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.