GPS Wristwatch for Kids 740
1010011010 writes "A company called 'Wherify Wireless' has created a $400 watch with a built-in pager, GPS unit and wireless data connectivity. It's targeted at families with kids. According to their website, 'Wherify's GPS Personal Locator helps keep loved ones safe by combining Wherify's patented technology with the U.S. Department of Defense's multi-billion dollar Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites plus the largest 100% digital, nationwide PCS wireless network.' It includes a pager, clock, two-button '911' calling (parent can disable this), and remote-control keyfob (to lock and unlock it) for the parents. It is apparently water- and kid-resistant, and can be locked onto the wrist so that it cannot be removed (easily). $400 plus $35 a month... that's a lot more money than those stretchy wrist-leashes I see at the mall." There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
and can be locked onto the wrist (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to LOCK a location device to your child, I think you've lost your parenting battle already.
cannot be removed easily
Cars cannot be opened easily. Kids who need location devices LOCKED to their wrist may be able to conquer this amazing security.
What is Wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you want to lose your child because you were too busy being a conspiracy theorist and trying to think up reasons as to why tagging your child is morally wrong? No.. I didn't think so.
So many things wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Short of giving them the Han Solo treatment (stasis inside a solid object), there's no way you can protect your kids from everything. Nor should you, since experience is the best teacher.
2) No amount of technology is going to make you a good parent. Letting your kid run around is bad, whether or not you have him on a leash (GPS or otherwise).
Not a bad idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
Obviously you don't have kids!
The worst effect of this is... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I've got no problems strapping it to a little kid at the beach (though, frankly, it's hardly necessary - child abduction by strangers is *very* rare). Its use with older children, though, concerns me greatly.
Re:So many things wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, right. As spoken by someone with no children.
Try spewing your crap to my brother who caught some asshole leading his daughter away just seconds (literally) after he turned toward his other child.
Or maybe you could convince a friend of mine who lost her baby forever when she turned for a moment to secure a locker.
Get a grip on the the real world. It is not as simple as you think.
If youve ever lost (Score:1, Insightful)
If youve ever lost a child you wouldnt even think about saying that, infact, at the time youd probably give an arm and a lag to have had one of these on your kid.
Re:So many things wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course technology can't make someone a good parent, just like technology can't make someone a good accountant. We all use technology though, because it does help a bit. An automatic sterilizer doesn't make a parent more hygenic, but it does help those parents who already know about hygene.
I agree with the technology (Score:3, Insightful)
And while you're in the rabid dog civil rights mood, think about this. Danielle had every one of her civil rights taken by the creep who murdered her. On your guys' level, she did have all her privacy taken away by all the posters posted looking for her. This wristwatch idea could have _SAVED HER LIFE_. And in fact, _PROTECTED HER PRICACY_. This wristwatch is heavy on the scales of civil rights compared to some paranoid concerns. Accept it for what it is, don't bash it for something it's not.
Re:Another good use: the elderly (Score:4, Insightful)
It is quite unlikely that forcing such a person to wear a wristwatch/locator beacon would lead to them wandering away.
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents today operate under a media-fueled safety paranoia frenzy. More to the point, there's too much irrational worrying about children. It's rather sad to me because I think it _harms_ the children psychologically and propagates the paranoia.
Even though I don't have or want children, I don't want to live in a paranoid society where irrational laws are enacted "to protect the children" that don't actually do any good. This watch is a symptom of the paranoia, and of the oppression of the nanny state. "you can't afford $400 to protect your child????" Yeah, whatever. Put it in a college fund and your child will reap greater rewards.
When I was a child, I didn't need a pager for my parents to locate me. I never got kidnapped and thrown into a trunk without an internal release. I didn't get corrupted by our TV's lack of "parental control" (what an oxymoron). My family never got crushed because we weren't driving around the mall in an armored SUV. Hell, I got through my childhood without a bicycle helmet and I didn't even crack my head open once!
-Kevin
Re:and can be locked onto the wrist (Score:2, Insightful)
Child abduction is more common than you think. It's a growing problem here in the UK, not just youngsters either. Just this week, a 14yr old has gone missing, believed abducted.
-
Re:Paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're either not a parent or forgotton how easy it is for a 2 or 3 year old to get lost. I have not yet met a parent who has NEVER lost sight of a child for a few seconds, even on reins they can wriggle out, or remove it when your attention is elsewhere - shopping is a classic example.
If you're in the UK, you'll remember Jamie Bulger? Do you suppose his parents would have had this device if they could?
Perhaps if you do have kids, and do momentarily lose sight of him/her and they tyhen go missing, you might change your mind. I sincerely hope it never happens to you.
We had a child wander off, took us 5 minutes to find him, i have never been so panic-struck in my life. It happens, even to the very best parents.
Re:It's this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and can be locked onto the wrist (Score:2, Insightful)
Just cos something happened this week doesn't make it common. I live in the UK and the last time I can remember something like this happening was a year ago.
Either way - my point stands - if a child can remove it, I'm damn sure an abductor can - now, if it was an implant...
Maybe, I really don't know (Score:2, Insightful)
> that I don't even know where to begin.
As mentioned in the comments there are some "practical" uses for this. And, as a disabled single father of a 5 year old son, I can definitely see some serious advantages in this product.
That being said, this device still makes me very uncomfortable. It worries me on many levels, too. I honestly can't decide if this would be a Good Thing<tm> or not.
There is one little niggle I have, too. It's $400 a pop and $35/mo for this. I can see people buying it for their young children and I can't shake the feeling that this is just exploiting the fears of parents to make a proffit.
Re:The worst effect of this is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that happens all the time...not. Why do you think that stuff makes big news? It's extremely rare. Your child will not be safe with this watch or the shock collar or the leash, or ... There is just no 100% safety and you have to accept that.
Statistically, children are most often abducted by someone they know. Kidnapping is very very rare according to crime statistics:
2000 Juvenile Justice report on kidnapping [ncjrs.org]
1,214 kidnapping cases in the U.S. in 1997. That is a miniscule number and if you think big brother wrist watches are going to prevent them, you're deluding yourself into a false sense of safety.
I understand that parents want to protect their children, but in "the real world", abductions are exceedingly rare. "One tenth of one percent of all the crimes against individuals".
There are real problems that affect children and imiginary problems borne of paranoia. I believe that children are better served by targetting more statistically significant problems like poverty, drug abuse, parental abuse, and so on. And finally, don't forget that it's my neighborhood too when you whip out the "if it was your child!!!" bullshit. It's not that I don't care; I care very much. It's just that I'm realistic and concerned with more important problems that can actually be addressed. I find it ridiculous that I have to shoulder the burden of child paranoia by funding TV controls, CD labelling, and all that stuff, that does nothing. Get those kids out of that dysfunctional family with the alcoholic father that beats them or the drug-addicted mother that can barely afford food. I mean, really, _that_ is more reality than the kidnapping silliness.
-Kevin
Re:I agree with the technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, fine, having such a gadget on her person might possibly have saved her life. (We'll never know for sure, since we can't fork() a copy of the Universe and test both cases.)
But in all likelihood, it wouldn't have done a damn bit of good. Some possible countermeasures include:
And that's just off the top of my head. Safety is not significantly enhanced by this product.
Now, consider the possible abuses, not by law enforcement, but by psychotic parents. 13-year-old Melissa wakes up one morning to find one of these locked on to her wrist. Her mother, played by Joan Crawford, informs her that she may now go only where Mommy Dearest permits her, and that her movements will be tracked and reviewed daily on the computer. Deviation from the set Plan will be severely punished. Dawdling on the way home from school will be severely punished. Going to the library without permission (hey, there's subversive, Godless trash in there) will be severely punished. Removing the watch will be severely punished.
One day, Melissa comes home to a stern lecture from Mom, who is standing in front of the home PC displaying the tracking log map:
"What were you doing in the school bathroom near the auditorium at 14:37?"
"I was peeing. Duh."
"Don't you dare take that tone with me, young lady. You were fraternizing with those disgusting scum you call friends, weren't you?"
"No, I wasn't. And the Drama club aren't scum."
"No daughter of mine is going to be caught dead around those homosexual freaks."
"None of them is gay, mom..."
"As long as you're living under my roof, you'll obey my rules. You're grounded for a week for lying to me, and you stay away from those Godless freaks."
Yeah, great idea. Instead of one Big Brother, we'll create a million little brothers, all of them unencumbered with such trivialities as regulations and public scrutiny.
Oh, and as for that tired aphorism that goes something like, "Even if it saves the life of just one child, isn't it worth it?" No. No it isn't, because the world that child will grow up in will be a perfectly dreadful place to live.
Schwab
Re:It's this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is morally wrong with this is that you are instilling from a very early age a sense of distrust and fear into your children. You should let your child walk free and enjoy life, and actually look at this whole thing realistically.
Sure kids get abducted and murdered, but not really that many. When you compare the amount of children who get abducted and killed to that amount who die in road accidents, both as pedestrians and passengers, then you should really understand that you are paying money for very little protection.
Not only is this idea an encouragement to lazy parenting, but it is also doomed to fail. These locks cannot be cracked at the moment, but they are crackable, and will be cracked soon. Within about six months of introduction, I bet that someone will be able to open them without a key within a minute.
What parents should be doing is not trusting this wristband to look after their children. They should be raising them themselves. If this is too much work, then they should have kids in the first place.
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
No problem, just have it detect the pulse or sense blood or something. Hell, if Onstar in my car can call me when my airbag deploys this wristwatch Onstar thing should be able to tell the parents when their child is in trouble. Maybe they'll get a discount on their health and life insurance! Child Theft Recovery Device.
Put children in _more_ danger (Score:3, Insightful)
This system offers a means for someone to totally track every movement of a child. While the parent is intended to receive the data, what prevents someone else from hijacking this data? Wouldn't it become easier than for a potential abductor to observe the habits of the child and choose a time when the band was known to be off?
Let's say that an abductor abducts a child with one of these things. What's to stop him from just wrapping something around the device to block the signal?!? It surely wouldn't be too difficult.
Re:Paranoia ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair enough. You're a parent, you're out shopping, your kid suddenly disappears. Do you:
a) Call his/her name;
b) Find the nearest assistant and tell them you've lost your child;
c) Look for him/her, heading first towards the toy department;
d) Go find the nearest Internet cafe, log on, type in your account number, wait a few minutes for them to tell you that they can't locate the device because it's inside a large building...
Responsible parents wouldn't pick (d), even if their child did happen to be wearing one of these things. On top of which, I don't think the company would stay solvent very long if every parent who loses sight of their child for thirty seconds starts ringing them up demanding that they be found immediately. Unfortunately, I think the majority of parents who would buy these contraptions in the first place are the kind of people who would do exactly that.
The real use intended for this is locating children who have actually gone missing (i.e. who are feared abducted). In that scenario, I do not doubt for a minute that serious crimes could be prevented. But my personal feeling towards this company is one of revulsion - they are preying on the fears of parents for commercial gain.
Your child is hunreds of times more likely to die while crossing the street than be abducted and killed. So does that mean you're an irresponsible parent because you don't make your child wear luminous clothing and head-to-toe padding whenever they leave the house? Please.
</rant>
Unfortunate side affect... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The abductor is an idiot and doesn't discover the 'watch'
2. The abductor manages to defeat the lock.
3. The abductor removes the kids hand *and* watch.
Either way, a determined abductor is not going to be concerned
gus
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume that you do not have children (nor do I), so perhaps it is hard to imagine why parents might actually want to spend just a little time away from their children to preserve their sanity, but think back to your childhood. Didn't you, on occassion, drive you parents crazy? Didn't they benefit from a short vacation where Grandma watched over you? Weren't you a little bit relieved yourself that your parents had the opportunity to let loose for a bit? I know I was.
I can understand the appeal (Score:2, Insightful)
How ironic... (Score:1, Insightful)
seems like a good idea to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Using GPS to protect your children is a great idea. If your child is abducted, having a GPS on them would make it more likely that they can be located before anything happens, and makes it easier to prosecute the abductor. As a father, I can imagine the anguish parents whose children have been abducted must go through. It must be absolutely horrible to not know what happened to your child. Even in the worst case scenario where something bad does happen to the child, this technology would at least give the parents some small comfort by locating them quickly, instead of putting them through days, months, or years of anguish and worry.
Some people may argue that this is an invasion of privacy, but I don't see it that way. Does a 6 year old really have a right to go anywhere she wants without her parents knowing about it? Absolutely not. Certainly older kids (say teenagers) should be given a certain amount of privacy, but kids of that age could probably easily disable or cut off a GPS wristwatch. So, I really see no problem with this technology at all. Except that subscription price. Ouch.
Re:How about TCP/IP? (Score:1, Insightful)
Working indoors (Score:2, Insightful)
> The Personal Location System incorporates
> enhanced GPS technology, which enables it to
> obtain location information indoors as well as
> outdoors.
(from the FAQ)
Having worked in the GPS handset industry previously I can tell you there are three methods to achieve this:
a) Receivers are getting better - more effective, steeper-edged filters and lower noise mixers means better SNR, so that you can pick up a weaker GPS signal. This is the usual claim of 'enhanced GPS' from Snaptrack etc. and I'm doubtful this has been employed.
b) If you let it be known to the receiver that you are remaining in the same place for a while then it will just increase the 'integration time'. Essentially the GPS signal received repeats every millisecond and you pick out the signal from the back ground noise by averaging chunks of 1ms. The longer you do the averaging, the more you lose the noise. This relies on the signal not changing (you must be stationery of the order of a couple of centimetres). But the theory goes that if you stay still for a few minutes, you can pick out them signals from inside a normal office building. I've never seen it done, but is certainly feasible. Maybe these guys have done it.
c) Cell phone location systems are widely available (e.g. Cambridge Positioning Systems) but only work in areas of high population (lots of base stations to triangulate from). Luckily this is exactly complementary to GPS which tends to work best away from buildings. Maybe cell phone location is also used here - but then they would have probably claimed that since it would be pretty novel.
Re:kidresistant?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's look at what they're offering for a service and the average scenario where you'd need it. A lot of lost/wandering children occur in large busy places. They get turned around or distracted by something and then they can't see their parent in the sea of people surrounding them. (To get an idea, walk into the local department store, get on your knees and then try to spot someone, then try this at Christmas time.)
So, kind wanders off, gets lost. Parents rightfully panic. Turn on the old homing beacon. Interesting, GPS doesn't work too good in that three story department building does it?
So, the big question is, does the product that is being offerred actually work? Looking at their web site they're offering a web lookup and a 800 number that will allow them to "give you the nearest street address". Wow, they give you the address of the mall. THAT was worth the $400 up front plus $35/month.
So, all that money spent. You're a good parent. But would it have done anything to decrease that 5 minutes of complete terror?
BTW, I'll be joining the parenting crowd in a few months myself so I'll try to see how much my attitudes about things like this change.
Re:Unfortunate side affect... (Score:3, Insightful)
2. The abductor manages to defeat the lock.
3. The abductor removes the kids hand *and* watch.
At least you would know an EXACT time and location of the criminal and victim. I'll bet the location of the watch-disabling could tip police of as to who he (or she) is. i.e.: library, store, classroom, home, church. Plus it would eliminate suspects that had reasonable alibi's for that exact time.
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
But guess what? Mom and dad need some time together as a couple to stay in healthy relationship - this October will by our 10th Wedding anniversary, the little ones will be staying with grandma and grampa and we will be spending a week together - probably Hawaii - without the kids. And I don't think even for a moment that that makes us bad parents. Heck once every month or two we drop the kids off at grandma's and spend a Saturday night alone too. I guess you better call social services now...
The Great Outdoors on one's own (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my 2 cents -- while I agree with the privacy advocates that there limits (at some point kid's old enough to take care of himself, deserving of privacy, etc), I also think that for younger kids this device is very useful. When I was two, I followed my grandfather's beagle into the woods when he turned his back for a second. I was gone all afternoon, and luckily was found before dark.
I now live on the same property. It backs up to a huge state forest and mountains, and I hope my son (coming up on his first birthday now) will someday enjoy the same hiking, exploring, climbing and wandering that I did growing up (/. will be for rainy days!). A device like this would make me feel a LOT more secure about letting him ramble solo. Looking back, I did a lot of stupid things when I was 8 or 10, playing soldiers and running & jumping from rock to rock, climbing too high by myself in trees, not watching out for snakes on sunny rocks, etc. It's easy for a kid to get hurt and immobilized, and when you're talking about a couple thousand acres, finding them is not easy. Hell, this is exactly the kind of device that serious climbers, hikers and backpackers wear on purpose for exactly that reason - they want to be found if they're injured!
I want my kid to grow up competent and able to handle himself outdoors, and to feel that I trust him to go out exploring on his own (at an appropriate age), but at the same time, if you can ameliorate some of the risk through technology, why not? It's not like this device is going to be permanently implanted; at some point, they'll outgrow it.
My perspective (as a father-to-be) (Score:3, Insightful)
Why am I interested? It's not that I need to know where he'll be 24/7. It's not because I want to track him as a teenager. It's because children disappear just often enough that it's something I'll worry about in the back of my mind until the day he leaves for college. And a device like this is something that might help prevent that from happening. I really see it as something where, if I used it, it would be during the toddler years - when he could wander off on his own in a flash without thinking twice about it. I'm more worried about his getting lost than I am about someone snatching him, and the odds are much better that he'll get harmlessly lost. But it's still a nice way to let child's first watch increase his mom and dad's comfort level.
Start putting them in adult watches, and then I'll worry about privacy issues. When my child is old enough to be aware of privacy, it's time to give him a regular watch.
Don't Know Much About... (Score:4, Insightful)
Virg
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
But "...NO vacations to anywhere without the kids..." is a HORRIBLE idea.
You have absolutely no concept of what 24/7 means until you have a baby, that grows into a toddler, etc. What are you doing to the child in the long run if you just give up your marriage and only do things as a whole family unit? A family starts with a marriage. Mom and Dad, they make the family work. The child can contribute love and enjoyment beyond belief; but not much actual work. To keep the family together requires the parents. And for the parents to be "THE PARENTS" requires that they stay together... be married... be a couple. You NEED, sometimes desparately to remember that.
If your family is going to stay as a single and complete unit, it needs a good marriage at the top of it. And that means spending some time alone once in a while.
So how do they assure line-of-sight? (Score:1, Insightful)
If the kid is indoors, inside a car, or in dense foilage, the tracking device won't work.
You could solve this by applying a large antenna, but that would make it non-tamper-proof, since someone could just wreck the antenna.
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
And if you are one of those that posted that parents need to pay better attention, then you also have never had kids. Kids are sometimes slippier than a M$ lawyer. The problem is that many non-parents think that kids can be controlled like a cat or a dog, or other pet. But if it has thumbs and higher brain functions, expect it to slip away from you every so often...
Low-tech solution (Score:4, Insightful)
of snippers?
Even if it's the classic melodrama of seedy pervert hanging around the mall looking for the random abductee, it's a case of 1) find person; 2) grab person; 3) snip off watch; 4) toss in garbage.
Meanwhile the idiotic parents, completely self-absorbed in their deluded state of irresponsibility, just think that Johnnie is taking an awfully long time at Sbarro's...
[*] in this situation the kidnapped has run away or eloped, and the parents attempt to stop it from happening by filing charges of kidnapping on the other party.
my experience (Score:2, Insightful)
when i have kids they will be wearing this or something like this, when they get older i wont lock it on their arm but they still can use it or carry it around if they want the security
Who is the greatest threat to kids? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but look at the facts. Parents are SO worried about strangers abducting their kids, but it would appear that parents and other adults they are in regular contact with are a FAR greater threat to kids than strangers are.
I don't have any stats to quote yet, but most of the time you read about a court case involving sexual abuse or abduction, it is a parent or trusted adult who is the culprit. THAT is the real tragedy.
We warn kids about strangers, we want to "street-proof" our kids, but the most dangerous people are the ones they know.
NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
This right here is a perfect example of why so many good kids go bad. You can't rule your house with an iron fist .. that sort of extreme is just as likely to result in rebellion as giving them 'too much' privacy.
A parent-child relationship should be built on trust. Just like a husband-wife relationship. Do you think it's a great idea to invest in a bunch of technology to constantly check up on your wife to make sure she remains faithful?
When I was a kid, if my parents had imposed this sort of restriction on me, it would have sent the clear message that they don't trust me one damn bit. Maybe other people would become submissive to this sort of thing, but I'd be more of the type to reflexively trust my parents as little as they trusted me.
Sure, you should know what your kid(s) is/are up to, and of course you have the right as the owner of the house to know what is going on under your roof. But to enforce things in this fashion is asking for disaster just as much as being a lazy, uncaring parent. There is no peace of mind in extremes. Building a trusting family is the only answer.
Re:It's this (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Keep the kid alive, reasonably safe from harm and generally undamaged.
2. Prepare the kid to be an adult.
Your "my way or the highway" attitude might facilitate #1, but you're neglecting a really big part of #2 -- forgetting to teach your kid self-reliance is just as serious as, say, forgetting to send them to school. Either way, you're producing an 18 year-old who isn't realistically prepared for the Real World (tm).
Of course, the problem is that #1 is purely instinct, but #2 takes a certain level of rational intelligence. I encourage you to exercise that.
You've already lost. (Score:2, Insightful)
As soon as you phrase the relationship that way, you've converted it into a confrontation. It's not that what you say is false, but that resting on it does a huge disservice to everyone involved. As other posters have already stated, the child gets a clear message that they are expected to do "the wrong thing". Some of them will translate that into "I am a bad kid." It does a disservice to the parents because they have to be on guard at all times now that they've put it up. It also puts up a wall between, not around, the members of the family.
This is true of any relationship. Overprotective boyfriends and girlfriends scare healthy lovers off. Overdefensive companies (how many stables did you use?) frustrate and drive off their best employees. Churches, clubs, and governments are all the same. Relationships built on mutal respect are FAR stronger and more effective than those built on fear or force. The age and genetic relationship of the individuals involved is of minor importance in the analysis.
Any parent who straps a GPS locator on a child over 10 has probably already failed to build the trust which should come naturally from being trustworthy and ever-present.
[Disclaimer: My parents didn't watch me closely, but I ran away to live with my (then 28yo) sister when I was 16 anyway. I'm 28 and have no children of my own yet. My view is clearly biased.]
Re:To be fair... Maybe (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt that this ratio has ever changed. But I do believe that our paranoia about sickos/idiots has probably tripled since the 70's.
Re:What is Wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that it encourages lazy parenting. The wristband is just another resource at the disposal of parents who love their kids. Any parent who "trusts" this wristband to look after their kid (and I'm sure there will be many) don't deserve to be parents. But for the parents that do take their job as parents seriously and use this in the manner in which it is intended, it's a great idea.
Re:It's this (Score:1, Insightful)
The potential for abuse of this thing isn't just 'oh no, someone might steal a movie and then buy it later.' It's more like loss of personal freedom until you find a very, very heavy metal cutter, and then parents yelling at you for months because they're out $400. And quite possibly having said parents buy a new one anyway.
How is this a loss of personal freedom? This device doesn't tell your parents what you're doing, merely where you are. If you're going somewhere you don't want your parents to know, tell them that.
Perhaps this stops you from being able to lie about where you are, but lying to your parents is not an issue of personal freedom.