> You’re not invading any of your child’s privacy because Geofence is different from direct or physical monitoring of your kid’s whereabouts.
What a super-lie. Instead of studying your kid of how not to be spied by own phone, like detect when GPS is working, the user of 1984-on-minimals is considered to lie to his kid like nothing is happening. This is literally a malusing of Computer Science. This is not an attitude I share.
If some child asks me to clean his smartphone from such an unpleasant program, I will do everything in my power to remove such a program, it’s even better to fool this program (maybe with GPS spoofing), like nothing happened either.
edit so sorry the post gets flagged, IMO it is more decent to expose the topic to main page.
From the article: “Since there are unsolved cases of missing children and street shooting/harassment, we must monitor his/her exact location in order to keep them from these threats.”
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Monitoring somebody’s exact location does not shield them from ”going missing, street shooting/harassment”. At best it opens the chance to start a conversation about being in a certain location at a certain time. At worst it will show you where someone is while they’re being “shot/harassed”.
More importantly, this type of monitoring seems like a guaranteed way to destroy trust between parent and child, making impossible any theoretical conversations that could be had.
Once you remove the article’s thin justifications for this tech what’s left is, quite simply, spyware.
eimrine|3 years ago
What a super-lie. Instead of studying your kid of how not to be spied by own phone, like detect when GPS is working, the user of 1984-on-minimals is considered to lie to his kid like nothing is happening. This is literally a malusing of Computer Science. This is not an attitude I share.
If some child asks me to clean his smartphone from such an unpleasant program, I will do everything in my power to remove such a program, it’s even better to fool this program (maybe with GPS spoofing), like nothing happened either.
edit so sorry the post gets flagged, IMO it is more decent to expose the topic to main page.
acceptably_slow|3 years ago
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Monitoring somebody’s exact location does not shield them from ”going missing, street shooting/harassment”. At best it opens the chance to start a conversation about being in a certain location at a certain time. At worst it will show you where someone is while they’re being “shot/harassed”.
More importantly, this type of monitoring seems like a guaranteed way to destroy trust between parent and child, making impossible any theoretical conversations that could be had.
Once you remove the article’s thin justifications for this tech what’s left is, quite simply, spyware.
siva7|3 years ago