Should parents be allowed to Microchip their kids?

[Mifuyne]

Or just don't let them out of your basement.

[Kathandira]

There was a black mirror episode about it .go check it and find your answer

Was it the one with the microchip that allowed the mother to censor what the child see's? If so, this is not quite that detailed. This is just a GPS.

OT: I do not agree with Micro Chips for children. It is a direct violation of their human rights. But then again, so are other things parents do, such as piercing their children's ears, circumcision, and to an extent, baptismal (If you wish to discuss this last one, please do so in Private Messages as further discussing that would violate the forum rules)

[Orlong]

Unless you are living in a "shithole" country your kids prly have more right than you . Try beating them and see if they have right or not .

Its perfectly legal to spank your kids in just about every state except in the insane state of California. Beating them is a totally different thing, that's something that brings physical harm to them. Chipping them brings no harm at all.

[hynx]

It's a more recent debate, but I have heard it picking up steam a little bit, mostly because I work in security, one of the constant concerns especially in public settings is about the safety of children. If a child is ever lost or kidnapped it could be a helpful tool.

a lot of people have the misconception that those chips for dogs act like a gps tracker. they do not. they are just a scan tool for identification purpose if and when they are found "at large", wondering around lost. and that is because dogs cant say their street address or home/owners phone number. unless there is a functional gps, this would only minimally staunch human trafficking. but then you get the fun of big brother nanny state and pedophiles having even more reason to be tech savy, to learn and track behaviour to make it easier for grooming, not much different than how facebook and google love when you have gps to sell you ads easier.

[Mad_Murdock]

tbh it doesnt matter, in the future machines will take care of raising the children so they have to get some implants at birth anyway

Correction: In the future machines WILL KILL US ALL ! #TotallyNotAnAlarmist #SkynetforAll

On Topic, I suspect we'll soon all be expected to get tagged for our benefit. #1984isrunninglateETA2084

[Orlong]

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.

Its not a US law, its another one of those stupid UN decrees which mean nothing

[Pooti]

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.

Those United Nations laws are not overseeing the relationship between a parent and their child, but are protection from outside sources interfering with the privacy or welfare of a child. I would be curious to know if someone so concerned about the "privacy" of a child ( by this I mean pre-teen ) actually is a parent. I know that as a parent you are responsible for knowing the comings and goings of your children, as you are held liable for their actions. I don't know that I would have something surgically implanted in one of my children, but when my son was in highschool I had a GPS installed in his car so I could track where he went, and that he went where he said he was going.

[Beazy]

If they had this tech 20 years ago, my child would have been pumped full of so many chips, we would've needed to rename him Jonny5.

[VyersReaver]

Someone watched a bit too much of that Black Mirror show.

[cubby]

It's a more recent debate, but I have heard it picking up steam a little bit, mostly because I work in security, one of the constant concerns especially in public settings is about the safety of children. If a child is ever lost or kidnapped it could be a helpful tool.

Yes, absolutely. With the caveat that it's removable later on in life - i.e. when the child turns 18 (or whenever) and can make their own decisions. As a parent, this would be great.

Black Mirror did an episode about it. Interesting take on the idea. I would NOT be ok with their solution, not that it's anyway feasible today.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course not, this infringes several of the kids' rights.

What rights?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Kids can’t consent so you don’t get to insert things into their body with no actual reason (like shots ).

Not to mention the implications of some nefarious government agency or some dick head hacker doing god knows what.

If security is an issue , put the chip in their socks or shoes or sewn into their under wear or back pack. Put it on a wrist watch. Somewhere it can be taken off when/if the kid doesn’t want to be tracked.

Kids typically don't have a right of consent - for instance, they cannot refuse shots. Parents decide that - for VERY obvious reasons.

Interesting point about just using one in an article, or something. However, if one point of the tech is to prevent kidnappings, then that wouldn't work so well.

- - - Updated - - -

This is crazy. And yeah too bad some idiots are actually willing to do this. "yes of course, but a microchip in me."

Why is it "crazy"? What are your reasons for the plethora of arguments in favor?

[Lochton]

And easily removed. The reason you microchip your kids is so when they say they are going to the library to study, and instead go to a friends house to party, get drunk, and have sex, you know they lied and didn't go to the library and you can show up at the arty and drag them out by their ear

If they are at the age of being able to go out and party, get drunk and fuck around, it would be illegal to inject them with a transmitter.

[Orlong]

If they are at the age of being able to go out and party, get drunk and fuck around, it would be illegal to inject them with a transmitter.

They don't earn autonomy until they are 18 at which point they can remove it and move the hell out of my house. Until then I'm still responsible for their actions

[Deleted]

No, parents should not be allowed to alter their child's body. This includes chipping, piercing, tattooing, etc.

[Frosteye]

Kids don't have rights until you turn of legal age at 18, so I don't see why parents couldn't be allowed to do this, as long as the kids can have the chip removed at age 18 if they desire.

[Kathandira]

Personally, I feel if you lack the confidence to raise your child without the fear that they will deceive you and do bad things, perhaps you are better off with a pet instead of a human being. They don't have the same rights, and you can perform such things on them to your heart's content.

[cubby]

If they are at the age of being able to go out and party, get drunk and fuck around, it would be illegal to inject them with a transmitter.

No, it wouldn't. If you're going to argue a side of a point, please make coherent statements. Yours above makes no mention of actual age, and I for one was out getting drunk and fucking around at 15. At that age parents still make most/all decisions for kids. Legally.

[schwarzkopf]

Oh boy - do I have an episode of Black Mirror you need to watch

[cubby]

No, parents should not be allowed to alter their child's body. This includes chipping, piercing, tattooing, etc.

Now that's interesting that you would include outside with inside. Parents are allowed to vaccinate their children, etc, and this would have no outside effect.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh boy - do I have an episode of Black Mirror you need to watch

Lol, yeah - that sure went south in a hurry. I could see myself advocating for children chips that are removable at age 18. But not that shit from BM.

[owbu]

Because this seems bonkers to me and I dont know a single person, who would even begin to consider this:

Is this just a north american thing, or is there people from other parts of the world, who think "yes, finnaly more control over my children!" instead of "holy 1984, batman"?

[Lochton]

No, it wouldn't. If you're going to argue a side of a point, please make coherent statements. Yours above makes no mention of actual age, and I for one was out getting drunk and fucking around at 15. At that age parents still make most/all decisions for kids. Legally.

Here, at the age of 14, you can seek legal aid if you believe what your parents are having in mind for you, to be unreasonable to an extent of causing you distress. The post of this whole scenario doesn't hold an overall age.