Would you track your child's online activity?

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...

Wait till those parents find their kids backup phones with no monitoring software installed.

GarIT wrote: »

I don't believe children as the same as "people" I wouldn't let them use alcohol either and alcohol is much safer than some parts of the internet too.

Children not people, that is a new one on me. If they are very young I might count them as only half a person but still made of the same stuff none the less

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm talking about consent. If I send you a message and you show it to someone else that's one thing. But if someone else reads it even without you knowing about it, then it's invasion of privacy. Expectation doesn't justify or legalise it.

If you leave you house unlocked and someone breaks into it, expectation of not being broken into is not going to legalise the break-in.

It’s entirely justified by the fact that a child’s parent has a right to know who is communicating with their children and what they are communicating. That’s not to say children don’t have a right to privacy, it’s saying that any children’s right to privacy is balanced with the right of their parents who have a duty to be responsible for their children’s welfare and well-being. It’s how some adults who groom children are caught, and in one case in Ireland I know of which I can’t find now, it involved a child sending explicit pictures of themselves, being charged with distribution (couple of years ago now though). These are the considerations taken into account relating to children, not whether or not there has been an invasion of their privacy -


Children don't understand the consequences of sexting

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But this is NOT between a parent and and their children - that's my point. It's between a parent and someone else's child.

Re the 17 year old - they'd have to consent. If they say no, the parents can't legally interfere. It's a bad idea because the 17 year old can simply buy or borrow a second phone. Doesn't even have to be expensive.

No, it’s still between a parent and their children. The other person, be they an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child.

Re: the 17 year old, of course the parents can interfere, and not only can they interfere, but they have a duty to interfere because they have a responsibility towards their children’s welfare and well-being. Whether or not the child buys a second phone doesn’t nullify or negate a parents responsibility towards their children -


Mother reported 21-year-old son to gardaí after discovering child pornography on his phone


It’s just a courtesy that parents wouldn’t be expected to discuss their children’s porn habits with their friends, but some parents don’t believe there’s anything wrong in discussing things like that with other people in the same way as some parents don’t see any harm in uploading pictures of their children on social media. Wouldn’t do it myself personally, but if other parents choose to, that’s their own business, and they don’t need their children’s consent, although some people believe that people shouldn’t do it because their children haven’t given consent.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s entirely justified by the fact that a child’s parent has a right to know who is communicating with their children and what they are communicating. That’s not to say children don’t have a right to privacy, it’s saying that any children’s right to privacy is balanced with the right of their parents who have a duty to be responsible for their children’s welfare and well-being. It’s how some adults who groom children are caught, and in one case in Ireland I know of which I can’t find now, it involved a child sending explicit pictures of themselves being charged with distribution. These are the considerations taken into account relating to children, not whether or not there has been an invasion of their privacy -


Children don't understand the consequences of sexting


No, it’s still between a parent and their children. The other person, be they an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child.

You've already said all this, and I've already pointed out the fallacies in your thinking. You're not disagreeing with me at this stage, you're disagreeing with the law.

Re: the 17 year old, of course the parents can interfere, and not only can they interfere, but they have a duty to interfere because they have a responsibility towards their children’s welfare and well-being. Whether or not the child buys a second phone doesn’t nullify or negate a parents responsibility towards their children -

Again - the Data Protection Act 2018 clearly defines a child as someone under 16.

Mother reported 21-year-old son to gardaí after discovering child pornography on his phone


It’s just a courtesy that they wouldn’t be expected to discuss their children’s porn habits with their friends, but some parents don’t believe there’s anything wrong in discussing things like that with other people in the same way as some parents don’t see any harm in uploading pictures of their children on social media. Wouldn’t do it myself personally, but if other parents choose to, that’s their own business, and they don’t need their children’s consent, although some people believe that people shouldn’t do it because their children haven’t given consent.

A courtesy is not legally binding, and your news story is completely irrelevant.

Long story short - the point you're missing here is law. You can argue morally, ethically, whatever you want - but legally, you're in the wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m disagreeing with your piss poor understanding of Irish law. It’s clearly not the same thing. I’ve already pointed out why the DPA doesn’t apply too, but you’re still wedging it in there as if it has any relevance to a parents monitoring of their own children’s communications. I’ve already explained that a third party, whether they are an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child. That’s where the law stands on this one and that’s why your introduction of the DPA is irrelevant here. What’s relevant here are parental rights and responsibility and the rights of children. The imagined rights of a third party to any expectation of privacy in their communications with children, just don’t exist.

Hey - I openly said I didn't read the full act and I'm open to correction. You haven't corrected me, just stated and restated an opnion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I’ve told you exactly why the DPA doesn’t apply to parents - because they are not data controllers for the purposes of the DPA!

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You haven’t debunked anything?

Here it is again:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm talking about consent. If I send you a message and you show it to someone else that's one thing. But if someone else reads it even without you knowing about it, then it's invasion of privacy. Expectation doesn't justify or legalise it.

What part of this are you having difficulty with exactly?

The bit where you don't provide any factual evidence whatsover, obviously; and expect me to take you word as Gospel.

One last try:
Quote the law that says that you don't have an expectation to privacy with regard to written connunications.
Quote the law that states a parent is not classed as a controller and can view the written communications of a third party, not related to them.

The laws, not your opinion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

One last try:
Quote the law that says that you don't have an expectation to privacy with regard to written connunications.
Quote the law that states a parent is not classed as a controller and can view the written communications of a third party, not related to them.

The laws, not your opinion.

That’s a neat trick, but you’re taking what I said out of context. I was speaking specifically in relation to anyone’s expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children, and I provided numerous examples to support my opinion that people cannot have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children, and I explained why too -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone is mistaken if they imagine they should have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with a child, notwithstanding the fact that a child in many jurisdictions could never legally be held responsible for upholding such an agreement.


The DPA wouldn’t apply in circumstances between parents and their children though, because their parents aren’t data controllers for one thing. But apart from any concerns about any privacy or safety aspects, who the DPA does apply to are data controllers who maintain personal data relating to children. You’ll experience the more insidious side of this if you’re a parent that has ever tried to get Facebook for example to close your children’s numerous alias accounts where they’re posting personal information about themselves that could be used to identify them or their location or even if they are being bullied on social media by their peers. If I were a parent in those circumstances and someone chided me for looking at who was communicating with my child or what they were communicating, I’d think that person should take some of their own advice and mind their own business.

As for the 17 year old in the opening post, even if they were in Ireland (I’m not sure they are, or whether the OP is, given they were on a Zoom call to friends abroad), they wouldn’t have a case against their parents for a breach of any imagined expectation of privacy.

As regards the DPA and Section 32 that you linked to, I can only guess because it mentioned the word parent, that particular section related to consultation with parents for organisations drafting codes of conduct relating to the processing of children’s personal data in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in order to comply with Irish law in relation to data protection. Nowhere in the Act, nor in Irish law, is it suggested that parents are data controllers who are bound by the DPA.

I’ve never stated at any point that the parents of any children could for example pick up the phone of another child unrelated to them and view their communications. I said specifically that parents have the right to view who is in communication with their own children, and to view what that person or persons are communicating to their own children. That’s why I said it doesn’t matter whether the other party is a child or an adult.

In the context of who is the data controller if it were applicable in the context of a third party communicating with a child, it’s the child who would be the data controller with responsibility for protecting the personal information they have received from the other party, who would be obligated to withhold that information from their parents. Irish law does not put that responsibility on children, nor does it put that responsibility on their parents, nor does it put that responsibility on ordinary people if they have concerns about a child’s welfare.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So in other words, you dont know for sure. As I said, nether do I - but at least I was honest about it.

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.

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"

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If I had a child and found out their online conversations to a friend were being monitored by that childs parents I would find that very disturbing.

Why?

Day Lewin wrote: »

Yes. Up to 16. How much sense do you think teenagers have? Online grooming? Street smarts?

None, that's how much.

They are FAR more influenced by what their schoolmates are doing and thinking (or say they are) than by anything adults tell them.
They are NOT grown-ups, even if they think they are. And it's a dark, dangerous world out there on the internet.

only get street smart if you experience street -- some show their lack of thought on life.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well up until about 16 is fair enough. Providing the parents is realistic and doesn't blow a gasket over every little things.

I've seen some parents almost make their kids afraid on the internet tough.

I'd have grown up with the internet tough. In my experience. Those who were dozy when they were teenagers regarding meeting strangers online, sending pics, etc are still the same now in their late twenties.

Strangers are friends you have not yet met

---

stranger danger myth has been put to bed.
Punk rock was the evil\sin etc . and dont go there, no piercings and cant go to work or school
dont try be garda or civil service as seen as mad\deluded etc.
last 10 years humans have been banned from learning and experience as part of hiding the facts
and truth -- "to protect" is the excuse for demanding conformity.

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.

just so you know ireland does not comply with eu GDPR but has its own rules
which also has no criminal sanctions or fines as sanctions for braking GDPR
other laws are used to suit a set of circumstances.
you say 16\17 but that is i take here as other eu countries have differing ages
as far as consent etc. is concerned.
You are correct in parents preparing, yet how many in ireland are telling the 14 year old that
99% of what irish politicians say is false and stated in twisted words and sentences to avoid prosecution?.

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.

I'm not sure that anarchist means what you think it means, but regardless, isn't your 'beware' warning evidence of your own desire to change reality?