LG's new wearable is a child tracker that lets parents listen in

[tharvey]

For all those NSA dads out there...

[andriyk47]

whats up with the mother's eyes they look freaky

[mr moose]

Daniel would have been murdered even if he wore this. They might have known that their child was murdered sooner, but it would not have prevented it.

The criminal would just rip the thing off their arm and throw it away. What are they going to do then? The criminal won't just stand there like a fool waiting for everyone to arrive to the place where the kidnapping happened. The corpse of Daniel were found almost 30 miles from where the kidnapping happened.

 

What you have to remember is that these incidents, while horrible, are extremely, extremely rare.

Your time and effort would be better spent worrying about your child getting struck by lightning.

 

Projecting all your fears about kidnappers onto your child is harmful. Children has to be able to make friends without feeling that you are watching over their should at all times.

A study published in the Journal of Child and Family Studies showed that children with overprotective parents are more likely to suffer from depression and are in general less satisfied with their lives. The extreme case of this being Hong Kong Kids.

As I said in the last post if you want to follow that train of logic then you should also not give emergency buttons to the elderly as the button won't stop them from falling down stairs or having a heart attack. 

 

I have said three times now that I know it won't prevent crimes from happening, but with such a device the parents would have earlier notification that something was wrong, anything not solely an abduction,  However In the morcombe case,  the 4 hours it took to realise something was wrong could easily have been the difference between his murder and surviving.   Rare or not, it's not an evil thing to want to look after your kids as best you can. And it certainly isn't being over protective, if anything it is the opposite as you are allowing the kids to go further by themselves without constant supervision.

[Mitrailleuse]

Now the cheating wife version please! )

not a problem to plant a device like this in a woman's purse...

[mr moose]

Yeah that's what I was talking about and it would be especially good for kids with an illness, something like epilepsy maybe...

 

It was just the abduction thing, I did think of that Madaline Mcann case and maybe if her parents had this that they would have known sooner, but to be honest they should have been keeping a closer eye on her.

 

Wasn't saying it's useless or weird because you are spying on your kids, it's clearly for a young age group... I doubt they have much personal stuff that they don't want to share anyway... 'I like blue'... 'I want to be a fireman'... 'I'm 6 and ¾'... 'Damn it now they know' :lol: 

 

Yes, like my kids who are autistic. my eldest doesn't need one because he is 13 and knows how to use a phone, So I got him one of those, but My youngest can't use a phone and can't speak to people he doesn't know, this device gives him a panic button and allows him similar freedoms that other kids have. If he gets into trouble he can call me without needing to know how to use a phone and I can find him,  But according to some I might be an over protective and spying parent. Even though I would be doing neither of those.

[LAwLz]

As I said in the last post if you want to follow that train of logic then you should also not give emergency buttons to the elderly as the button won't stop them from falling down stairs or having a heart attack. 

 

I have said three times now that I know it won't prevent crimes from happening, but with such a device the parents would have earlier notification that something was wrong, anything not solely an abduction,  However In the morcombe case,  the 4 hours it took to realise something was wrong could easily have been the difference between his murder and surviving.   Rare or not, it's not an evil thing to want to look after your kids as best you can.

The elders need an emergency button because there is a real risk that something will happen.

The risk of your child getting abducted or being in a life threatening accident are far smaller.

You might as well check your kid for cancer every month because that's far more likely than them being abducted.

You're only seeing the consequences and ignoring the risk of it actually happening. I don't blame you, because parents aren't rational when it comes to the safety of their child.

 

The intention may not be evil, but it does have negative side effects.

 

 

 

Yes, like my kids who are autistic. my eldest doesn't need one because he is 13 and knows how to use a phone, So I got him one of those, but My youngest can't use a phone and can't speak to people he doesn't know, this device gives him a panic button and allows him similar freedoms that other kids have. If he gets into trouble he can call me without needing to know how to use a phone and I can find him,  But according to some I might be an over protective and spying parent. Even though I would be doing neither of those.

That's an exception rather than the norm.

[mr moose]

The elders need an emergency button because there is a real risk that something will happen.

The risk of your child getting abducted or being in a life threatening accident are far smaller.

You might as well check your kid for cancer every month because that's far more likely than them being abducted.

You're only seeing the consequences and ignoring the risk of it actually happening. I don't blame you, because parents aren't rational when it comes to the safety of their child.

 

The intention may not be evil, but it does have negative side effects.

 

Yes, like my kids who are autistic. my eldest doesn't need one because he is 13 and knows how to use a phone, So I got him one of those, but My youngest can't use a phone and can't speak to people he doesn't know, this device gives him a panic button and allows him similar freedoms that other kids have. If he gets into trouble he can call me without needing to know how to use a phone and I can find him,  But according to some I might be an over protective and spying parent. Even though I would be doing neither of those.

 

No I am not.  And for your information the boys mother died of bowl cancer that developed in her 20's. Under doctors orders both my boys need to have colonoscopies every 5 years from 20.  there is a lot more to this than just the rare abductions.

[LAwLz]

No I am not.  And for your information the boys mother died of bowl cancer that developed in her 20's. Under doctors orders both my boys need to have colonoscopies every 5 years from 20.  there is a lot more to this than just the rare abductions.

Again, you're the exception rather than the norm.

The vast majority of parents aren't in your situation.

In your case this might work very well. Most people that will get this will probably misuse it though.

[mr moose]

Again, you're the exception rather than the norm.

The vast majority of parents aren't in your situation.

In your case this might work very well. Most people that will get this will probably misuse it though.

 

Given the work I do, I see a lot of benefits for this type of device.  For every 22 students in the average Aussie classroom, 2 meet the criteria for special ed funding, and a further 2 are or have been assaulted by an adult, in fact the scary number right now is that 1 in 10 (yep,  it's 10% and for 16years and under its 18%) kids in primary school are or have been sexually abused.  This is why I don't really feel like the exception. I Just personally have a different reason for using the device.

[LAwLz]

Given the work I do, I see a lot of benefits for this type of device.  For every 22 students in the average Aussie classroom, 2 meet the criteria for special ed funding, and a further 2 are or have been assaulted by an adult, in fact the scary number right now is that 1 in 10 (yep,  it's 10% and for 16years and under its 18%) kids in primary school are or have been sexually abused.  This is why I don't really feel like the exception. I Just personally have a different reason for using the device.

First of all, there is a huge difference between being sexually abused, and threatened to be sexually abused.

Secondly, there are a lot of estimations in that survey, not actual facts.

Thirdly, it shows that it's usually someone the child knows, not some stranger. If anything, that study shows that you are a bigger threat to your child than a stranger is. Only 1% was caused by strangers.

Fourthly, these numbers are almost always exaggerated. I would not be surprised if OCSAR did the same kind of bullshit as the CDC did in order to get those numbers:

 

 

 

They don't ask "have you been raped". They ask vague bullshit questions like "have you ever had sex because someone told you a lie" and then the one making the survey determines if it was rape or not.

It's just advocacy research that doesn't reflect what is actually happening in the world. Please, try to think rationally about this. I've said it before and I've said it again, it's in human nature to throw out all logic and reasoning when it comes to protecting your own child. Don't take anything I say personally, suppress all emotions you got (anger/fear etc) and just try to look at things in an objective way.

[ericlee30]

Spy kids lol. If you dont trust you kids, then your parenting skills suck and you need to change that, not put spy equiment on them.

[Sauron]

It looks extremely uncomfortable for a kid and also it's bad for the child's development. They aren't animals to keep under control with a gps collar. It leads to "mother should I build a wall" all over again...

[Legion]

This is an interesting device and I see the appeal of it  for kids younger than 6.

While I'm not sure I agree on the listening in part as a panic button the idea has some appeal.

[mr moose]

First of all, there is a huge difference between being sexually abused, and threatened to be sexually abused.

Secondly, there are a lot of estimations in that survey, not actual facts.

Thirdly, it shows that it's usually someone the child knows, not some stranger. If anything, that study shows that you are a bigger threat to your child than a stranger is. Only 1% was caused by strangers.

Fourthly, these numbers are almost always exaggerated. I would not be surprised if OCSAR did the same kind of bullshit as the CDC did in order to get those numbers:

 

 

 

They don't ask "have you been raped". They ask vague bullshit questions like "have you ever had sex because someone told you a lie" and then the one making the survey determines if it was rape or not.

It's just advocacy research that doesn't reflect what is actually happening in the world. Please, try to think rationally about this. I've said it before and I've said it again, it's in human nature to throw out all logic and reasoning when it comes to protecting your own child. Don't take anything I say personally, suppress all emotions you got (anger/fear etc) and just try to look at things in an objective way.

 

No, it's quite thorough:

 

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4906.0Chapter2002012

 

They have very specific definitions for assault, threatening assault, sexual abuse and threatening sexual abuse.

 

EDIT: I couldn't be calmer if I tried,  I have been through more shit than your average bear,  I have learnt to not jump on the emotional response, but to logically weigh up the pros and cons. In this regard my wife calls me data, because I don't react to insults but question the insulters reasoning and what they hope to achieve by it.

[Misanthrope]

That is not even taking into consideration the fact that a potential person interested in kidnapping your kid for ransom could find his job is extra fucking easy if they manage to hack this device...

[Mooshi]

That title didn't make everything seem creepy, nope.

[martinrox1568]

this is not a good way of parenting

u need to gain your child's trust

if he/she  ever found out it will create a big barrier between them

I don't think this is made for 15 year olds. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust a 6 year old

[samcool55]

Linus already found a better solution for this, he said this during a wan show. No idea which one it was but.

If you have a smartphone, lock it down as far as you want (there are probably apps for that) and put a hidden track app on it. Your child won't know that and you can follow him/her everywhere.

And if your child is a teen, just talk about this. If you really want to track him/her, ask it! Being a good parent isn't rocket science!

If needed get 2 phones, and if he/she goes to somewhere which makes you worried, give him/her the phone with tracking and let him/her use the phone without tracking. 

Just don't be paranoid and give your child freedom. You need to let them go completely at sometime...

[Kyuubixchidori]

This is good for young kids. I'd say 6-8 or under. 

 

I mean some people get leashes for their kids so they don't get lost. and you guys are flipping out about this? with this you wouldnt ever have to worry about your little kid running off. you need to remember this isnt for teenagers. 6 years and under  dont need "freedom" per say. 

 

not as bad as my step dad that put on a tracking app on my phone. luckily on android you can spoof locations. its not that i dont mind him knowing where i am, but that's incredibly rude instead of just asking. that and my old cheap phone, the battery would last only 4 hours with it on. so no. 

 

tracking apps and such good for when kids are to young to understand what to do if they are lost, not good for teenagers or up. 

 

great for special cases such as autistic or grandparents. 

[LAwLz]

No, it's quite thorough:

 

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4906.0Chapter2002012

 

They have very specific definitions for assault, threatening assault, sexual abuse and threatening sexual abuse.

That doesn't explain exactly what they mean by some of the terms, nor does it show examples of what kind of questions they asked.

I don't think it's a coincident that the CDC and this study came to the same results. We can all agree that the CDC study is extremely flawed, right? Someone lying to you in order to get sex is not the same as rape.

My guess is that what they define as coercion is extremely lose. This may include things like lies or alcohol.

 

EDIT: I couldn't be calmer if I tried,  I have been through more shit than your average bear,  I have learnt to not jump on the emotional response, but to logically weigh up the pros and cons. In this regard my wife calls me data, because I don't react to insults but question the insulters reasoning and what they hope to achieve by it.

This part gave off the vibe that you were getting mad:

But according to some I might be an over protective and spying parent.

 

It's always very touchy to talk about how people parent their kids so I was kind of expecting you to build up a bunch of rage.

[mr moose]

That doesn't explain exactly what they mean by some of the terms, nor does it show examples of what kind of questions they asked.

I don't think it's a coincident that the CDC and this study came to the same results. We can all agree that the CDC study is extremely flawed, right? Someone lying to you in order to get sex is not the same as rape.

My guess is that what they define as coercion is extremely lose. This may include things like lies or alcohol.

 

 

I don't know about the cdc, but I do know that the ABS is very accurate, they don't ask vague questions as they are held accountable by peer review. On top of that their results have always been reflected in both my work in education and previously as a youth counselor. My wife is a teacher and we talk about such things frequently, she also feels these statistics are accurate.  That's why I called them scary, not because I was scared as a parent (I know my kids aren't abused that way) but because so many kids have been and it's very hard to stop. 

 

It's always very touchy to talk about how people parent their kids so I was kind of expecting you to build up a bunch of rage.

 

I also have the advantage of being Autistic, but no rage, rage doesn't solve anything.

[ijKs Snow]

Why would that make you scared?

Not all sex offenders are child molesters. You can become a registered sex offender for buying a prostitute, urinating in public, incest, bestiality etc. I don't see how those would make you fear for the health of your child.

Just because some woman had sex with her dog, some man paid to get a BJ from another consensual adult or some person urinated in an alley while drunk doesn't mean they are out to abduct and/or molest your child.

I guess it's only human to throw all your logic and reasoning out the window when it comes to protecting your child...

Let me clarify since I just wrote a quick comment. On FWD, registered offenders who was convicted of illegal activities with a minor under the age of 14 are color coded red. Yes, you can be registered for sex crimes for other reasons, but they are all color coded depending on the offense. You can also check how many of them have more then one offense, and the result is that most of them have more then one offense.

 

Again, you can judge people with children and call them illogical, but I find it just human nature to protect your own child. If you have children, wouldn't you feel uncomfortable when there are more then a dozen child molesters living within a 2 mile radius from you?

[LAwLz]

I don't know about the cdc, but I do know that the ABS is very accurate, they don't ask vague questions as they are held accountable by peer review. On top of that their results have always been reflected in both my work in education and previously as a youth counselor. My wife is a teacher and we talk about such things frequently, she also feels these statistics are accurate.  That's why I called them scary, not because I was scared as a parent (I know my kids aren't abused that way) but because so many kids have been and it's very hard to stop. 

Well I can't find any peer reviews or what questions they asked so I can't check if it was done properly or not.

All I can see is that they managed to get to the same conclusion as an extremely flawed and biased survey in the US got.

 

What I did manage to find on the Australian Institute of Criminology website though is the trend of sexual assaults in Australia.

They say that the number of sexual assaults in 2007 were 94 per 100,000. That is 0.094%.

I don't quite understand how there can be such a huge difference in the numbers.

 

I can only see two explanations for this.

Either your country is absolute shit and 1/5 women actually gets raped, or the ABS used a very flawed methodology in order to get inflated numbers to support their cause (which we have seen over and over and over again when it comes to measuring sexual abuse).

I am leaning towards the latter.

 

 

 

Let me clarify since I just wrote a quick comment. On FWD, registered offenders who was convicted of illegal activities with a minor under the age of 14 are color coded red. Yes, you can be registered for sex crimes for other reasons, but they are all color coded depending on the offense. You can also check how many of them have more then one offense, and the result is that most of them have more then one offense.

 

Again, you can judge people with children and call them illogical, but I find it just human nature to protect your own child. If you have children, wouldn't you feel uncomfortable when there are more then a dozen child molesters living within a 2 mile radius from you?

Ah I did not know there was color coding.

Yes it is in human nature to protect their children. Please don't take it personally.

In that situation I would be uncomfortable, but at the same time there are thousands of things which can harm your child at all times. If you got a dozen of sex offenders living near you then you're probably living in a densely populated area. Most people are good people. For every sex offender there are thousands of good people that don't want your child any harm at all.

[mr moose]

Well I can't find any peer reviews or what questions they asked so I can't check if it was done properly or not.

All I can see is that they managed to get to the same conclusion as an extremely flawed and biased survey in the US got.

 

What I did manage to find on the Australian Institute of Criminology website though is the trend of sexual assaults in Australia.

They say that the number of sexual assaults in 2007 were 94 per 100,000. That is 0.094%.

I don't quite understand how there can be such a huge difference in the numbers.

 

I can only see two explanations for this.

Either your country is absolute shit and 1/5 women actually gets raped, or the ABS used a very flawed methodology in order to get inflated numbers to support their cause (which we have seen over and over and over again when it comes to measuring sexual abuse).

I am leaning towards the latter.

Both the report you linked and the report I linked are derived from the same ABS,  The trends report is for "reported sexual assaults" (remember upto 60% (worse case) are not reported) and covers all ages, the report I linked includes non reported assaults and only covers ages 15 and below.

 

What this means is that we have a much higher rate of child abuse than sex crimes against adults.   Also interesting to note that both reports show an incline in sex crime activity even though the general trend in crime is dropping.  Again this re-enforces what I said earlier about the reduction in overall crime but an increase in severity and seriousness of that crime.

[Yoinkerman]

Why would kids need this?  Aren't they on leashes when you go out if they run off?