned earlier.


To share their private conversations & viewing history with other people is them not showing any respect for their children at all.

I also think it's awful that the kids are not aware they are being "monitored".

Why couldn't they have a conversation with them & just say it's a house rule for having a phone or Internet access, if that's how they want to parent.

If my friend told me something like that, I'd definitely be telling them not to share those things with anyone else. & they should maybe consider having a conversation with their kids about what they have been doing all along.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

You’re mad in the head if you don’t think children under 17 should be monitored online. Have you ever seen those docus and videos online showing how easily kids are preyed upon online?

Dunno why you replide to me as I'm not disagreeing with you? I just made the point that a child of 17 can legally refuse their parents monitoring.

_Brian

riffmongous wrote: »

Has anyone who secretly monitored ever have the kids find out? What was the reaction?

Ours knew upfront, it was discussed and part of the deal. Eldest is 18 but when she was young we kept amd eye on things. 12yo, we would check the phone while she’s there. It’s no secret. She doesn’t care, it’s just the way it’s always been.

There are only 7 girls in her class amd there have been a few instances of parents not been happy with what was posted etc, thankfully we haven’t been involved.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Dunno why you replide to me as I'm not disagreeing with you? I just made the point that a child of 17 can legally refuse their parents monitoring.

How do you make that out? The Courts would simply remind the child that their parents are fulfilling their duty and responsibility as the child’s parents by monitoring their children’s activities online.

It’s not all that different from an employer monitoring their employees online activities. It doesn’t matter that they’re using their own devices - if they wish to use the resources of their employers, they often have to agree to allow their devices to be managed by their employers. Same thing as children who use their parents resources - the parents can set the conditions of which their children are permitted to use the resources provided by their parents. If the child doesn’t agree to the conditions, they don’t actually have a choice in the matter. They can whinge and moan about it, but there’s nothing they can legally do about it to prevent their parents from monitoring their online activities.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you make that out? The Courts would simply remind the child that their parents are fulfilling their duty and responsibility as the child’s parents by monitoring their children’s activities online.

It’s not all that different from an employer monitoring their employees online activities. It doesn’t matter that they’re using their own devices - if they wish to use the resources of their employers, they often have to agree to allow their devices to be managed by their employers. Same thing as children who use their parents resources - the parents can set the conditions of which their children are permitted to use the resources provided by their parents. If the child doesn’t agree to the conditions, they don’t actually have a choice in the matter. They can whinge and moan about it, but there’s nothing they can legally do about it to prevent their parents from monitoring their online activities.

You don't read my posts, so why are you asking?

If you really want to know, check my post history in this thread. I've answered it two or three times.

ShatterAlan

Valresnick wrote: »

Until they’re 16 absolutely yes I will track and monitor what they’re up to. After that I’ll keep educating them and help them. When they’re 18 it’s up to them ! Hasn’t that always been parenting ? Why would the internet change approach’s that have worked for centuries. Keep your kids safe until they’re no longer kids. Christ, the hand holding we do with people in this day and age.

You'll track and monitor what they are up to? Are you serious?


So do you have a private detective following them around the place? Do you have their bedroom bugged so you can listen in on what they are talking about when their friends come round? Do you have their clothes bugged so you can listen in to what they are talking about when they are out?



That's sick.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Dunno why you replide to me as I'm not disagreeing with you? I just made the point that a child of 17 can legally refuse their parents monitoring.

I’m not sure either, I think it was accident :pac:

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You'll track and monitor what they are up to? Are you serious?


So do you have a private detective following them around the place? Do you have their bedroom bugged so you can listen in on what they are talking about when their friends come round? Do you have their clothes bugged so you can listen in to what they are talking about when they are out?



That's sick.

There’s something very wrong with you to take “I’ll track and monitor what they’re up to” as some sort of weird control measure.

Supervising kids does not = being Big Brother. We’re not following them around in ice cream vans that are really surveillance vans from the FBI.

Sonics2k

I don't track their usage directly, eg in I'm not using any apps to monitor the usage for my 14 year old daughter or 11 year old son.

Instead I do somewhat random checks. My kids know all about internet safety, strangers and older people etc, but I can accept that no matter what I say or do they'll make mistakes and learn from it.

I won't shatter their trust in me by spying on them, or tracking them around. Both their phones have a Find My Phone style system on it, but it's not been used as of yet, it's there for an emergency and they both know this.

ShatterAlan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is rather tedious tbh. Those are your words. Not mine. There is no “so in other words” about what I said because there doesn’t need to be. I do know for sure that the DPA does not apply to parents. I do know for sure that anyone who has an expectation of privacy in their communications with children are mistaken. I don’t care that you do or you don’t know anything for sure, it has no bearing on what I know for a fact, and you’re not being honest if you’re trying to imply that parents are in violation of some imagined law in relation to any individual’s privacy if you imagine parents are in contravention of Irish law by monitoring their own children’s activities and who they are in communication with as they have that right and responsibility as their children’s parents which takes priority over their children’s right to privacy. By viewing who their own children are communicating with, parents are not interfering with anyone else’s right to privacy.

Do parents have the right to lock their kid in the bedroom as punishment for misbehaving? One would argue, yes, no, maybe.


Could it be construed as kidnapping or false imprisonment in strict legal term? I don't know but probably.

ShatterAlan

McGinniesta wrote: »

Monitoring your kids online activity is a no brainer.

To point out the blindingly obvious, wht's the first thing a 13 year old boy will type into google.

The chances are that it will be " fanny, beaver, gash, box, minge, snatch, vagina, muff, crack or gee"

followed by "breasts, knockers, juggs, cans, titties, big titties, bad titties, bags and cleavage"

What if he's gay?

Samsgirl

Two girls in our house, age 8 and 9. Absolutely no chance of them being online unsupervised. They both have their own tablets but are mainly on you tube for kids and can't get out without a code - which they don't know.

They paly Roblox online too and it has a chat function but we have told them not to use it and if they do, they will lose their tablets. The can only add friends who they are friends with in school or our friends children.

We can and do check regularly what they are doing. Mr Sam works in IT and has a network set up at home and can see all Internet traffic.

We will continue to do it and make no apologies to anyone for it. We try and educate them about the dangers online and the Momo thing last year frightened them.

No phones at the moment but they will be restricted too. I couldn't care less about GDPR breeches, I care more about protecting them and educating them about online safety.

iQuain

I’ll preface this with the fact that I don’t have kids. I don’t know if I’d use monitoring apps but I think if I did it’d be sparingly and my kids would know that I have them. It’s all well and good that you’re able to read their texts but when your daughter meets a young lad at a disco and they start texting each other, I think, if you intervene or bring any of that up before they decide to address it with you then you’ll start to breed a distrust and a lack of comfort in your kids.

My sister is almost 15 years younger than me. My parents have always take an education and communication role. They have enabled some parental controls on devices.

I think overall this is a difficult topic to weigh in on. Lots of people here are saying you’re mad if you do monitor or you’re mad if you don’t. The truth of the matter is that the internet has changed since I was a teenager. I’m only 26 but sites that I used and things that I did have become irrelevant now. This means that we will never truly grasp what the internet is like for kids growing up in this generation. Just as my parents never really did for me. That’s why I’m so “on the fence” about it all.

ShatterAlan

Car99 wrote: »

Why?

How would you feel if the parent of one of your kid's friends was listening in on his conversations with your son. Let's just say the two boys are very close and share their thoughts and hopes and dreams and opinions about which girls they like and which ones like them and which ones they think are bitches and all that other stuff.

Now let's just say that both boys trust each other and confide in each other and wouldn't break that bond of trust under any circumstances.
Your son tells his best friend in confidence that, you his father, and his mother, are fighting and having marriage problems. Also that he's worried because he's found gin bottles stashed around the house and that his mother has a drinking problem. Also that his uncle who lives miles away is in trouble with the tax authorities or got into some gambling debts and is in a bit of a bind. Or that he doesn't get on that well with you and suspects that you are having an affair with a neighbourhood housewife.


And all that information is vacuumed up by your son's friend's parent. You'd be ok with that?

riclad

Do you not know any 13 year old knows how to delete browsing history?
theres free parental control software to use that,ll block adult websites from any phone or tablet or laptop used on a network.

https://www.techradar.com/best/parental-control

i don,t think anyone under 16 should be allowed to use any social media app.

ShatterAlan

AllForIt wrote: »

My biggest concern for kids online these days is not so much the online predators but the political and gender anarchist that wish to get to them at an early age.

By political anarchists I'm talking about socialists and even communists (who always lurk in the background), and by gender anarchist's I'm talking about those types that want to put everyone into boxes, some that aren't even real. I suppose I mean personality boxes which comprises elements of sexuality and gender which have no real basis in the fundamentals of humanity, just trivial stuff which leads to division, more 'them and us', this type and that type, which I think will end up in social anarchy in the end if we're not there already.

It's all a load of nonsense they aspire to, but I think the real threat is the 'ideologue'. The one that always thinks there is something so wrong in society as it is, and has a vision for how reality would be so much better based on their own fantasy they imagine after having a bad ****. Beware those that seek to change reality. They usually start with changing language which is a good indicator of the type they are i.e. social fantasists.

Could you define what a political anarchist is?


Then could you define what a socialist is?


And then perhaps a communist?


Could you even define what anarchism is?

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do parents have the right to lock their kid in the bedroom as punishment for misbehaving? One would argue, yes, no, maybe.


Could it be construed as kidnapping or false imprisonment in strict legal term? I don't know but probably.

It can actually, yes. You’re not supposed to lock children (or anyone for that matter) into their rooms. You can, if you like, lock them out of a room provided it isn’t restricting access to a toilet or anything.

Like with many things, we grew up a bit and found far more effective methods to remedy negative behaviour without confining someone to a bedroom with the door locked.

Occasionally our eldest will need some time alone for one reason or another & may indeed be sent to their room, however, never is the door locked. Luckily they haven’t ever bothered to to try leave them room, it’s not really a “punishment” anyway, just removing an audience while a tantrum is occurring :pac:

beauf

ShatterAlan wrote: »

How would you feel if the parent of one of your kid's friends was listening in on his conversations with your son. Let's just say the two boys are very close and share their thoughts and hopes and dreams and opinions about which girls they like and which ones like them and which ones they think are bitches and all that other stuff.

Now let's just say that both boys trust each other and confide in each other and wouldn't break that bond of trust under any circumstances.
Your son tells his best friend in confidence that, you his father, and his mother, are fighting and having marriage problems. Also that he's worried because he's found gin bottles stashed around the house and that his mother has a drinking problem. Also that his uncle who lives miles away is in trouble with the tax authorities or got into some gambling debts and is in a bit of a bind. Or that he doesn't get on that well with you and suspects that you are having an affair with a neighbourhood housewife.

And all that information is vacuumed up by your son's friend's parent. You'd be ok with that?

What if they were planning a crime or self harm.

The gossip they'll discuss in the school yard anyway.

Someone (a bully) could take their phone and get all that information. The lessons here is they should be taught not to talk about about of that on a phone and not commit it to social media no matter what the privacy settings.

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

How would you feel if the parent of one of your kid's friends was listening in on his conversations with your son. Let's just say the two boys are very close and share their thoughts and hopes and dreams and opinions about which girls they like and which ones like them and which ones they think are bitches and all that other stuff.

Now let's just say that both boys trust each other and confide in each other and wouldn't break that bond of trust under any circumstances.
Your son tells his best friend in confidence that, you his father, and his mother, are fighting and having marriage problems. Also that he's worried because he's found gin bottles stashed around the house and that his mother has a drinking problem. Also that his uncle who lives miles away is in trouble with the tax authorities or got into some gambling debts and is in a bit of a bind. Or that he doesn't get on that well with you and suspects that you are having an affair with a neighbourhood housewife.


And all that information is vacuumed up by your son's friend's parent. You'd be ok with that?

It’s not a matter of being “okay” with it, they could equally be talking about something far worse, let’s use your very thought out hypothetical in this example:

“So, I’ve found gin bottles all over the place, my moms been drinking and my dad and her are fighting. I think I’m gonna go live with [person] instead”

“So, I’ve found gin bottles all over the place, my moms been drinking and my dad and her are fighting. I think I’m gonna try hurt myself”

“So, I’ve found gin bottles all over the place, my moms been drinking and my dad and her are fighting. I worry so much I can’t sleep and then I can’t concentrate in school”

Sometimes you need to pry to protect children. Like we’re not talking about grown adults here, specifically it’s children and while you certainly don’t need to (and very few would want to) listen to every conversation your kids having, if you overhear them talking about problems and they seem incredibly upset, worried or stressed it is your duty as a parent to be informed on what’s going on there.

But no, definitely better that you don’t pay any attention to your kids, don’t try to help and let them have unconditional privacy online and so on.

Your trying to use a moral argument to justify this, however the morality of allowing kids to suffer alone is questionable at best, but flawed to its core.

Kids don’t get this kind of stuff properly, they might feel a bit better having a chat to their bud, but what if it’s a facade and deep down they’re really upset but won’t tell you? Sometimes as a parent you do need to dig deeper for answers - I sure as hell have in my few years. Thank god, for the time being, it’s usually smaller scale things, sibling A pushed sibling B when my back was turned & I have to go detective and find out who’s telling the truth.

Parenting is not black & white, it’s many shades of grey and taking an active role in your child’s safety online & well-being otherwise is not “prying”, “breaching their trust” or whatever other ridiculous buzz words have been used here.