Spy on your kids, sell them to advertisers!

[Merc]

Parents who install a leading brand of software to monitor their kids' online activities may be unwittingly allowing the company to read their children's chat messages — and sell the marketing data gathered.

Software sold under the Sentry and FamilySafe brands can read private chats conducted through Yahoo, MSN, AOL and other services, and send back data on what kids are saying about such things as movies, music or video games. The information is then offered to businesses seeking ways to tailor their marketing messages to kids.


"This scares me more than anything I have seen using monitoring technology," said Parry Aftab, a child-safety advocate. "You don't put children's personal information at risk."


The company that sells the software insists it is not putting kids' information at risk, since the program does not record children's names or addresses. But the software knows how old they are because parents customize its features to be more or less permissive, depending on age.


Five other makers of parental-control software contacted by The Associated Press, including McAfee Inc. and Symantec Corp., said they do not sell chat data to advertisers.

Source


I'm so glad I'm not going to raised under this new generation of parents when disturbing shit like this is available. I think it's safe to say unless you think your kid is a terrorist or is planning to assassinate grandma, this software is extremely unnecessary and fit only for helicopter parents who can't stand the five minutes their kids spend alone in the the bathroom taking a shit without having an aneurysm. I know there's plenty to be afraid of with the internet being the demon it can be, but honestly, stalking your kids? Fuck that noise.


What are your thoughts on tracking software like this? Remember, this thread is in the parenting section so discussion should pertain to parenting and nothing else.

 

[Mirage]

Well, first of all, my thoughts on the tracking software. I don't have a problem with this. If parents want to monitor what their kids are doing online then that's their right. The internet is in no way a safe place and kids should have some supervision. Nothing wrong with that. Would you let your kid hang out in dark alley's at night? The internet has the potential to be just as bad or even worse.

As for the company itself selling the information to advertisers, I suppose as long as that clause was very clear for people buying the software/service then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Merc]

Well, first of all, my thoughts on the tracking software. I don't have a problem with this. If parents want to monitor what their kids are doing online then that's their right. The internet is in no way a safe place and kids should have some supervision. Nothing wrong with that.

We're not talking about parental rights, we're talking about whether or not it's a good idea and to me, as soon as a kid finds out about this, the parent/child relationship takes a big hit. Also, this strikes me as a weak way of figuring out what your kid is up to. Why not just talk to them? I thought that was part of the whole "mommy" and "daddy" thing, you know, conversing? I understand wanting to prevent them from accessing the wrong material, but that's what a firewall and other programs are for. Tracking is not necessary like I said unless you're a helicopter parent.

Would you let your kid hang out in dark alley's at night? The internet has the potential to be just as bad or even worse.

The internet cannot rape, beat, maim or kill you. Ever.

This comparison is ridiculous. I know what you're getting at in terms of bad influence and sensitive materials, but this comparison is just a tad off mark. Would you support a law that allows parents to put tracking chips in their children? We're talking a similar idea here, tracking is a violation of freedoms and if you're honestly worried about your kids seeing bad things, why not just talk to them?

As for the company itself selling the information to advertisers, I suppose as long as that clause was very clear for people buying the software/service then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So you have no problem with companies selling to your children, but . . Obama talking to school children is bad? I'm sorry for bringing up an outside point, but I'm seeing inconsistencies here, Brix.

 

[Mirage]

We're not talking about parental rights, we're talking about whether or not it's a good idea and to me, as soon as a kid finds out about this, the parent/child relationship takes a big hit. Also, this strikes me as a weak way of figuring out what your kid is up to. Why not just talk to them? I thought that was part of the whole "mommy" and "daddy" thing, you know, conversing? I understand wanting to prevent them from accessing the wrong material, but that's what a firewall and other programs are for. Tracking is not necessary like I said unless you're a helicopter parent.

If I used such software to track my kids internet use I wouldn't do it without telling them. If they have a problem with it then they don't have to get on MY computer and use MY internet. Simple as that.

The internet cannot rape, beat, maim or kill you. Ever.

This comparison is ridiculous. I know what you're getting at in terms of bad influence and sensitive materials, but this comparison is just a tad off mark. Would you support a law that allows parents to put tracking chips in their children? We're talking a similar idea here, tracking is a violation of freedoms and if you're honestly worried about your kids seeing bad things, why not just talk to them?

Two things:

1. People that your kids meet on the internet CAN do those things and more to them.
2. You honestly think talking to kids and telling them why certain areas of the internet are bad, and then letting them go off on their merry way would work? Kids have little to no self control. Knowing that mommy or daddy told them not to visit certain sites won't prevent them from doing so. The idea is laughable and we all know it.

So you have no problem with companies selling to your children, but . . Obama talking to school children is bad? I'm sorry for bringing up an outside point, but I'm seeing inconsistencies here, Brix.

As long as the parent is ok with the company doing so. As long as the parent is ok with their kid sitting through such speeches then it's no problem. It's up to the individual parents how they want to raise their kids, who and what they want to allow to influence their kids, etc.

 

[Merc]

If I used such software to track my kids internet use I wouldn't do it without telling them. If they have a problem with it then they don't have to get on MY computer and use MY internet. Simple as that.

Yeah, I would tell them too. But you'd have to imagine that most people would not tell their kids.

Two things:

1. People that your kids meet on the internet CAN do those things and more to them.

People can also meet your kids in school, on the bus, at the mall, at friend's houses, on the street, in a restaurant . . . should all those places be removed or should we really consider bugging our kids? Also, the key component here is people. The internet is only a tool to get to them much like a phone, money, a car, food, or anything else used to get attention or bribe people.

Do you think that when someone is murdered, the gun should be blamed? According to your logic so far, you seem ready to blame the internet for some creeper doing bad things to kids, why not blame guns for killing people?

2. You honestly think talking to kids and telling them why certain areas of the internet are bad, and then letting them go off on their merry way would work? Kids have little to no self control. Knowing that mommy or daddy told them not to visit certain sites won't prevent them from doing so. The idea is laughable and we all know it.

Correction: poorly raised children have no self control. I'm assuming you, like myself and hopefully many others, would not let their kids on the net until they're at least twelve (any younger I'd say parental supervision should be used. The idea is laughable and only you seem to know it. No where did I say in my post that this would be a panacea, that it would fix everything and that Jimmy would say, "Okay mommy!" and go outside past the picket fence to play catch and ride his bike down Happy street. All I'm saying is being honest with your kids can go a long way.

Kids may not have experience, but they're not as dumb as we think they are. They can certainly catch on to what is going on around them.

As long as the parent is ok with the company doing so. As long as the parent is ok with their kid sitting through such speeches then it's no problem. It's up to the individual parents how they want to raise their kids, who and what they want to allow to influence their kids, etc.

So then, no offense here, are you actually saying you'd rather Kellog's brainwash your kid than the leader of the country? I hope not.

 

[Mirage]

Yeah, I would tell them too. But you'd have to imagine that most people would not tell their kids.

Wouldn't that be their right as a parent to make that decision for themselves and do what they felt was in the best interest of their kids?

People can also meet your kids in school, on the bus, at the mall, at friend's houses, on the street, in a restaurant . . . should all those places be removed or should we really consider bugging our kids? Also, the key component here is people. The internet is only a tool to get to them much like a phone, money, a car, food, or anything else used to get attention or bribe people.

I guess since some dangers can't be avoided we should just embrace them all without attempting to address the ones that are easier to narrow in on?

Do you think that when someone is murdered, the gun should be blamed? According to your logic so far, you seem ready to blame the internet for some creeper doing bad things to kids, why not blame guns for killing people?

I'm not just talking about monitoring who kids are talking to online. There's a bunch of stuff online that parents might not want their kids to be looking at. In this case I think it's a fair assumption that without the internet kids wouldn't have easy access to some of this stuff.

Correction: poorly raised children have no self control. I'm assuming you, like myself and hopefully many others, would not let their kids on the net until they're at least twelve (any younger I'd say parental supervision should be used. The idea is laughable and only you seem to know it. No where did I say in my post that this would be a panacea, that it would fix everything and that Jimmy would say, "Okay mommy!" and go outside past the picket fence to play catch and ride his bike down Happy street. All I'm saying is being honest with your kids can go a long way.

The definition of "poorly raised" is going to differ greatly from parent to parent. Some would say that not taking an active effort to monitor what your kids do on the internet would be poor parenting, right? I mean that's what this whole debate is about in the first place.

Kids may not have experience, but they're not as dumb as we think they are. They can certainly catch on to what is going on around them.

Exactly. And they'll also catch on to things such as clearing their history, deleting their cache, covering up their tracks, etc. Would you agree or disagree to the following statement:

"There are things online that can really mess people up."

If you agree, would you want your kids to see those things, especially if they were younger? If you disagree, maybe you have a filter on your own internet... Those padded walls aren't normally there you know.. :lol:

So then, no offense here, are you actually saying you'd rather Kellog's brainwash your kid than the leader of the country? I hope not.

Where did I say that? I said parents should choose what things they want their kids exposed to. Can you think of a better way?

 

[AngelsPeak]

I wouldn't put spyware on my computer for any reason, I think it's a ridiculous thing. I also don't read my girls diaries, search their rooms, or snoop through backpacks. I trust that they understand the difference between right and wrong and will make the appropriate choices.
I'd hate to think there was a company tracking all the sites they visited and selling the information. I miss privacy.

 

[Merc]

Wouldn't that be their right as a parent to make that decision for themselves and do what they felt was in the best interest of their kids?

Once again, we're NOT talking about rights. We both know and agree that parents have rights when it comes to how they raise their kids. However, I'm trying to get at how good of an idea something like this is for both the parent and the kid because it's unbalanced. The parent wins and the kids lose. Not to mention, it's quite clear that some parenting practices are not in the best interest of the child. Thankfully, most people that partake in those sorts of beatings and harsh disciplines get taken care of (no I'm not talking about spankers. I'm talking about parents that uppercut their children :lol: )

I guess since some dangers can't be avoided we should just embrace them all without attempting to address the ones that are easier to narrow in on?

People will always be in danger at some point in their lives. The internet is an easier problem to narrow in on, but spying on them to the point that you're recording their conversations and junk is a bit much, don't you think? I mean, are you for the government tapping your phones "just in case" and overhearing sensual or private conversations?

I'm not just talking about monitoring who kids are talking to online. There's a bunch of stuff online that parents might not want their kids to be looking at. In this case I think it's a fair assumption that without the internet kids wouldn't have easy access to some of this stuff.

So you agree, the gun can be blamed in the crime? People fail to see how blaming the tool solves nothing. It avoids the real problem which is the one who acted. For example, the internet has been used to solicit child sex slaves . . it has also been used to donate and raise money for cancer. It has been used to raise awareness of disease, important issues, and helps people do their jobs better. Just like a gun, it is a valuable tool in either good or bad hands however, it is not the problem.

The definition of "poorly raised" is going to differ greatly from parent to parent. Some would say that not taking an active effort to monitor what your kids do on the internet would be poor parenting, right? I mean that's what this whole debate is about in the first place.

Well, I'd imagine you'd be raising your kids to have self-control. Do you just let your kids eat, eat, and eat? No. Do you allow them to skip kindergarten class? No. It's not that kids lack self-control, it's that they're very interested in what they want, not what you want. If you don't teach them from a young age that you're the parent and they're the child and that's how the pecking order runs, they won't listen and if they won't listen to you, what's to make you think they'll listen to themselves?

Exactly. And they'll also catch on to things such as clearing their history, deleting their cache, covering up their tracks, etc. Would you agree or disagree to the following statement:

"There are things online that can really mess people up."

Of course, I never denied that, I don't know why you're even asking.

If you agree, would you want your kids to see those things, especially if they were younger? If you disagree, maybe you have a filter on your own internet... Those padded walls aren't normally there you know.. :lol:

Who says it's a guarantee? Kids don't go looking for this stuff because they want to, they usually go looking for it because they're told not to. That's why I suggested honestly and talking because that way you can set things straight with them rather than lying and sneaking around behind their backs. Kids are always going to be exposed, it's like a quote from Finding Nemo when Dory is talking to Marlin about his son who is overprotective towards"You can't stop everything from happening to him, then nothing will happen to him!"

 

[Wade8813]

I wouldn't put spyware on my computer for any reason, I think it's a ridiculous thing. I also don't read my girls diaries, search their rooms, or snoop through backpacks. I trust that they understand the difference between right and wrong and will make the appropriate choices.
I'd hate to think there was a company tracking all the sites they visited and selling the information. I miss privacy.

A kid who knows right and wrong can still be tricked by someone posing as another kid.

 

[AngelsPeak]

A kid who knows right and wrong can still be tricked by someone posing as another kid.

I'm very aware of that. There have always been predators, this is just another tool for them. My girls and I have very frank and open conversations. Like I said, I trust them to make the right choice without me having to spy. Should I start reading their diaries and listening to the phone calls?