An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
How far would you go when it comes to your child?
Shanadeus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I remember back when the media frenzy surrounding Madeleine McCann's kidnapping (and likely murder, let's face it people) that there was quite a number of parents that sought out new and novel ways of protecting their child against child predators and murderers.
The Times had a short article on it that I managed to dig up:
Since then I don't think we've gotten an implantable GPS device but there are tons of "safety" mobiles and back packs that keep on being introduced to the market - most likely because of a great number of parents being more frightened than ever when it comes to the child dangers that lurk about.
I am aware of there being a couple of parents here so I am curious if you've gone and gotten one of these GPS devices for your child, maybe attached to their clothes or inside their mobile phone (if they have one, and more importantly - how far you're willing to go in the name of "safety".
Another thing that I was wondering about was how far parents are willing to go to give their children a better chance in life - through embryo screening for diseases/disorders today and genetic modifications of your child whenever this becomes possible in the future.
The Times had a short article on it that I managed to dig up:
If your child could wear an implant – a microchip that could tell a computer where he or she was at any time to within a few metres – would you buy it? After the horrific snatch of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from her bed in Portugal, the answer from many parents seems to be “yes”.
Professor Kevin Warwick, who developed the technology that made it possible for the first child in Britain to volunteer to be “chipped” in 2002 – after the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman – has been bombarded with e-mails over the past few days from parents desperate to keep tabs on their children. As we talk, another e-mail drops into his inbox from a mother of two young children who says that she is deeply anxious about Madeleine’s disappearance and wants to know more about the chip technology.
It works, in theory, by sending a signal via a mobile-phone network to a computer that can identify the child’s location on an electronic map.
But there was the concern at the time over the ethics of tagging our children’s bodies – some groups, including Barnardo’s and Kidscape as well as sections of the media, said that it was a neurotic overreaction that would not benefit children in the long run. So Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at Reading University, did not continue to develop the project nationally. “It caused such a backlash that we had to step back,” he says. “There were ethical concerns, and as a scientist you have to listen.” But he adds that the point about chipping is not that you would use it to track your children 24 hours a day – only in a worst-case scenario. “You would hope that it never gets used,” he says.
Since then I don't think we've gotten an implantable GPS device but there are tons of "safety" mobiles and back packs that keep on being introduced to the market - most likely because of a great number of parents being more frightened than ever when it comes to the child dangers that lurk about.
I am aware of there being a couple of parents here so I am curious if you've gone and gotten one of these GPS devices for your child, maybe attached to their clothes or inside their mobile phone (if they have one, and more importantly - how far you're willing to go in the name of "safety".
Another thing that I was wondering about was how far parents are willing to go to give their children a better chance in life - through embryo screening for diseases/disorders today and genetic modifications of your child whenever this becomes possible in the future.
Shanadeus on
0
Posts
So most of these measures are a reaction that won't protect against the likely perps.
I don't think I could do the microchip thing to my kid unless they were at an age that I felt they could make the decision for themselves (at least 12, maybe higher depending on maturity). Also depends on how simple the removal process is.
[disclaimer: I am not a parent yet]
Also, there are far more kids being abused by the relatives they live with than being snatched off the streets by strangers. Imagine you are such a kid. Now imagine your abusive parent has the ability to use their magical tracking chip to locate you whenever you try to escape from them. Suddenly the kid's situation sucks even more.
First, though, my kids are getting arm cannons and extendable claws. Suck it, bitches.
Would a solution like that assuage people's worries about it violating the rights of the child?
Basically this.
The chances of a child being abducted are so vanishingly tiny that the GPS devices are up there with special lightning-rod hats as protective devices.
EDIT: Also Kevin Warwick is basically a self-publicising kook. Whenever any electronic device becomes popular he seems to feature in a tabloid article about how he implanted one in his nose or something.
That would depend on company privacy policies.
I would also note that, while kidnappings are extremely rare, children getting lost is a fairly big problem, although mainly when it comes to diverted manpower when it comes to finding the brats.
Sounds like a great thing for amusement- and theme parks.
Kids just get a little bracelet so that they can easily be found if they ever get lost on park grounds.
Stockton.
But no further. Gas is pricey.
This seems like a case of giving up a lot of liberty for a little security.
I'm picturing a Robot Chicken short right now along the lines of "fuck it, we can make another one."
That said... yea, implanting a chip in your kid is fucking creepy. I don't know why, since I have no problem chipping a pet, but I think that's more of a "animals are technically property, and also can't speak for themselves at all" thing.
I'm personally not a fan of genetic manipulation either, but again I'm not sure why aside from a gut instinct of "it's unnatural."
At the age of about fifteen I will essentially let my kid make their own decisions, unless something they are doing seems to be really dangerous, or they make a number of very poor decisions. The biggest thing I plan on doing for any kids I have is not to lie to them, and honestly tell them about my life experiences, what I've seen, and what my actual life experience has been as far as trusting people goes (that is that I have rarely ever trusted anyone, and those that I did trust usually disappointed me).
Unless I become world famous or extremely rich I'm not going to put a tracking device on any kids I have. Unless you actually do have enemies, it seems a bit absurd.
I kind of assumed that it was more of a signal system, where you had to know the right code/frequency to separate it from all the other transmitters.
Barring that, I dunno. I'm not a parent yet, but I can't see being able to bring myself to chip my kid. Maybe if they made earrings with GPS instead...
Or just go all-out and hire Liam Neeson to track the kid down.
The chip definitely is; the OP also mentioned GPS devices like pendants and backpacks.
But it's probably only a matter of time before we figure out how to miniaturize GPS devices (and, more significantly, their power sources) well enough to implant those too.
EDIT: but yeah the scientist in question was talking about un-powered chips that would need to be actively searched for rather than constantly pinging their location to some server as a GPS device might. That post doesn't make much sense with this in mind.
EDIT2: I find it kind of funny that the scary new tech (implanting a chip in a child) is actually probably less harmful than the GPS systems that are already extremely popular for kids with cell phones.
I'm pretty sure that 98% of the situations you think could be solved by martial arts could be solved better by running like hell or cooperating with whatever the criminal is demanding.
:^:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, but then they won't get laid bragging about it afterward.
Scientists make things because they're awesome. I'm pretty sure a lot are saddened by their inventions being used haphazardly. Einstein flipped out when he saw Atomic weapons.
There are lots of reasons to do it to animals:
They might wander off and not be able to figure out how to get back home.
Someone else might take them as their own because they're douches (rare, but it happens).
They can't talk.
Also, you generally don't microchip with GPS transmitters or anything like that, just a chip that gives an ID number when scanned. This hooks up to a database so people can find you if the animal is lost and taken to a pound. You can't use them to invade your dog's privacy or control who she hangs out with, which is one of the issues with chipping children.
The only way chipping a kid could violate his or her rights is if the process were permanent.
They're not recognized by law, at least not in the US. That much is true. We could have a discussion on whether a right could exist as a natural right even if it's not recognized by law, but that would be a pretty esoteric tangent.
Regardless, I still feel that it's immoral to invade on a child's privacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We looked at the pendant things and decided it was too expensive, and we lived in a nice area with people who would walk him back home. But my three-year-old's privacy was never a major concern.
fake edit: There was. Child Abduction Is Not Funny
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
I'm more worried about being beaten to death after the whole town turns out to comb the nearest forest only for a sibling the find the fucker screwing around in a closet.
Still, if a pendant or bracelet tracker is too expensive, I can't imagine an implanted chip would cheaper to have.
I wonder if there is some form of natural selection at work when it comes to designer babies.
Some people like you might perhaps have an evolved instinctual negative response to it that will stop you from genetically modifying your child whereas other people might marvel at the thought and be all for having a designed baby.
If the genetic enhancements end up helping the person then I could definitely see this second group of parents spreading their genes more than the first group and theoretically end up with a world where most people are for genetic manipulation.
Yeah, this is probably not the case as it might not be an evolved instinctual response you're displaying and that the genetically manipulated people might be in a higher socio-economic class and thus on average reproduce less than a poor person who don't have access to these technologies.
As for some potential chip implant, I'd consider it when he got older. But it would have to be completely safe and easy to implant and remove. Mostly, though, I think the most important thing is to teach kids how to deal with potentially dangerous situations.
But I know the chances of some random stranger snatching my kid are really low. It's one of those dangers that is really overblown.
Rigorous Scholarship
"Where's Billy?"
"I dunno, he's probably around here somewhere. Go check on the internet"
When they're young, keep a close eye on them. When they're a little older, get them a cell phone for emergencies.
There have only been maybe two or three times total where one of my kids have wandered off and I've wished I could make them beep, or something. But it's always just been inside a store, or something.
Yeah, I wouldn't have gone with an implant, because a) gut-level creepiness and b) it sounds like a pain to remove later, and when my kid's a teenager, I don't want to be tracking his daily movements. But if the necklace had been cheaper, I likely would have picked it up. It was some package that gave you a bunch, and we'd have put one on him (the three-year-old who went through the wandering-off phase) and one on each of the dogs' collars (they're beagles and will dig out of the fenced yard and run off to chase scents).
In both cases, my attitude was less "prevent kidnapping" and more "oh god, the dog/toddler has run off again and is not capable of taking care of himself." Fortunately, we trained the kid out of wandering off, and the dogs... well, I'm not spending that much on the damn dogs.
My dad let me get lost by keeping an eye on me from a distance. He watched how I reacted and when I was out of my comfort zone to the point where I was going "holy fuck where's my dad!", he came up to me and we had a long talk about it. It's only when I was older that he mentioned that it was kind of a trick so that I wouldn't wander too far ever again.
As a result we were keeping tabs on each other, making it less likely for the improbable event that someone might actually grab me.
What I will fucking do is be aware that while 'nutjob abducts and rapes your child' happens to virtually no one, a disturbing proportion of girls ARE abused by coaches, neighbors, Sunday school teachers, and so on that they actually know.
So while a GPS device of some sort wouldn't be used for that purpose it could still have a purpose when it comes to finding a lost child and so on.