coley
Well-Known Member
On the nail, as usual.
American father locked up for confiscating 12 year daughter's phone as punishment
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
coley
Well-Known Member
Whey up, just going to settle down to your latest exploits
Oh yeah, well that certainly goes both ways. My short-lived foray on FB came to an end when my daughter decided to 'spice up' my 'wall' with a perfectly horrible photo of an insane toothless hag waving an onion hoe in the air (those bloody phones)....and she also invented a lurid social life - cat wrestling was mentioned.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Diamond, he lights the blue touchpaper...
theres been some considered conversation on the matter of a childs privacy on this thread. Theres also been some stirring shite.
I'm interested primarily because its that old question. 'When I was 14 my parents were so thick and controlling I couldn't stand to be around them. When I was 20 I was astonished how wise the old bastards had become'
to bastardise a twain quote.
(while thinking about Killer B's point about the pot revelation through illicit parental diary reading. I'd have been immensely wounded)
theres been some considered conversation on the matter of a childs privacy on this thread. Theres also been some stirring shite.
I'm interested primarily because its that old question. 'When I was 14 my parents were so thick and controlling I couldn't stand to be around them. When I was 20 I was astonished how wise the old bastards had become'
to bastardise a twain quote.
(while thinking about Killer B's point about the pot revelation through illicit parental diary reading. I'd have been immensely wounded)
Last edited:
coley
Well-Known Member
I've posted three photos on here, two of me,one of me eldest, but got his permission first.
Damn prescriptive whossit
Last edited:
coley
Well-Known Member
You check on the "dribble" but keep an eye out for anything out of the ordinary " dribble"
coley
Well-Known Member
I'm glad it's accessible to friends and family within shared files, not on FB or Twatter, just me being paranoid though
editor
hiraethified
No idea what you're on about, but an adult certainly has a care of duty over their 12 year old daughter.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
If I had any inkling as a youth that my parents were regularly spying on me without telling, I'd have taken any measure I could have to prevent that. If I couldn't trust my own parents to be open and honest to me about their concerns for my well-being, why would I trust them with anything else? Thankfully as far as I remember my parents didn't rifle through my personal stuff, otherwise I doubt I would have been as straightforward as I had been about subjects like drinking and drugs, pornography, and similar sensitive matters. I remember being horrified at the control-freak regimes that a couple of my peers lived under.
editor
hiraethified
Thing is, I'm guessing the internet wasn't around when you were kid, along with the (often exaggerated but sometimes very real) new perils that such connectivity can bring.
I'm not entirely sure about this particular case - it all seems a bit strange, if you ask me - but if I was given - for example, enough reasons to have a genuine concern that my daughter might be in the process of being targeted by some online creep trying to groom her, then I'd have no problem demanding that she show me the messages. To not do so would leave her open to real danger.
This would only happen if the concerns had persisted after many long, open and frank conversations with her, of course (or with her friends/teachers etc, if I'd been tipped off).
I can't see how you could ignore it, really.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I'm only 28 (29 soon, goodness help me). I had unfiltered internet access starting in 1998. It was ISDN rather than broadband so it wasn't as powerful back then (that came a few years later), but it still opened up a whole new world for me. Strangely enough as an actual 12 year old, rather than a copper pretending to be one to make a point, I was not possessed of any desire to start chatting up older men for sexual purposes. Not even after puberty hit me full force.
I was taught to be wary of strangers well before I got access to the internet*, and while I wasn't the most savvy individual (who is at that age?), I saw enough crazy bullshit on the internet to know that it could be anyone on the other end.
I can only speak as one who was once a child rather than as a parent, but I'm pretty sure that the lesson "anyone can present any kind of face they want to over the internet, especially for predatory purposes" (maybe not in those words, but still) is one that even kids can grasp. If there are warning signs then it's only common sense to take action, but I think that if things have reached that point then it's time to talk, not snoop.
*Not that I needed all that much teaching, being a geeky introvert with Asperger's!
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
Of course looking at kids/young people's communications only works if there is some mutual trust as evidence can be deleted etc.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
... and the bullying. At least when I was a kid it ended the minute you walked into your home. Now it continues 23x7 over social media. No wonder some kids kill themselves.
So young!
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
All kids now have online safety education. Regular, well-designed, made relevant and impactful. And yet...
It's discovered that some bright girl of twelve who knows and can explain all the reasons why not, has shared an underwear shot with her boyfriend. Why? People do irrational, self-harming things for complicated, compelling reasons. Kids often more so.
A fourteen year old has become a school refuser, is self-harming, maybe worse... It all comes to a head a finally you discover moths? Years? Of online bullying. Why didn't they tell anyone, even when they knew it's the easiest form of bullying for teachers / police to act on? People do irrational, self-harming things for complicated, compelling reasons. Kids often more so.
And in parents' hypothetical imaginings, it's always the fear that their child is the victim, in harm's way... But of course huge numbers of kids are perpetrating online bullying. Are coercing people to share inappropriate photos, and then sharing them widely. Parents not only have a duty of protection, but a duty of care that attempts to stop their child hurting others.
It's difficult. Young people need some privacy, some sense of self that is independent from their position in the family... But there's no overnight transition from child to adult. Protection, behaviour control, privacy - all these appropriately reduce as children grow up. Partly because of the young person's growing common sense, but also in response to how well they'd be able to cope if the worst happened.
It's discovered that some bright girl of twelve who knows and can explain all the reasons why not, has shared an underwear shot with her boyfriend. Why? People do irrational, self-harming things for complicated, compelling reasons. Kids often more so.
A fourteen year old has become a school refuser, is self-harming, maybe worse... It all comes to a head a finally you discover moths? Years? Of online bullying. Why didn't they tell anyone, even when they knew it's the easiest form of bullying for teachers / police to act on? People do irrational, self-harming things for complicated, compelling reasons. Kids often more so.
And in parents' hypothetical imaginings, it's always the fear that their child is the victim, in harm's way... But of course huge numbers of kids are perpetrating online bullying. Are coercing people to share inappropriate photos, and then sharing them widely. Parents not only have a duty of protection, but a duty of care that attempts to stop their child hurting others.
It's difficult. Young people need some privacy, some sense of self that is independent from their position in the family... But there's no overnight transition from child to adult. Protection, behaviour control, privacy - all these appropriately reduce as children grow up. Partly because of the young person's growing common sense, but also in response to how well they'd be able to cope if the worst happened.
big Ern
Finally, i can buy my way out of anything!!!
Most certainly. You owe a duty to a burglar, so if your having work done on your property, dont go leaving any rusty nails sticking out of floor boards
. You owe a duty of care to anybody where there is a relationship of proximity and reasonable foresight of harm. The neighbor test laid down in Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 by lord Aiken is one of the earliest tests for such a duty.""The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyer's question " Who is my ' neighbour ?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
prior to this case, there had to be some kind of pre existing relationship in order for a duty to be imposed, such as a relationship akin to employee/employer.
Then lord Wilberforce in Anns vs Merton LBC 1978 introduced a policy consideration test, a kind of get out of jail free card, one which for instance might work in favor of local authorities (in some instances) where the day to day running of local councils could be impeded if the threat of legal action was always looming. Similarly until 2000, a barrister could not be sued for negligently representing his client.
Due to the floodgate argument, the duty was narrowed by lord Bridge in Caparo industries plc vs Dickman 1990 to include a 3rd element to the Anns test the "is it fair, just and reasonable" to impose a duty.
Most certainly. You owe a duty to a burglar, so if your having work done on your property, dont go leaving any rusty nails sticking out of floor boards
""The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyer's question " Who is my ' neighbour ?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
prior to this case, there had to be some kind of pre existing relationship in order for a duty to be imposed, such as a relationship akin to employee/employer.
Then lord Wilberforce in Anns vs Merton LBC 1978 introduced a policy consideration test, a kind of get out of jail free card, one which for instance might work in favor of local authorities (in some instances) where the day to day running of local councils could be impeded if the threat of legal action was always looming. Similarly until 2000, a barrister could not be sued for negligently representing his client.
Due to the floodgate argument, the duty was narrowed by lord Bridge in Caparo industries plc vs Dickman 1990 to include a 3rd element to the Anns test the "is it fair, just and reasonable" to impose a duty.
That is all a very correct summary of basic Tort law but it does not go to the central question of whether a "duty of care" mandates that a parent should be able to read the private messages of their offspring.
If you want to get technical about this stuff, we can start digging in to Article 8 ECHR cases...
big Ern
Finally, i can buy my way out of anything!!!
Hi, yes i would love to get technical about this stuff, but i was firstly, merely answering the question "Do you owe a duty of care to your better half".
We accept without argument that a parent owes a child a duty of care, which should go without saying. What we have to balance is the welfare of the child, vs privacy and proportionality. The childs welfare is paramount, so if we suspect our child is being bullied or having sexually explicit messages/pictures sent to them, which seems to be a current trend for teens to do, are we infringing the child's privacy under Article 8 or the Children Acts core principles of welfare, do we have a duty to breach privacy if we feel the child's welfare may be suffering. The simple answer is yes off course we do, if we deem that interference proportionate and necessary.
big Ern
Finally, i can buy my way out of anything!!!
However, this particular case just seems to be case of sour grapes from dad. I expect dad was arrested on theft charges of his daughters mobile phone? I dont think a phone should be confiscated for punishment purposes, especially given that it is such an important means of communication, maybe some restrictions on usage but that would be as far as i would go, if the circumstances warranted it.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Yes, that is put very well indeed and I suspect that the court would take a view that turns on the facts and circumstances of each case.
I would always err towards protecting the child's privacy to be frank but then I do not have kids so that probably colours my thinking.
Does the ECHR now rule on cases in Texas
Of course not, but I thought that we were talking about general principles...
Not sure what the position would be in US law - presumably it would go to constitutional rights rather than human rights?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Sarcasm, I hope.
Archimage
Kat Knapper
No. I knew you peeps would appose.. Have you ever raised a hell born? I did.
His real farther was a US Hell's Angel. A true serial killer.
He's a good kid now, and I only had to beat him once, and it hurt me more than him.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Fuck off
Similar threads
