Valletta occupies a tongue of land thrust into the ocean. I got lost in the middle of the city, and had to come up with a plan for how to get back to my parents. I realized I'd probably be able to find it from the promenade as we had walked it a fair bit.

I recalled my Dad showing me the city map and pointing out the streets were on a very regular grid pattern perpendicular to the shores. So I headed down a street until I hit the shore. Then I realized I was on the wrong side, so I decided to round the entire coastline to get to the right, opposing shore. This was foiled by some sort of fenced-off military installation or something (scary!), but I was eventually able to make it to the other side by circumnavigating it. I got pretty close to our hotel when I ran into my Mom who was desperately searching for me.

My backup plan was to hover around streetside cafés looking for non-scary looking tourists speaking my language and ask them for help if it got too late.

It's so seared into my mind, I almost want to believe I'd still recognize the landmarks. I was definitely very scared and agonizing. But I've always felt very good that my plan worked and that I was able to get out of my first little crisis.

I'm not sure what the lesson of this story is. It's probably not to get your kids lost on purpose. Showing them a map of where they are and studying it together is great for sense of place and navigation, though -- make sure they know where they are at least roughly, not just that you can track them.

He told her they were going somewhere together, then dropped her off at a random metro station and told her if she couldn’t make it home in an hour she should call home with a pay phone, and here’s a quarter.

She brought it up in a pretty resentful way (understandably, because it’s basically abandonment?), but it was also a pretty formative experience in that she did pull it off and she’s a fiercely independent person.

Not giving parenting advice to be clear, just adding another colorful story! :)

But just doing it with minimal preparation... That's bad parenting. I doubt that experience alone is the reason for being fiercely independent - that usually (and unfortunately) comes from the person being unable to rely on their care takes for their needs as children.

Granted things were simple then and law and order was not a big issue for this to happen but I am grateful for my parents to not interfere too much in my exploring time.

I’m really sorry about your son’s experience. Getting lost can be terrifying for a kid.

But being lost happens (eg I was lost in hunting woods at 8yo), and many commenters have shared their experiences. Being scared and eventually overcoming the fear is a quintessential growing experience.

Obviously there are countless caveats because each kid is different, and depends on the level of danger etc

A sibling comment said “everyone is free to do what they want”. I agree with that, but that doesn’t make everything good.

In general I’m struck at how many people’s sense or “right” leans so hard on what’s available for sale.

I'm mostly confused how it seems there's pretty significant evidence that helicopter parenting[0] has resulted in poor outcomes for kids[1] but then we act as if the reason it fails is because we aren't paying __enough__ attention.

I am sympathetic to parents wanting to protect their kids, but if the objective is to turn children into adults that are independent and self-sufficient, then a parent also needs to learn to trust their kids (at different levels of course. Clearly there's a balance).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent

[1] To be clear, this metastudy concludes that there is insufficient statistical power due to scale, the evidence is in the direction of causing harm and of course, there is reason to believe this is a reasonable outcome. It's worth noting the part that says

  Overprotective parenting and anxiety: No studies found reduced anxiety following overprotective parenting

I have never been accused of overparenting, yet I preordered one of these google watches. I expect to use it on outings like amusement parks and ski trips. We'll see how it goes.

I think we have a different definition of 'unsupervised'; I understand it to mean "no supervision/oversight" where I guess you mean "out of sight"?

Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overparenting", and even if I did I don't know your situation so I wouldn't feel comfortable charging you with it. That said, if I were to put such a device on my kid I'd feel I was doing something wrong.

Also, the Samsung network of devices is quite comparable to Apple's, apparently a lot of people own Samsung phones, TV sets or other devices. So if you have a Samsung phone, give their tags a try, it's definitely a lot cheaper than switching everything to Apple.

> allows kids to roam farther unsupervised, then it fosters independence.

I think you understand then. It depends how the devices are used, obviously. I think no one is really objecting to the utility of being able to use such a device when there is a serious situation, but rather that the reality is that a very large number of parents use these types of devices to constantly surveil their children. There's a difference.

> I have never been accused of overparenting

I'm not accusing you of being one. In context this would depend on your actions and no one can realistically judge that without actually knowing you. But there is a clear general trend. No one knows if you're part of that, so don't be quick to assume you're being singled out.

And of course, I wouldn't use the "no one has accused me of" as a meaningful metric. People might not tell you (I mean every parent knows how common other parents gossip, right?), you might not hear, or it is quite common for these types of things to foster echo chambers as similar parenting styles naturally gravitate towards one another. But of course, no one is accusing you of anything, because this __cannot__ be known without significantly more information. This paragraph was only mentioned because it appears you feel like people are calling you out, so it notes a possibility of how the observations can be in perfect harmony.

The problem is that, from the child's perspective, there is no difference. The parent can -- genuinely and sincerely -- tell the child that they'll only use the tracking in an emergency, but the child still knows that ever-present tracking means they don't have the freedom to be where they want to be, absent their parents' knowledge and permission.

I was a relatively "good kid" growing up, and mostly did what my parents told me to do, and mostly asked permission for the things I wanted to do that (from my parents' perspective) required permission. But sometimes I did my own thing, went where I wanted, and didn't ask permission. And my parents would have punished me had they found out. I wouldn't want to grow up in a society where I would be too afraid to do those things, because my parents had the capability to track my every movement.

Just FYI, this expression is a form of stylized understatement and not meant to be taken literally.

"Can I somehow put a tracking device on my young child?" is a question I've thought about for decades since before I had a young child, and now that I do I've been looking for something that will work for him when he's still little.

Obviously as he grows up the plan is to ramp off the updates - i.e. I don't need to know where he is at all times if he's old enough to know to text me if he'll be out late.

Kids certainly reach a stage where not texting you they’ll be out late is an important part of development. Teenage rebellion and all that. I loved telling my mom not to wait for me and staying out way past when she said she expects me to be back.

Good for you and those like you, it's nice when something long-awaited finally drops. I was speaking of the people who, if prompted 20y ago, would have said "that's creepy" but are now cool to track their kids, set up cameras around their house that are controlled by 3rd parties, and be cool with a firm tracking everything they watch, etc.

In my observation, the inability to let a child off on their own without any form of supervision or in this case tracking, means that the parent is not ready to let go of that child when they are an adult and need to be given the freedom to succeed or fail on their own.

I am admittedly biased. My sister was tracked from about 12 until this day and she's now 26, I believe. She gets upset when my mother isn't checking in on her. Likewise, my mother can't go more than a few hours without calling my sister. She will regularly check her phone to see where my sister is and then comment on her whereabouts and call or text her to ask why she's where ever.

Likely there are parents who are going to be able to handle these tools responsibly, but I am not sure there is a responsible way to use these.

But I am also biased against them, hopefully I am wrong. I saw how my sister has turned out from having a late-blooming helicopter parent and my wife (one of a dozen kids, so very hands off parents) and I have tried to give our own kids age appropriate freedoms.

I have been amazed by historic accounts of children. One example that sticks out to me is a letter a man in Texas wrote to his brother. The man's wife had died and he had to take care of some affairs in Texas. The man's brother lived in Kansas and he was writing because he'd sent his two children (12 & 13) to Kansas with his herd of cattle to sell. I don't think I'd ever be there, but I do think children are more capable and trustworthy than we give them credit for and we don't give children enough room and as a result we have some extremely childish adults who have never been given the chance to fail and get back up.

Every 12yo I know has a cellphone already. This watch is not aimed at them.

Regardless of the choice the parent makes, odds are the kid is going to grow up just fine. There was no need for OP to make an incendiary comment.

Honest question.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40519118

Doesn't this depend on how the tracking is used, not on whether the tracking is present at all?

My wife and I share our location with each other and I don't actually know if she uses my location at all. If she does, she doesn't mention it. I use it occasionally to get a sense for when to expect her back or to find her when we need to meet up for something.

When our kids are old enough to have phones I imagine that we'll add them to the location-sharing circle we have and continue to use it in much the same way. For us it won't be about monitoring them at all times, it's just a helpful convenience for running a household.

Of course. I think most people would agree that this would be an implicit assumption not worth explicitly mentioning. Do you think that's non-obvious? To me it seems rather obvious since in the extreme case if you bought the device and never actually used any of the features (but still put it on your kid) then clearly it'd have no effect. There's clearly a lot of gray area in between.

But I think it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking. Because the value/utility is significantly lower for those that don't (we can agree that these factors are significantly related, right?).

From your specific example, I don't think anyone arguing against this type of device would be worried about that type of usage. My partner and I often share locations with one another, but honestly we often forget we shared it and end up literally asking instead lol. But my experience has been that we are the abnormal ones and others use the feature much more.

I think you would find that you are the normal ones. My family has had it turned on for over a year now. I don't know I have ever used it to find my wife and I use it ~ once a month on my oldest now that he is venturing out on his own to ensure he got to where he was going. I have discussed it with several friends / acquaintances and their use is similar to mine.

I think your assumption that everyone actively tracks each other and over uses it is assigning an edge case to the majority. Its a simple safety feature to most, there when its needed.

your assumption that "it is quite common for these types of devices to be significantly more desirable and predominantly used by those who intend to use it for persistent tracking" is flawed and I don't think based on most people experience.

As other posters have pointed out, no one really knows anything about anyone else’s life from an HN post.

That said, the whole point of the panopticon is that if the prisoner doesn’t know when they’re being observed, they’re effectively always observed. It’s a concern that’s at least worth giving serious consideration, not dismissing out of hand because it happens to work for you and your wife.

Just a note that I don't think anyone is thinking of these watches as being for teenagers. They appear targeted at much younger kids, 8-11ish.

I'm sure there are plenty of parents who have given them smartphones and require their kids to always share their location with them, all the way through their teen years.

Yeah I think this is an important point and I think it is also worth adding that this is the same premise of 1984. Not that Winston (or anyone) is being specifically surveilled by a physical person at any given time, but rather that Big Brother __could__ be watching/listening at any time.

And it is important to also stress the difference in power dynamics between husband/wife and parent/child. These are apples and oranges; both round fruit but different categories at an important level. Like you said, the teen is learning who they are while a partner has already made significant strides in this direction and (hopefully) has already learned autonomy. Children must make mistakes, but the goal is to prevent large ones. Difference between getting a burn by touching the stove and catching oneself on fire.

If you do you know that the main goal is to keep your kids safe and healthy. Everything else generally comes 2nd. Now there are of course extremes to this but for most the use of tracking technology is not intended as a crutch for the child but for the parent. So they know the kid is safe. Little Jimmy for the most part is not thinking if I get lost Mommy knows where I am. If they are out, they are free.

A kids ability to be self sufficient is very unlikely to be damaged by a nervous parent peaking at the location of their dot on their phone a block or 3 away.

This type of reasoning is not sound, because you can draw the line literally wherever you want and still make that argument. "Kid isn't allowed to do anything alone without a parent present" satisfies that statement, but I wouldn't want to be a teenager living in a household like that.

> Little Jimmy for the most part is not thinking if I get lost Mommy knows where I am. If they are out, they are free.

I don't think I'd agree with that. Maybe when they're 4 years old, sure. But 8 years old? 10? 12? 15? At some point they will feel stifled, knowing that Mom and Dad can find out exactly where they are with a few taps on their phone. Maybe the parents will decide the tracking is no longer necessary before they get to that point. But maybe not.

Or hell, maybe they won't feel stifled, even by the time they're 15, because pervasive surveillance will be so normalized to them that it would feel strange not to be tracked. IMO that's the worst possible outcome.

To play devil's advocate here - my wife and I, and several of friends that we frequently travel with, all cross-share each other's locations on google maps permanently. Doesn't really feel stifling, and it's come in handy quite a few times. Why is this a terrible outcome?

I think everyone imagines the overbearing parent micromanaging their kids' lives. Maybe the problem isn't the tracking, it's the overbearing parents. As an intellectual exercise, would you rather be a kid of overbearing parents who didn't have tracking technology, or permissive parents that always know where you are?

The grandparent poster literally said that it's the worst possible outcome if the 15-year-old _wants_ to be part of a location sharing group. If they still want it, what's the issue?

I feel like people are bringing a lot of personal baggage from their upbringing into this conversation.

> I feel like people are bringing a lot of personal baggage from their upbringing into this conversation.

Of course? Are we not supposed to learn from the mistakes of our parents? And we're supposed to be aware of the nuances and subtleties that exist.

But I'm confused over your point. Is it "I know people will abuse this, but __I__ won't?" Because I do not think that is a great excuse. You instead need to argue about percentages and the harm. That's the ratio that matters. Because you, and your children, are not the only entities in the world. Of course people bring in their personal experiences. Why should we not be learning from others? Our experiences are limited and not all encompassing. Ignoring others experiences is naive and egotistical. I'm not ignoring yours, I just think the rate of abuse and the harm it does is not worth it. I do recognize there is utility, and I think most here do. It's a common discussion in anti-authoritarian groups about how surveillance becomes pervasive through mostly good intentions. After all, is that not what the path to hell is paved with? And this is why I'd refuse to call you bad, evil, or ill intentioned. In fact, I think you have good intentions. I just think the world is complex and there is more that we need to think about than our individual cases and people similar to us. If it was that easy, we would already be living in a much better world.

My view is tracking might have its place in certain situations, but almost certainly not in a blanket way, and always with an understanding of the threat model.

However, I think this belief that humans evolved to be so sensitive to childhood trauma is incredibly over sensationalized. I'm no worse off in life despite getting lost a few times. Your kid will be fine.

If that is true, then you cannot say that tracking your child's every step will traumatize them permanently either.

> If anything this gives kids more freedom

I hope you're not too optimistic there. If it lets kids roam around outside more, than the upsides massively outweigh the downsides. But that's a very big "if".

If they have an accident it's useful to be able to get to them quickly.

Please spare me a response about the qualities of facing adversity and walking home 3 miles with a broken collar bone.

If you lack the imagination of how location information is useful then that is ok. Companies offer it because it is, and people want it

Should I just quote my adjacent reply that I guess you didn't see? "Even in that situation, at most you need some way to get a location at that moment when they chose to reach out to you, not tracking."

And the ability to get in contact is 90% of the benefit.

I'd much rather have a backup system in case they don't do the right thing in case they panic.

I'll also point out that your advice here is statistically unsound: there's the baked in "stranger danger" element - "approach a police officer/approach someone who works at the store". See, no one wants to say "approach literally the first adult you see" because "stranger danger"...but statistically, there aren't a lot of predators around. The longer a child is unattended with no one helping them, the more time an active predator has to spot and isolate them.

But no one can put that extremely small risk that literally the first random adult in a major shopping center is actually going to be one, so we always qualify the advice with "find an authority figure preferentially" (increasing the time they're alone and obviously unattended).

Also, I think "victim blaming" isn't an apt term in this case. Getting lost is almost never caused by someone being victimized, it's caused by lack of attention and then lack of a way to resolve the situation on your own.

I think that's a bit of an uncharitable take. If the commenter upthread hasn't sat down with their kid and talked through a plan for if the kid gets lost (including having them memorize names, phone numbers, and addresses), then that's negligent on the part of the parent. But no one is saying "if you've done this, it will work 100% of the time, perfectly, and you'll never have anything to worry about".

Addition: Even outside of just the kids. When my wife works a late shift at the hospital, she would like a device like this for the walk in darkness out to her car in the parking lot. Or similar situation where she had to do an emergency road trip to handle an emergency with her dad and would like to have a device that can alert me and temporarily give location if she needs top stop and get gas at 2 in the morning.

or they don't hail from a culture where helicopter parenting has become the norm. Here in Germany tracking your kids like this would be widely seen as completely bizarre. There's a great Japanese TV show, called Old Enough, (that has been running for 30 years, long before smartphones existed), where kids as young as 2 and 4 run off and navigate public transport and do daily errands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UA1kd72sbg

And, Japan had special usage phones for children that would track their location even back in 2004. I lived there back then and I know a few parents who used that for their young children. So, yes children are allowed to freely roam around at an early age which is great but Japanese parents are not adverse to tracking.

For what it's worth I'd also point out that the last time I was in Japan all the train stations had ads for transit cards for kids that e-mailed parents whenever they were used. This is functionally identical to American helicopter parenting, IMO.

The HN crowd won’t be sympathetic but I most certainly am. It’s not until you get lost skiing that you realize how difficult it might be to meet back up, particularly if you forgot where you parked in the sea of cars. A kid might not know to go wait at the front desk too (which one’s the front desk anyway?) and then you have to worry about exposure.

Edit: also to inform her in case I am running late to pick her up from school due to traffic or otherwise.

Me and my wife differ in our perspectives on this. She is more of a “safety at any cost”, whereas I am more of a “free range kids”. I know the world has changed since I was a teenager, but our parents never knew where we were, who we were chatting with on the internet, and we turned out great.

Sure it's not my right to tell you how to parent. However I ask have you not sat down with your daughter and explained her the dangers and consequences?

Restrictions are what you want. Restrict her from downloading apps, ask her to show you her messages. Limit her screen time when she's done her chores.

Don't hide and sneak controlling her habits in the back scenes because if you loose her trust you won't get it back.

Unless by controlling you do mean restricting which changes the tone completely.

Little kids often struggle understanding and remembering consequences, especially of really big complex ideas.

There's a reason why we don't just let 12 year olds drive.

I'm just some random on the internet, but this rubs me the wrong way. Trust is important in relationships, and this doesn't show any trust. Some of this is perfectly fine, but tracking their chatting is an invasion of privacy unless you have a specific reason to be worried.

How many times can you lose a child before it stops being accidental? It's a department store not Disney Land.

I wonder if that has more to do with how you reacted to the situation when you found him, than what he felt while he was lost.

> I can only guess you (and most of the other naysayers in this thread) don't have young children.

Ah yes, this old saw. As if none of us remember what it was like to be a kid. As if none of us remembers getting separated from our parents and lost for a short time, and how that felt.

> This isn't for teenagers. It's for kids that are still attached to mama/papa.

Conditioning a small child to become used to pervasive real-time tracking won't just go away if you stop tracking once they're teenagers. And regardless, I'm sure there are plenty of parents of teens today who force their kids to turn on location sharing on their phones.

> It's not necessarily even for everyday. But field trips, amusement parks, big crowded events, hell even shopping malls? I remember many times as a kid having my parents call out on the PA system when I got lost in a department store.

So you do remember what it was like to get lost as a kid! Did becoming lost in a department store a bunch of times traumatize you? While that's not the same as getting lost on a ski slope, it's not that different.