Should parents be allowed to Microchip their kids?

[Biomega]

Measures like this should be reserved for cases where other efforts are impossible and/or have have been exhausted.

Good examples are animals, mentally impaired individuals, or criminals - all cases in which compliance through other means is likely to fail, for whatever reason.

If you have a child that's at a point where that would be the case, a LOT has gone wrong - or they have a serious physiological condition, in which case it may be a consideration. For everyone else, good education, parental care, and heck even something like a clothes tag are infinitely preferable to surgically implanted devices. If you feel you need to control and check your child's movement to such a degree, perhaps the one who has something wrong with them isn't the child.

Security concerns are a serious matter, of course, and while still largely within your control (the majority of, say, kidnapping cases involve some sort of risky behavior) there are definitely cases where you could not have done anything better. Those are very, very rare, and at some point you simply have to accept that you cannot safeguard against everything. Again, of course, it's a different discussion if there are specific known risk factors (like if you're e.g. rich or powerful and there have been threats against your children, or whatever).

[XDurionX]

Kids don't have rights.

Okay, you could have just said in OP that you're not interested in serious answers.

[Lochton]

Yeah I disagree, I get what you are saying, I am not sure if I would agree that is even the theory much less the practice, but over all kids have no agency on their own, thus no rights as it were.

As to their parents, eh, I don't know, I am not sure there is any actual proof of that. I am not arguing simply to argue, but in this case rights as I am referring too, no kids for sure don't have any agency on the matter automatically.

I.. what?.. I.. Don't even... So, you're saying a child has no rights because the child is mostly with its parents? Why do you think children are taken away from some parents? Because a child has a right for a safe and healthy upbringing, a child has a right to be among us others. The only problem with your topic is you're bordering it on abuse, for a child is not given any social/vocal rights to counter the parents before a certain age, that is why you have unions trying to assist and help children for a better future.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Yeah I disagree, I get what you are saying, I am not sure if I would agree that is even the theory much less the practice, but over all kids have no agency on their own, thus no rights as it were.

As to their parents, eh, I don't know, I am not sure there is any actual proof of that. I am not arguing simply to argue, but in this case rights as I am referring too, no kids for sure don't have any agency on the matter automatically.

You are extremely wrong here. Children have rights, and chipping them would be an invasion of privacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Well not having any rights, I don't think extends to parents being allowed to abuse them, as is pointing out kids are charged to a parent or guardians.

That you can't beat children just goes to show that they do have rights. As in, they are not just property.

[Deleted]

Kids don't have rights.

Since this need to be said, Kids don't have privacy rights in regard to their parents.
Their medical rights are held by their parents until they can speak for themselves (thus, the kids consent is required, and the parent is able to consent on their behalf).
So No, there are no 'Rights' being infringed.

[Trassk]

It starts with kids, then it goes to teens, then adults. Eventually the government knows where you are 100% of the time every day. F**k that.

[Deleted]

In todays times a lot of kids have a phone on them so it seems kinda redundant but if it's an ear piercing or a bracelet/necklace it seems fine to me as long as those things are strictly regulated.

[Deleted]

could save their lives

So could putting a leash on them, or simply locking them in a cage.
This is a very simple appeal to emotion with no structure or argument to back it up.

And it should be met with a resounding "no", until the proponent actually makes a decent point. Such as convenience over existing features.
This proposal is invasive for no reason at all: it could not save any more lives than a phone.

[Deleted]

It starts with kids, then it goes to teens, then adults. Eventually the government knows where you are 100% of the time every day. F**k that.

Do you have a cellphone?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I.. what?.. I.. Don't even... So, you're saying a child has no rights because the child is mostly with its parents? Why do you think children are taken away from some parents? Because a child has a right for a safe and healthy upbringing, a child has a right to be among us others. The only problem with your topic is you're bordering it on abuse, for a child is not given any social/vocal rights to counter the parents before a certain age, that is why you have unions trying to assist and help children for a better future.

Well kids aren't automatically removed from abusive homes, generally it's only done in extreme cases, but in any event taking kids away from their parents has less to do with their rights, and more to do with whatever rights society deems they should have in the context of their welfare. It really has nothing to do with kids own agency.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, you could have just said in OP that you're not interested in serious answers.

You gave a serious answer and I gave a serious reply, this really has nothing to do with the rights of the child who is under the care of their parents. The question is about should society deem parents have that right.

- - - Updated - - -

It starts with kids, then it goes to teens, then adults. Eventually the government knows where you are 100% of the time every day. F**k that.

Yeah, so what is wrong with that, as has been stated, inmates, people who are mentally ill, elderly hell depending on the device your average everyday normal person who perhaps maybe wants certain assurances.

Although personally what I invision would be more like an Amber Alert system.

[Lex Icon]

i mean if it's to prevent kidnapping and it became a common thing kidnappers would know about it and just cut it out anyway.. so might aswell just put it in their shoe or give them a cellphone if you're worried about tracking them.

[XDurionX]

You gave a serious answer and I gave a serious reply, this really has nothing to do with the rights of the child who is under the care of their parents. The question is about should society deem parents have that right.

If your answer was serious, then it's fundamentally wrong and easily disproven.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professional...pages/crc.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights

Chipping them violates several of these, the right of physical integrity and their privacy rights (yes, kids have them as well as any otheer human). Under no circumstance it is acceptable to track any human being 24/7, and for sure not for the reasons you have given.


Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

[smokii]

there's a new episode of black mirror that covers this. it's not a good idea.

who else is going to have access to your details?

[Kapadons]

People have their children's ears pierced also. This isn't much different than that is it and this could save their lives.

But earrings are outside your body and they can take out earrings whenever they feel like. earrings also cant be used by big brother to track a person. And can’t be hacked.

I’m sorry but the moral implications of inserting a micro chip tracker into a child isn’t the same as peircing their ears.

[chubbybunny]

In Theory it would be a good idea, think about how many children run away from home and never seen again, they could be traced with these chips.

However children have rights and unless they agreed with their parents that it was something they'd like to do then it would be wrong.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If your answer was serious, then it's fundamentally wrong and easily disproven.

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professional...pages/crc.aspx


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights

Chipping them violates several of these, the right of physical integrity and their privacy rights (yes, kids have them as well as any otheer human). Under no circumstance it is acceptable to track any human being 24/7, and for sure not for the reasons you have given.


Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

We ignore the international community all the time as do most sovereign nations. We are ruled by the laws of our own land.

[Ravenblade]

No, this is clearly not just a matter of playing conspiracy theorists into their hands but an issue of ongoing erosion of privacy and who benefits from said erosion of privacy which in most cases are not the ones who would be thought of first-hand benefitting of it, say parents. The problem I am seeing is that every country has a different stance on this issue, when one country has more liberal laws than another one has then they will lobby in said country for liberalization of privacy citing individual benefits rather than the true actual corporate and governmental benefits. Of course I am assuming that kids are just the first step in here which they will be. You could end up handing the fox the keys to the henhouse without knowing it especially when your citizen rights advocates tend to politically "lose" against those with clear corporate interests especially when legal base is already weak. Some countries where technology isn't quite as popular among political circles, say Germany, are more likely to get influenced by those who also donate to party causes who have economical interests only in mind. I have seen this happen in other cases so I am not quite sure how we would prevent a scenario like this one really. In the end without a strong pro-citizen legal base the common citizen will be the first link to be cut from the equation.

[Doctor Amadeus]

But earrings are outside your body and they can take out earrings whenever they feel like. earrings also cant be used by big brother to track a person. And can’t be hacked.

I’m sorry but the moral implications of inserting a micro chip tracker into a child isn’t the same as peircing their ears.

No earrings pierce the skin, and go into a child's body, how about circumcision, is junior getting a vote every time that procedure is done, because I guarantee you there is a hell of a lot more that goes on with the body on that one too.

As for the tracking, kids are already tracked and monitored, all this device would do is help in case of an event where a child is kidnapped, they could be found quickly

[Doctor Amadeus]

Why would you chip them when eventually they will get a smartphone?

at like 5?

- - - Updated - - -

No, this is clearly not just a matter of playing conspiracy theorists into their hands but an issue of ongoing erosion of privacy and who benefits from said erosion of privacy which in most cases are not the ones who would be thought of first-hand benefitting of it, say parents. The problem I am seeing is that every country has a different stance on this issue, when one country has more liberal laws than another one has then they will lobby in said country for liberalization of privacy citing individual benefits rather than the true actual corporate and governmental benefits. Of course I am assuming that kids are just the first step in here which they will be. You could end up handing the fox the keys to the henhouse without knowing it especially when your citizen rights advocates tend to politically "lose" against those with clear corporate interests especially when legal base is already weak. Some countries where technology isn't quite as popular among political circles, say Germany, are more likely to get influenced by those who also donate to party causes who have economical interests only in mind. I have seen this happen in other cases so I am not quite sure how we would prevent a scenario like this one really. In the end without a strong pro-citizen legal base the common citizen will be the first link to be cut from the equation.

Yeah, hysteria and paranoia aren't actual arguments, based on conjecture of what some think could happen vs what actually is and does which is kids go missing and this could be a very useful tool for good.

[Deleted]

Besides, many people already carry with themselves a tracking device with gps and wifi: a phone. Duplicating that device is largely pointless.

Let me correct it a bit.

We don't need to be chipped anymore.