Comment on "Without carrying out any actual hacking, simply by logging in with an arbitrary Google account"
Klox@lemmy.world 3 days agoLast I checked this is an anonymous platform. I also generally rotate accounts when it feels relevant. You have a problem speaking about generalities in a public platform? The more specific example seemed necessary to clarify the discussion.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 days ago
Being generous, what you described doesn’t seem unreasonable on its own. My criticism is based on the context of this discussion: using stuffed animals to record children.
You responded to a query about whether using stuffed animals to record children violated children’s privacy with “In my experience, absolutely not.”
Re-reading your points, you seem to be talking about supervising text conversations between kids. That’s a completely separate issue. It can be reasonable to read their conversations, if you have raised this possibility with them, and discussed the purpose of doing so.
But this thread is about IoT Teddy Bears, not text messages. Charitably, I have to assume you are simply off topic, and my only real criticism is that discussing the contents of those messages with anyone but them violates their privacy.
If and when a kid comes across this discussion, I want to make sure they are aware of just how egregious a violation it is to have hidden recording devices in their personal space. In most jurisdictions, recording without the knowledge and consent of at least one party to the conversation is considered “wiretapping” or “eavesdropping”, and is not just a violation of their privacy; it is a criminal act. If anyone - including your parents - has listening or other recording devices installed in your personal space, you should tell teachers, guidance counselors, principals, and similar trusted adults.
Klox@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I guess I didn’t explicitly say this in my original comment, but my intended point is that kids do not have a right to privacy. I explained from a personal POV why I as a parent make this choice, but since you’re interested in the legal side: kids cannot provide or revoke consent because they do not even have this right. Legal guardians have this right on behalf of their kids. This is true pretty much universally across governments. If you have a specific example I am happy to change my mind. Particularly for ages 3 to 9, which is what this toy is targets to.
The government provides many legal safety protections for kids (so we can skip the arguments related to invasive privacy that is violating some other protections), but by and far most countries and US states do NOT provide kids a self-managed right to privacy. Parents/legal guardians control the consent of their kids. So you’re simply wrong.
With that said, kids should absolutely bring up home problems and concerns with other trusted adults. If a privacy is being violating another legal safety protection for kids, then they should absolutely bring it up. If the kids don’t like that the parents are violating their privacy (even if it’s legal), they should bring it up. I personally would never hide any monitoring I have on my kids, and wouldn’t recommend that approach to any parent.
There could be a legal issue for violating a second party in a two-party consent state, or third-party monitoring. But it’s almost universally true again that single party monitoring is allowed for minors. And I’d be happy if you brought any specific claims if you disagree.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 hours ago
A formal, legal right to privacy is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Kids will gain the formal right to privacy at some point in their lives, and they will review their childhood experiences through the lens of a competent, adult mind. When they come across memories of being secretly spied upon, a healthy kid should feel that they were victimized.
An unhealthy (former) kid will deem such invasions of privacy as normal, acceptable behavior and is very likely to go on to victimize others. Perhaps their own kids; perhaps other people. Perhaps they will simply support anti-privacy issues like this one when they come up.
The general case is that non-consensual recording is a crime. Denying the kid the personal agency to prosecute the offender is just another way in which the kid is victimized.
Klox@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Friend, you are the one that brought a legal argument to the discussion. You’re being disingenuous by saying it’s now irrelevant.
I don’t know what a formal right is.
A “healthy kid” can also understand the need for parental guidance, particularly before teen years.
There is no general case. We’re discussing minors. Kids are not being victimized by being raised by competent, privacy minded parents. They don’t need the privacy in their digital communications while they are a minor. They need it when they are an adult, and my kids will know the value of that privacy better than you understand it.
Take care.