Why don't children get 'chipped'

[urchin]

NEVER!

The second we all have chips, is the second that the government decides it needs to know where we all are at all times (in the interests of national security, naturally)
And then they leave the codes in the briefcase on the tube, or decide to raise money by selling the information to big business *shudder*

Far more harm than good would be achieved by such a thing


It always amazes me how people are so very trusting about such things
1) That people would trust their governments to such an extent! How easy would it be for The Man to decide that political opponent-types needed to be watched? And how easy for them to obtain a full list of who had been at certain meetings ... and then to create a register of people whose careers could be blocked. Far fetched? Try asking left wing Americans in the 50's

2) That people would trust all of the people who have access to the data! Yes, I'm sure the majority of cctv operators have no interest in me whatsover, as I'm sure the majority of chip watchers would be similarly bored by my comings and goings - and those of my children. But operators are people, and people come in all flavours: some benign, some not!

I have a friend who escaped an abusive arranged marriage. Her family and his worked for the Benefits Agency. Even now, she cannot claim benefits via the usual route - she goes through a special centre which is not connected to the main database. If she pops up in the system, they will find her, and they will kill her (I'm not exaggerating here - her uncle's 'job' is to retrieve runaways and bring them back to 'justice')

Paedophiles are often attracted to jobs which give them access to vulnerable children - priests, teachers, social workers - not to say of course that all people in these professions are child abusers, far from it! But they are very attractive jobs for people who want access to children.

Now imagine such a person with a job at the chip control centre - a person who takes a shine to your child, a person who knows where they are at all times, and knows when you aren't close by.


Still sound like a good idea?

 

[lynne192]

lol was joking about me being a bad mum lol

 

[smokey]

As I said before though is it just the thought of it actualy under the skin that makes people say no, would people be more inclined to think about it if it was just a wristband type thing.
My big issue with it is I cant understand the thought of it being a invasion of a child privacy, maybe its just me but to me a toddler doesnt have privacy or and right/need for it when it comes to me as their parent (and ill probably have that view till they are in their teens)

Is it a strict no to any form or tracking that people are against?

I'm less uneasy with the idea of a tracking bracelet, but it's still the concept of being watched. I don't think any human being should be subject to constant surveillance (unless they've done something to deserve it!)
It would open a whole generation to the idea of not having any personal 'sacred' space (not the right phrase, but I can't find the word I want), over which the state, adults or other children do not cross. If you're constantly watched and monitored, then what difference if we are told where to be, or who to be with. It's a slippery slope IMO.

This is what I cant understand though, by this do you mean a 3/4 year old shouldnt be watched constantly and should have their own private space and time to do stuff without us knowing what/where they are and respect their personal space?
I just dont get that, what toddler needs private personal time without being watched.

I think by the age of 3 or 4, they should absolutely have some privacy, even if it's just to sit in their room playing, or reading a book (if they've mastered reading-which a 4 year old may well have)

It's the idea of having a child be used to constant surveillance that concerns me. If they are watched constantly through their formative years, then that will be normalised, and any future surveillance woukdnt seem so abhorrent to then as it would to a person who hadn't been tracked throughout the early years.

Theme parks and shopping centres can be solved by either having reins for young children, holding hands or having pre-arrange meeting points in the event of getting separated.

My son is walking everywhere now, but while he's got no sense of anything and wanders off, plus as we live in a city centre, he's on reins. At no point would I consider stepping down the level of parental supervision. Whereas I might be complacent if I knew he was tracked and locatable if he did wander off.

You also have to consider the lowest common denominator. Would poorly educated families abuse the technology? Would it encourage more parents to let young children roam the streets? While you yourself might not misuse it , there are alot of people around who don't think before they act.

I think thats where I feel differantly, to me a 3/4 year old doesnt need privacy and time to themselves, I feel I would be failing if I didnt know where my child was or what they where doing at all time.
I dont see it any differantly from in a few years time he would be using the computer I would never dream of him having it in his room where I cant monitor what hes doing and who he is talking to, it would be in the living room where I can see what hes up to and I will have his passwords as well, I dont see it as an invasion I see it as keeping him safe.

I hit the roof when he was 6 months old and went to his grandmas for the day only to find when he got home they had taken him to the seaside 30 odd miles away without telling me, I thought he was at her house down the road.
Everyone has differant ideas about parenting and to me I want to know where he is, even if I choose not to use the wristband while out I still dont see why a toddler needs privacy (obviously going to the toilet is differant but the door still wont be shut for many years yet just in case he falls)
I just dont see privacy coming into it till he is about 11/12 and even then I still want to know where he is.
Im 31 and my mum still knows 99% of the time where I am, if I go out I still get moaned at if I dont phone her to say im back home safe

 

[lhancock90]

I feel horrendous but, as a Mum, with all the horrendous things you hear on the news, i think, if i could chip my baby by say a bracelet or an anklet that only I could track, i probably would. When my sister was 5, she was supposed to be picked up from school by the "walking bus" and taken to her after school club, they lost her and for an hour, my Mom had no idea where her 5 year old daughter was, eventually she showed up and had walked herself to her club, but i can remember perfectly the terror my Mom went through and i would never, ever want to feel that, so if there was a bracelet/anklet/badge type system where i could track her, i would 100% go for that.
I do think microchipping sex offenders is an excellent idea, especially in light of the fact that the whereabouts of some, across the country have been lost. Yes a human being deserves the right to a life without survelliance but i think a sexoffender shouldn't have that right anymore.

 

[patch2006uk]

As I said before though is it just the thought of it actualy under the skin that makes people say no, would people be more inclined to think about it if it was just a wristband type thing.
My big issue with it is I cant understand the thought of it being a invasion of a child privacy, maybe its just me but to me a toddler doesnt have privacy or and right/need for it when it comes to me as their parent (and ill probably have that view till they are in their teens)

Is it a strict no to any form or tracking that people are against?

I'm less uneasy with the idea of a tracking bracelet, but it's still the concept of being watched. I don't think any human being should be subject to constant surveillance (unless they've done something to deserve it!)
It would open a whole generation to the idea of not having any personal 'sacred' space (not the right phrase, but I can't find the word I want), over which the state, adults or other children do not cross. If you're constantly watched and monitored, then what difference if we are told where to be, or who to be with. It's a slippery slope IMO.

This is what I cant understand though, by this do you mean a 3/4 year old shouldnt be watched constantly and should have their own private space and time to do stuff without us knowing what/where they are and respect their personal space?
I just dont get that, what toddler needs private personal time without being watched.

I think by the age of 3 or 4, they should absolutely have some privacy, even if it's just to sit in their room playing, or reading a book (if they've mastered reading-which a 4 year old may well have)

It's the idea of having a child be used to constant surveillance that concerns me. If they are watched constantly through their formative years, then that will be normalised, and any future surveillance woukdnt seem so abhorrent to then as it would to a person who hadn't been tracked throughout the early years.

Theme parks and shopping centres can be solved by either having reins for young children, holding hands or having pre-arrange meeting points in the event of getting separated.

My son is walking everywhere now, but while he's got no sense of anything and wanders off, plus as we live in a city centre, he's on reins. At no point would I consider stepping down the level of parental supervision. Whereas I might be complacent if I knew he was tracked and locatable if he did wander off.

You also have to consider the lowest common denominator. Would poorly educated families abuse the technology? Would it encourage more parents to let young children roam the streets? While you yourself might not misuse it , there are alot of people around who don't think before they act.

I think thats where I feel differantly, to me a 3/4 year old doesnt need privacy and time to themselves, I feel I would be failing if I didnt know where my child was or what they where doing at all time.
I dont see it any differantly from in a few years time he would be using the computer I would never dream of him having it in his room where I cant monitor what hes doing and who he is talking to, it would be in the living room where I can see what hes up to and I will have his passwords as well, I dont see it as an invasion I see it as keeping him safe.

I hit the roof when he was 6 months old and went to his grandmas for the day only to find when he got home they had taken him to the seaside 30 odd miles away without telling me, I thought he was at her house down the road.
Everyone has differant ideas about parenting and to me I want to know where he is, even if I choose not to use the wristband while out I still dont see why a toddler needs privacy (obviously going to the toilet is differant but the door still wont be shut for many years yet just in case he falls)
I just dont see privacy coming into it till he is about 11/12 and even then I still want to know where he is.
Im 31 and my mum still knows 99% of the time where I am, if I go out I still get moaned at if I dont phone her to say im back home safe

Even if they're in their room playing with a train set? Or drawing? Or watching a movie? You'd want to know exactly what they were doing, at any given moment of any given day?

And I expect to take my LO to the loo for years yet! That's not the kind of privacy I mean. I mean the ability to be 'off' for a little bit - not watched.

At the age of 8, my best friend moved away. I swore I wasn't going to cry in front of my parents, as I didn't want them to know how upset I was. Would you have denied me the freedom to go to my room and cry in peace?

 

[smokey]

As I said before though is it just the thought of it actualy under the skin that makes people say no, would people be more inclined to think about it if it was just a wristband type thing.
My big issue with it is I cant understand the thought of it being a invasion of a child privacy, maybe its just me but to me a toddler doesnt have privacy or and right/need for it when it comes to me as their parent (and ill probably have that view till they are in their teens)

Is it a strict no to any form or tracking that people are against?

I'm less uneasy with the idea of a tracking bracelet, but it's still the concept of being watched. I don't think any human being should be subject to constant surveillance (unless they've done something to deserve it!)
It would open a whole generation to the idea of not having any personal 'sacred' space (not the right phrase, but I can't find the word I want), over which the state, adults or other children do not cross. If you're constantly watched and monitored, then what difference if we are told where to be, or who to be with. It's a slippery slope IMO.

This is what I cant understand though, by this do you mean a 3/4 year old shouldnt be watched constantly and should have their own private space and time to do stuff without us knowing what/where they are and respect their personal space?
I just dont get that, what toddler needs private personal time without being watched.

I think by the age of 3 or 4, they should absolutely have some privacy, even if it's just to sit in their room playing, or reading a book (if they've mastered reading-which a 4 year old may well have)

It's the idea of having a child be used to constant surveillance that concerns me. If they are watched constantly through their formative years, then that will be normalised, and any future surveillance woukdnt seem so abhorrent to then as it would to a person who hadn't been tracked throughout the early years.

Theme parks and shopping centres can be solved by either having reins for young children, holding hands or having pre-arrange meeting points in the event of getting separated.

My son is walking everywhere now, but while he's got no sense of anything and wanders off, plus as we live in a city centre, he's on reins. At no point would I consider stepping down the level of parental supervision. Whereas I might be complacent if I knew he was tracked and locatable if he did wander off.

You also have to consider the lowest common denominator. Would poorly educated families abuse the technology? Would it encourage more parents to let young children roam the streets? While you yourself might not misuse it , there are alot of people around who don't think before they act.

I think thats where I feel differantly, to me a 3/4 year old doesnt need privacy and time to themselves, I feel I would be failing if I didnt know where my child was or what they where doing at all time.
I dont see it any differantly from in a few years time he would be using the computer I would never dream of him having it in his room where I cant monitor what hes doing and who he is talking to, it would be in the living room where I can see what hes up to and I will have his passwords as well, I dont see it as an invasion I see it as keeping him safe.

I hit the roof when he was 6 months old and went to his grandmas for the day only to find when he got home they had taken him to the seaside 30 odd miles away without telling me, I thought he was at her house down the road.
Everyone has differant ideas about parenting and to me I want to know where he is, even if I choose not to use the wristband while out I still dont see why a toddler needs privacy (obviously going to the toilet is differant but the door still wont be shut for many years yet just in case he falls)
I just dont see privacy coming into it till he is about 11/12 and even then I still want to know where he is.
Im 31 and my mum still knows 99% of the time where I am, if I go out I still get moaned at if I dont phone her to say im back home safe

Even if they're in their room playing with a train set? Or drawing? Or watching a movie? You'd want to know exactly what they were doing, at any given moment of any given day?

And I expect to take my LO to the loo for years yet! That's not the kind of privacy I mean. I mean the ability to be 'off' for a little bit - not watched.

At the age of 8, my best friend moved away. I swore I wasn't going to cry in front of my parents, as I didn't want them to know how upset I was. Would you have denied me the freedom to go to my room and cry in peace?

But there is a huge differance between 8 and 3 at 8 I wouldnt have a problem with him being in his room on his own as long as I know where he is but at 3 then no he wont be in his room on his own he can play in the livingroom, I see no benafit what so ever to a 3 year old sitting in their room on their own, if you want to allow a child to do so that is fine but to do it just so they have some privaacy then no.

I had a woman on my facebook, I didnt actualy know her personaly just as a aquantance so I dont know the full details but iv read what happened to her from herself and in news paper articles of her 3 year old that was playing in his room on his own and he dragged a clothes hamper over to the window climbed up and climbed out the window falling 4 stories down on his head on the concreted garden killing him outright and she didnt know untill her 5 year old came in from the garden and told her he was sleeping outside.
Even though I didnt know her peronaly it was still realy upsetting to see updates and photos of him growing up from the day he was born and then suddenly an announcment of his funeral.

So even with all thoughts of tracking aside (as I know nothing to do with tracking could have prevented this) no I still wouldnt let my 3 year old play on his own out of sight.
LO doesnt even leave the livingroom without me as we have gates on both livingroom doors so the whole idea of invading a toddlers privacy is completly alien to me.
I wouldnt turn his night time monitor off because listening in on him is a invasion

 

[patch2006uk]

As I said before though is it just the thought of it actualy under the skin that makes people say no, would people be more inclined to think about it if it was just a wristband type thing.
My big issue with it is I cant understand the thought of it being a invasion of a child privacy, maybe its just me but to me a toddler doesnt have privacy or and right/need for it when it comes to me as their parent (and ill probably have that view till they are in their teens)

Is it a strict no to any form or tracking that people are against?

I'm less uneasy with the idea of a tracking bracelet, but it's still the concept of being watched. I don't think any human being should be subject to constant surveillance (unless they've done something to deserve it!)
It would open a whole generation to the idea of not having any personal 'sacred' space (not the right phrase, but I can't find the word I want), over which the state, adults or other children do not cross. If you're constantly watched and monitored, then what difference if we are told where to be, or who to be with. It's a slippery slope IMO.

This is what I cant understand though, by this do you mean a 3/4 year old shouldnt be watched constantly and should have their own private space and time to do stuff without us knowing what/where they are and respect their personal space?
I just dont get that, what toddler needs private personal time without being watched.

I think by the age of 3 or 4, they should absolutely have some privacy, even if it's just to sit in their room playing, or reading a book (if they've mastered reading-which a 4 year old may well have)

It's the idea of having a child be used to constant surveillance that concerns me. If they are watched constantly through their formative years, then that will be normalised, and any future surveillance woukdnt seem so abhorrent to then as it would to a person who hadn't been tracked throughout the early years.

Theme parks and shopping centres can be solved by either having reins for young children, holding hands or having pre-arrange meeting points in the event of getting separated.

My son is walking everywhere now, but while he's got no sense of anything and wanders off, plus as we live in a city centre, he's on reins. At no point would I consider stepping down the level of parental supervision. Whereas I might be complacent if I knew he was tracked and locatable if he did wander off.

You also have to consider the lowest common denominator. Would poorly educated families abuse the technology? Would it encourage more parents to let young children roam the streets? While you yourself might not misuse it , there are alot of people around who don't think before they act.

I think thats where I feel differantly, to me a 3/4 year old doesnt need privacy and time to themselves, I feel I would be failing if I didnt know where my child was or what they where doing at all time.
I dont see it any differantly from in a few years time he would be using the computer I would never dream of him having it in his room where I cant monitor what hes doing and who he is talking to, it would be in the living room where I can see what hes up to and I will have his passwords as well, I dont see it as an invasion I see it as keeping him safe.

I hit the roof when he was 6 months old and went to his grandmas for the day only to find when he got home they had taken him to the seaside 30 odd miles away without telling me, I thought he was at her house down the road.
Everyone has differant ideas about parenting and to me I want to know where he is, even if I choose not to use the wristband while out I still dont see why a toddler needs privacy (obviously going to the toilet is differant but the door still wont be shut for many years yet just in case he falls)
I just dont see privacy coming into it till he is about 11/12 and even then I still want to know where he is.
Im 31 and my mum still knows 99% of the time where I am, if I go out I still get moaned at if I dont phone her to say im back home safe

Even if they're in their room playing with a train set? Or drawing? Or watching a movie? You'd want to know exactly what they were doing, at any given moment of any given day?

And I expect to take my LO to the loo for years yet! That's not the kind of privacy I mean. I mean the ability to be 'off' for a little bit - not watched.

At the age of 8, my best friend moved away. I swore I wasn't going to cry in front of my parents, as I didn't want them to know how upset I was. Would you have denied me the freedom to go to my room and cry in peace?

But there is a huge differance between 8 and 3 at 8 I wouldnt have a problem with him being in his room on his own as long as I know where he is but at 3 then no he wont be in his room on his own he can play in the livingroom, I see no benafit what so ever to a 3 year old sitting in their room on their own, if you want to allow a child to do so that is fine but to do it just so they have some privaacy then no.

I had a woman on my facebook, I didnt actualy know her personaly just as a aquantance so I dont know the full details but iv read what happened to her from herself and in news paper articles of her 3 year old that was playing in his room on his own and he dragged a clothes hamper over to the window climbed up and climbed out the window falling 4 stories down on his head on the concreted garden killing him outright and she didnt know untill her 5 year old came in from the garden and told her he was sleeping outside.
Even though I didnt know her peronaly it was still realy upsetting to see updates and photos of him growing up from the day he was born and then suddenly an announcment of his funeral.

So even with all thoughts of tracking aside (as I know nothing to do with tracking could have prevented this) no I still wouldnt let my 3 year old play on his own out of sight.
LO doesnt even leave the livingroom without me as we have gates on both livingroom doors so the whole idea of invading a toddlers privacy is completly alien to me.
I wouldnt turn his night time monitor off because listening in on him is a invasion

But you said that you saw no need for privacy until around 11/12!

And there is always an example of 'I know someone who this awful thing happened to' - there will always be tragic accidents, and I'm so sorry for at dreadful. But accidents are just that. You can't live your life in fear.

And it's not about the child's privacy initially. More that it desensitises them to surveillance. Although, I do think that children need unsupervised, individual play.

Our house is open plan, so we have a gate on the kitchen and the stairs, but other than that we let Lo roam free downstairs - in his bedroom, the hall, and the living space. The upstairs is totally baby proofed too, but we don't leave him up there on his own, but only because he doesn't like it!

 

[hot tea]

Every human being, be them three or thirty, deserves the right to their own personal space. That is a basic HUMAN RIGHT. It is folly of many parents to see their children as less than themselves, less deserving of basic needs that they demand.

 

[hot tea]

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY... and video surveillence.

https://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404336_255786387830370_225275520881457_600118_141593829_n.jpg?dl=1

 

[marley2580]

I agree with giving even toddlers some privacy. My two are 2 and 4 and often play in a different room to me either alone or together. If they ask me to leave the room when they're on the toilet I do so out of respect for them. Of course they get up to things they shouldn't, but I happen to believe that that is an important part of being a child.

 

[patch2006uk]

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY... and video surveillence.

https://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404336_255786387830370_225275520881457_600118_141593829_n.jpg?dl=1

 

[Mummy2B21]

I think its a terrible idea, I mean these people that kidnap children probably wouldnt think twice about cutting the chip from out the child.

 

[hot tea]

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY... and video surveillence.

https://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404336_255786387830370_225275520881457_600118_141593829_n.jpg?dl=1

One of these things is not like the other, one of these thugs just doesn't belong...

 

[Ozzieshunni]

It's a debate! Not lets post pictures and say that everyone else is wrong.

 

[patch2006uk]

It's a debate! Not lets post pictures and say that everyone else is wrong.

To be fair, I think hot tea was highlighting the hypocrisy of the CCTV on the liberte, egalite, fraternite wall. It does show how little those words mean in modern society. I think if you'd have told people in victorian times how watched we would become, they'd have been horrified.

 

[smokey]

I think its a terrible idea, I mean these people that kidnap children probably wouldnt think twice about cutting the chip from out the child.

Of course not but there are other dangers as well that I feel a wristband tracker could help with keeping a child safe

 

[smokey]

Maybe the whole issue of a child having privacy and at what age should be a sepperate discusion as it goes off track of the op a bit

 

[Sarahkka]

I think you can choose to live in paranoia and fear of "The Man", or you can choose to embrace or disregard possible technological options as a safety tool. As long as there is choice involved (and I'm sorry, but I'm going to go ahead and "violate" the human rights of my toddler if means keeping them safe, so I am talking my choice here), and the technology is not replacing proper risk assessment or impeding the development of important coping skills, I don't see why the idea of a chip bracelet is akin to the establishment of some 1984-dystopia.
"The Man" can find you no problem through anything from your mobile phone to your participation in social network sites. Why choose GPS technologies as being this big bad technology? It's not rational to embrace one, but vilify the other.
And just to clarify again, I am talking about a removable chip device here - a bracelet like the one smokey was describing, not something inserted into the skin.

 

[patch2006uk]

I think you can choose to live in paranoia and fear of "The Man", or you can choose to embrace or disregard possible technological options as a safety tool. As long as there is choice involved (and I'm sorry, but I'm going to go ahead and "violate" the human rights of my toddler if means keeping them safe, so I am talking my choice here), and the technology is not replacing proper risk assessment or impeding the development of important coping skills, I don't see why the idea of a chip bracelet is akin to the establishment of some 1984-dystopia.
"The Man" can find you no problem through anything from your mobile phone to your participation in social network sites. Why choose GPS technologies as being this big bad technology? It's not rational to embrace one, but vilify the other.
And just to clarify again, I am talking about a removable chip device here - a bracelet like the one smokey was describing, not something inserted into the skin.

And it's that perception of encroachments being small and harmless that allows changes to slip past unnoticed and unchallenged. Until we're all ID'd at birth and are tracked everywhere we go until we die...

 

[lhancock90]

Every human being, be them three or thirty, deserves the right to their own personal space. That is a basic HUMAN RIGHT. It is folly of many parents to see their children as less than themselves, less deserving of basic needs that they demand.

I don't think wanting to know my child is safe is taking away my childs human right, my child, so therefore my responsibility and job to keep her safe, if i can clip a bracelet on or a badge that means I can know shes where shes supposed to be, as a child, i don't think thats bad, i'm not talking about doing it to a 16 yr old, but i do think, if the idea of a bracelet was brought in, would we have as many missing child cases? iykwim.

I think you can choose to live in paranoia and fear of "The Man", or you can choose to embrace or disregard possible technological options as a safety tool. As long as there is choice involved (and I'm sorry, but I'm going to go ahead and "violate" the human rights of my toddler if means keeping them safe, so I am talking my choice here), and the technology is not replacing proper risk assessment or impeding the development of important coping skills, I don't see why the idea of a chip bracelet is akin to the establishment of some 1984-dystopia.
"The Man" can find you no problem through anything from your mobile phone to your participation in social network sites. Why choose GPS technologies as being this big bad technology? It's not rational to embrace one, but vilify the other.
And just to clarify again, I am talking about a removable chip device here - a bracelet like the one smokey was describing, not something inserted into the skin.