Do you agree with tracking kids via implant chip?

[gruntygiggles]

That's a reasoned and logical argument. But if in that 5 minutes of panic when a child is 'lost' something happens to them (they get run over by a car, they fall in a pond, or even if after 5 minutes of wandering an opportunist sicko does pick them up, what if you could have found them in two minutes and prevented it from happening?

Good point, but it still doesn't change the fact that the child has wandered off in the first place. What you are talking about is a difference in minutes for the very unlikely chance that something bad will happen.

I spoke to my mum about this last night as I remember wearing reins as a child. I could have the freedom to walk in public places, but mum or dad always had a hold of me.

She then said that she never had a problem with us (my sister and i) wandering off. She said we knew our boundaries and when we were out playing, all the parents knew and all kept a close eye.

My sister was approached outside school when she was 6 by a man who said he had puppies at home and would she like to go see them. She did what she had been told to do...she said shed wasn't allowed to talk to strangers and promptly ran away screaming back to the school gates. I remember the police being at our house that afternoon. I don't remember a time when we didn't know to do that.

Also, perhaps if you always find your child very quickly...they will never learn some valuable lessons?

[Owenski]

Aye but this is the problem, the majority of "the public" are effectively just warm meat.

They watch football and give it importance to their very soul, they actually CARE about something on eastenders. They watch big brother and Xfactor. Their brains are the consistency of month-old milk.

It's wrong to connect any mass-opinion with morality... the majority of the public don't have the capability for such abstract thought, or indeed thought.

True, but a hobby so enjoyed that it becomes a passion is not a bad thing. Its these passions what no doubt brought all these members to this forum. As you say Football/Eastenders may to you be a silly passion with no self gain but to those people I bet if you say you're on an internet forum that you joined because of your motorbike they'd look at you with the same frown as you would them when they say "I've got to be back for 8, Eastenders is on".

I do though agree with you, people are stupid. A person my be intelligent and capable of independent thought but it takes a certain sort of person to be able to hear their independent thought above the noise of a surrounding crowd. This is the distinction between a person been stupid and the people been stupid. Although you're never short of examples of stupid persons amongst stupid people either lol.

Perhaps on this basis as I mentioned before the problem I'm having with this argument is that I'm applying it to my own circumstance. I'm judging it on how I would use the tech, how I would act should it be available. To sit outside my own situation and ask myself "would I want parents on Wilton (known local rough estate) to have their kids fitted with trackers"
Well irrespective of most of them been fitted one by plod before they're 18 anyway I'd be inclined to say No! My perception of these parents and their kids is one similar to those as Widepants mentions. They'd use it as an excuse to view their parental responsibility as some how lessened, this in turn would allow these kids to run around even more nuts causing all sorts of mayhem beyond that which they already do and to those parents this could only be a disaster for the rest of us.

So 2 questions for me to answer:

1 - Would I vote for or against this tech? I'd vote against.
2 - If already available would I opt to use it? Yes I would.

[widepants]

Whal Grunty just said then brought back a memory from shopping a few months ago.Georgina got so carried away with sweets that she wandered off to look for them.I let her go but kept an eye on her from hiding .The look on her face when she realised I wasnt there was brilliant.But , she went to a female member of staff to say she was lost .

[-Ralph-]

Perhaps on this basis as I mentioned before the problem I'm having with this argument is that I'm applying it to my own circumstance. I'm judging it on how I would use the tech, how I would act should it be available.

To sit outside my own situation and ask myself "would I want parents on Wilton (known local rough estate) to have their kids fitted with trackers"
Well irrespective of most of them been fitted one by plod before they're 18 anyway I'd be inclined to say No!

So 2 questions for me to answer:

1 - Would I vote for or against this tech? I'd vote against.
2 - If already available would I opt to use it? Yes I would.

And that concludes my argument, I need to do some work!

One last question though - if the technology were available tomorrow, would it currently be illegal. Would it ever need to go to public vote?

[gruntygiggles]

Whal Grunty just said then brought back a memory from shopping a few months ago.Georgina got so carried away with sweets that she wandered off to look for them.I let her go but kept an eye on her from hiding .The look on her face when she realised I wasnt there was brilliant.But , she went to a female member of staff to say she was lost .

That's cute. My sister ran away once when she was 13. When my mum got home and dad told her, she could have run him through if she had a knife as he and I were quite calmly eating our dinner. Before she went into complete panic, dad told her that my sister announced she was running away, made off out the back door, he followed and planned on scooping her up down the road, but he watched her hide under the trees. He could see her through the patio doors from the sofa, so he left her there. She came in at gone midnight, freezing cold, went to bed and wouldn't let anyone mention it afterwards, lol.

A few years ago, she told dad how upset she had been that he didn't search for her/call the police etc. His response was brilliant when he said, "your mum and I knew where you girls were every second of every day...we just didn't let you know that. I bet you still think we never knew you smoked either" it was really quite amusing :-)

[Owenski]

And that concludes my argument, I need to do some work!

One last question though - if the technology were available tomorrow, would it currently be illegal. Would it ever need to go to public vote?

Do our thoughts echo each others? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this, please someone hold me.

I cannot answer your last question, legally I'm not aware of any violation but I would suspect this form of tagging a person would be made through power of a tourney which as legal guardian of a minor we as parents auto-matically have unless a court has seen fit to remove that power.

[Spank86]

Question for those who are for it,

Are you also for the spread of CCTV and other ways the government monitors you?

[yorkie_chris]

Question for those who are for it,

Are you also for the spread of CCTV and other ways the government monitors you?

Dead against it.

[Owenski]

Cleverly worded there Spank. I am for the use of static CCTV to be used to trace the steps of suspected criminals to be used as evidence for and against them (remember the defendant can only be convicted with evidence he/she is aware may be presented in court).
I am however NOT in approval of this system been monitored by persons, nor for it to be used without warrent I would support and vote YES on this system been operated by a private (none law enforcement) company provided they had certain guidelines to abide by a key one been granted access before contempt.
ie if the police want to use footage including yourself you must agree or otherwise be found in contempt and in which case you'd suspect most people would (if they've nothing to hide) be willing to release the footage of themselves.

I do my best to live within the law, and see these as ways of using technology to offer protection without weapons. The majority of cases this may be used are unfortunatly post crime and as such offer no benefit to the victim other than a conviction been determined beyond doubt, as such I would also support tougher sentencing on serious crime.

[punyXpress]

She then said that she never had a problem with us (my sister and i) wandering off. She said we knew our boundaries and when we were out playing, all the parents knew and all kept a close eye.

Presumably neighbours: we're lucky to know who ours are, being surrounded South, East and West by holiday cottages where anyone with the cash can take up residence.
Furthermore, if a known( to the Police ) paedophile or Sex Offenders Registree moves into your area, the boys in blue will NOT advise residents of that fact!

[-Ralph-]

Question for those who are for it,

Are you also for the spread of CCTV and other ways the government monitors you?

I don't have an issue with CCTV cameras used as they are, buy the agencies they are, in the places they are today. I'm not sure there's much scope for spread is there? Most busy public places are covered by CCTV already.

I would be against the unnecessary installation of CCTV by the government, ie: in private places, or public places where there is very little crime and no safety issue.

Just as I am against the GPS tagging of teenagers by their parents!

I'd be against enforced forms of monitoring such as a GPS device on a motorbike that informs the authorities where you have been and when you are speeding, but a caring loving parent monitoring a young child, is very different to a government monitoring an adult member of Joe Public.

[gruntygiggles]

I don't have an issue with CCTV cameras used as they are, buy the agencies they are, in the places they are today. I'm not sure there's much scope for spread is there? Most busy public places are covered by CCTV already.

I would be against the unnecessary installation of CCTV by the government, ie: in private places, or public places where there is very little crime and no safety issue.

Just as I am against the GPS tagging of teenagers by their parents!

I'd be against enforced forms of monitoring such as a GPS device on a motorbike that informs the authorities where you have been and when you are speeding, but a caring loving parent monitoring a young child, is very different to a government monitoring an adult member of Joe Public.

But a caring, loving parent monitoring a child means that caring, loving parent is not with the child...or believe that nobody responsible is. THAT is when things go wrong, so surely we should be looking more to not allowing chances for our kids to wander off in the first place, than fit a tracking device under their skin?

Granted, I do not have children yet, but I will be clear that I understand fully how flippin easy it is for a child to wander. But an implant? No...I couldn't be comfortable with that. I could be comfortable with the child wearing a belt or wristband that had the same technology I think. It is not the idea of tracking a young child that bothers me...it is the implantation that bothers me.

If my child was snatched, I would feel much happier thinking that a wristband could be simply pulled off and thrown than a knife taken to my child.

[thulfi]

If my child was snatched, I would feel much happier thinking that a wristband could be simply pulled off and thrown than a knife taken to my child.

Not if it was available but not a legal obligation. Then only x percent of parents would go for it in the first place.

Then imagine it was a tiny virtually undetectable chip (like a super-small contraceptive arm implant like we have today) but that could be buried under any piece of skin over an body part.

Then the kidnapper won't have the foggiest idea which kid has it or doesn't and is gonna have a hard time finding it even if he wanted to unless they get skinned.

Well then I think it would work quite well, and I reckon if it was available technology then the majority of kids would not have it, and it'd work a treat for those that did.

[jambo]

Have a kid,
Wouldn't want to enforce anything of the sort. I don't think kids should be "tracked" I don't know that they'd object, but If someone wanted to give me a chip right now and have my family be able to tell where I was whenever they wanted without my say-so I'd decline.

if I don't want to be tracked by my family whenever they feel like it, then I don't think it's right to enforce this on someone younger, and less likely to understand the full implications.

Also, bikes with trackers never get nicked and never seen again do they? ;)

Jambo

[gruntygiggles]

Not if it was available but not a legal obligation. Then only x percent of parents would go for it in the first place.

Then imagine it was a tiny virtually undetectable chip (like a super-small contraceptive arm implant like we have today) but that could be buried under any piece of skin over an body part.

Then the kidnapper won't have the foggiest idea which kid has it or doesn't and is gonna have a hard time finding it even if he wanted to unless they get skinned.

Well then I think it would work quite well, and I reckon if it was available technology then the majority of kids would not have it, and it'd work a treat for those that did.

I know what I would and wouldn't be happy with...and a stranger taking a knife to my child is something I would never be happy with. Much less if that happened because of an implant that I decided my child should have.

Chips can be read. It is not difficult to get hold of scanners. It is also not difficult to find information relating to the manufacture of newly designed implants. With that information, it only takes one person of that ilk to design a scanner that is useable and it will be possible for others to then get hold of them.

Goodness, if horse thieves will do it to make a couple of grand, sickos will do it to get their fix.

A child can hack into a government server, bypassing some of the most stringent security in the world...so hacking into information on implants is not going to be that difficult. Let's also not forget that most attackers know their victims so could potentially know they have a chip and where it is. This could mean they want that child and know how to quickly remove the chip OR that they prey on a child that they know doesn't have a chip and therefore the whole point of the chip is lost anyway.

Where there is a will, there is a way. When that will involves such depraved motives and actions...you can bet your bottom dollar that the perpetrators will not think twice about breaking other laws in order to make it easier for them.

[-Ralph-]

But a caring, loving parent monitoring a child means that caring, loving parent is not with the child...or believe that nobody responsible is. THAT is when things go wrong, so surely we should be looking more to not allowing chances for our kids to wander off in the first place

No, not healthy. Even loving caring parents can't be with their children all the time and have to allow them the chance to wander off. Were your parents, or another responsible adult with you all the time as a child? That thought process is how we end up with the debate earlier in this thread about children not being able play outside, in the park, etc because the parents are too paranoid to let them go unless supervised. They need some freedom within boundaries that you set, and you need to place trust in them for them to adhere to those boundaries. As per widepants daughter earlier in the thread, sometimes they will break that trust, but that's how they learn.



Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[thulfi]

Where there is a will, there is a way. When that will involves such depraved motives and actions...you can bet your bottom dollar that the perpetrators will not think twice about breaking other laws in order to make it easier for them.


I agree with you completely. This article sums up your exact point well,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/scared-mexicans-try-under-the-skin-tracking-devices/2011/08/14/gIQAtReNUJ_story.html

Obviously if we're talking todays tech, battery+antenna - how you gonna hide that subtly?

Any parent would be an idiot to buy one if it was detectable with some moderate amount of effort. But should such a chip exist in the near or distant future that would be extremely difficult to detect (that is if you think it's there in the first place) then I think it would work well to serve it's purpose should the extremely unlikely and unfortunate happen.

[Spank86]

I don't have an issue with CCTV cameras used as they are, buy the agencies they are, in the places they are today. I'm not sure there's much scope for spread is there? Most busy public places are covered by CCTV already.
a lot of commercial areas are but not so many residential and industrial (by my reckoning)

The parallel I'd draw is that in both instances the only rights your being deprived of are the right to privacy, and even thats only really valid if you're going to do something illegal.

[yorkie_chris]

and even thats only really valid if you're going to do something illegal.

I'd strongly argue against that.

[Spank86]

I'd strongly argue against that.


because you think that out of the millions of people showing up on cctv cameras anyones taken a second glance at you mooching along the street minding your own business?

Perhaps I should have said only valid if one of the operators THINKS you might have done something illegal.

[gruntygiggles]

No, not healthy. Even loving caring parents can't be with their children all the time and have to allow them the chance to wander off. Were your parents, or another responsible adult with you all the time as a child? That thought process is how we end up with the debate earlier in this thread about children not being able play outside, in the park, etc because the parents are too paranoid to let them go unless supervised. They need some freedom within boundaries that you set, and you need to place trust in them for them to adhere to those boundaries. As per widepants daughter earlier in the thread, sometimes they will break that trust, but that's how they learn.



Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

No, they weren't with us all of the time when we got to an age where we could be trusted. Before that, they would give us freedom, but keep an eye on us. My mum was on the overprotective side, but it never did me any harm.

When we were allowed a little more freedom, it was on the condition that we always stay together or with our friends.

I have said before in this thread, that despite the best parental supervision in the world, people can get past it...children can become lost or be taken. When that happens, sometimes the very worst then happens to a child...my point still stands that the implant will still do very little, probably nothing to help locate the child before they are subjected to something horrific.

[-Ralph-]

my point still stands that the implant will still do very little, probably nothing to help locate the child before they are subjected to something horrific.

How can you say that with certainty? Jamie Bulger was probably lost for 5 minutes before he was taken, and then walked a considerable distance, and before anything bad happened to him.


Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[gruntygiggles]

How can you say that with certainty? Jamie Bulger was probably lost for 5 minutes before he was taken, and then walked a considerable distance, and before anything bad happened to him.


Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk


That's just it though...I don't have to say it with certainty. Not all cases will be the same. April Jones god bless her could have been 10 miles away before a search began, by the time the tracker was found, it could have been cut out.

I hope and pray she will be found alive, but I don't think a device like this would guarantee her safe return.

If it can't guarantee safe return, but can create a chance for a child to be cut into, I don't think the benefits weigh up that well.

[-Ralph-]

That's just it though...I don't have to say it with certainty. Not all cases will be the same. April Jones god bless her could have been 10 miles away before a search began, by the time the tracker was found, it could have been cut out.

I hope and pray she will be found alive, but I don't think a device like this would guarantee her safe return.

If it can't guarantee safe return, but can create a chance for a child to be cut into, I don't think the benefits weigh up that well.

Sorry, it came across as if you were saying it with certainty.

Recovering a child that's been abducted is not it's only usage, it's actually a highly unlikely usage for the tracker. You're also assuming that the abductor expects it to be there and knows where it is. If the kids just wandered off to the local park without permission, it's highly likely a GPS tracker would have them found before any harm came to them, if any harm was indeed destined to come to them on that occasion at all.

[-Ralph-]

He's got as much chance of claiming against you as you have of claiming against him. I'd just get your bike fixed, claim against your fully comp policy for whatever you can/need to claim for (bike, kit, injury, etc), and move on.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Spank86]

He's got as much chance of claiming against you as you have of claiming against him. I'd just get your bike fixed, claim against your fully comp policy for whatever you can/need to claim for (bike, kit, injury, etc), and move on.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

Did you get lost there for a minute?

next thread over I think :D

[widepants]

Should I make my daughter wear one of these
http://mattsko.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/radio-hat-50s.jpg?w=450&h=589 (http://mattsko.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/radio-hat-50s.jpg)

[-Ralph-]

Did you get lost there for a minute?

next thread over I think :D

I blame tapatalk

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk