In the middle of a long bicycle ride several weeks ago, I pulled over for a rest and took out my iPhone to send a text message to my mom. I had a feeling she might be watching me. “If you’re checking my location, I’m not dead,” I wrote to her. “I’m getting coffee at Starbucks .” As it happens, she was not keeping tabs on where I was, but she could have and has in the past because I have allowed her to do so using the location-tracking capability in my phone. Whenever she’s curious, she can see me represented as an orange dot on a digital map on her phone. Now and again, I check my mom to see if she watching my location so she know where I am but she doesn’t always use it. Spyware has been around since 1995 . Today it is used to monitor their …show more content…
In her essay she refers to the study done by Laurence Steinberg, a professor of psychology at Temple University and author of Age of Opportunity, who says, “ There’s a lot of research showing that kids who grow up with overly cautious or snoop Parents are more susceptible to those mental health problems, partly because they undermine the child’s confidence in their abilities of function independently” ( Weir 3). In this passage Steinberg explains that overprotective parents can cause a lot of damage in their kids and it can cause health problems. This is important because it shows that even though parents are trying to protect their kids they are hurting them. For example, imagine a situation where your overprotective parents are spying on you. You feel nervous and don’t feel like you have the trust of your parents instead you are trying not to do anything bad so you can try to get their trust back. Therefor, that overprotective parents can cause damage to their kids just by spying on their because they don’t trust …show more content…
In her essay she refers to the study done by feel their privacy has been invaded when parents intrude on personal issues, like eavesdropping on a conversation or secretly reading their texts. But most kids realize that parents have actual authority over safety issues, such as making rules about drug use and knowing where kids are going after school. “Parents are supposed to know where their children are,” she says ” (Weir). This is important because it shows that overprotective parents can cause relationship damage. For example, imagine a situation where your parents are always looking at your stuff without you knowing and they are not trust on you. This proves that overprotective parents can cause a lot of damage for they
Some parents put their children up on a pedestal, and treat them as if they are the most prized creatures on the Earth. Parents think that they raise their children right, but Gottlieb makes a valid point when she states, “As a parent, I wanted to do things right. But what does ‘right’ mean?” I like how Gottlieb uses the story of the child tripping over a rock. When the kid falls, some parents would come to the rescue, and cuddle the child before they even start to cry. Even though they mean well, I feel like these parents are not even thinking of how a scenario as simple as this can affect their children later in life. This example reflects that even the overprotective and “good” parents end up having children that are lost and unhappy because they did not show any discipline and organization. Dan Kindlon, a children’s psychologist that Gottlieb mentioned, explained, “There’s a difference between being loved and being constantly monitored.” This made me think of a friend whom goes to West Georgia who I will call Ella. She grew up with the constant surveillance of her
Internet is advancing every day, parents have no idea what their kids are doing in cyberspace and are contemplating the idea of spyware. In the article, “The Undercover Parent” by Harlan Coben, he argues the idea of parents putting spyware on kids’ computer is a good idea to keep the child safe. Many American parents have no idea what happens in cyberspace; sex, bullying, and drugs. Parents are torn between protecting their child with spyware and allowing the child to have privacy. Coben uses his friends’ personal experiences to support his argument without leaving room for counterarguments. By using strong emotional appeals, weak qualifiers, and sugary word choice Coben creates a weak argument that lacks persuasion.
Harlan Coben’s essay “The Undercover Parent” attempts to enlighten readers, specifically parents, of the benefits to installing spyware onto their children’s computers in order to keep record of their child’s online activity. Whilst admitting at first he was not particularly keen on spyware himself, Coben aims to persuade his audience of the benefits by highlighting the dangers of children using the internet unsupervised and without boundaries. However, Coben fails to supply factual evidence to back up his claims, all while stating a number of contradictions within his own arguments. Coben states, “…overprotective parents fight their kids’ battles on the playground, berate coaches about playing time and fill out college applications…” (19). This is a weak argument because it inadvertently suggests that overprotectiveness
Julie Lythcott-Haims’ article from Slate.com, “Kids of Helicopter Parents Are Sputtering Out,” is a recent article published on July 5 2015. Lythcott-Haims discusses the issues of mental health involving college students. Specifically, she is discussing the possible correlation of strict parental guidance—Helicopter or hovering parents--possibly affecting student’s life skills once they are on their own.
“Do you wish you’d grown up with your mom tracking your every move? If not don’t do it to your own kid.” states Lenore Skenazy in her persuasive article Tracking Kids like Felons. These words draw an immediate comparison to “the golden rule” or “treat others how you want to be treated.” In this article Skenazy evaluates a personal-tracking app called FamilySignal. As the readers we see the author’s take on this specific point in the very first sentence when she uses sarcasm on the word “safe.” Skenazy does not give too many facts but she does base most of her article off of morals, which may even be more persuasive. Even in today’s day and age tracking ones every step is definitely not ok, even with the advanced technology that we have.
The expansion of the Internet infrastructure across the world, has brought an increased audience. Which has provided expanded markets for businesses and exploited new opportunities. There are virtually countless social sites and media used by individuals to access and share experiences , content, insights, and perspectives. Parents today tend to believe they should spy on their kids online activity. I argue parents should respect the privacy of a child's social life and his/her internet activity.
The emotional support children receive from their parents in the early years of their lives can make an everlasting impact in how their fears develop and persist over the course of their lives. Take, for instance, a considerably difficult a child who received a nurturing amount of support from his parents in contrast with another little boy who was physically reprimanded for his antsy behavior. The first boy’s parent’s found tactful ways to allow their child to better handle his fears, consequently allowing him to forge a more functional life in the future. In opposition, the other child’s father, who hit him in efforts to stop his anxiety, ironically contributed to the child’s unwanted behavior, causing him to become more disruptive and disturbed in the
Kids now want to be more independent and have more freedom which might scare some if not most parents. A lot of parents look at the internet as a dangerous tool and not a tool where their kids can have some freedom. Although parents need to realize that they can’t protect their kids from all ...
Online predators, pornography, drug trafficking, piracy, and hate sites are just some of the dangers that a child can face on the internet. The article “The Undercover Parent” by Harlan Coben states that parents should use spyware to monitor their children. Coben argues that parents should be able to know what is in their children’s lives. he believes that spyware can prevent children from being targeted by internet predators on social networking sites and even prevent children from being cyber bullied. I agree with Coben’s claim that parents should consider using spyware as a protection for their teens online. There are many possible dangers facing children on the internet and it is essential that parents install spyware.
These parents might monitor their child’s activity online or constantly check their child’s texts. By doing this, they can really scare off their teenagers from talking to them, and make them anxious. They would constantly wonder if their parents were looking over their shoulder, watching everything they did. This would put a lot of emotional pressure on these teenagers, who are already dealing with lots of emotions through hormones and puberty changes. The children would begin to look for new ways to keep their life private from their parents, which can lead to things such as creating fake accounts to hide their activity online. This might lead to the children keeping more and more secrets from their parents, which, if revealed to said parents, can cause more problems in the relationship between parent and
Levine states “a child cannot possibly develop resilience when his parents are constantly at his side, interfering with the development of autonomy, self-management and coping skills” (Levine, 2008 p.77). She says, affluent children don’t have the practical tools needed to survive on their own, they haven’t learned how to deal with problems, and they value others opinions over their own (Levine, 2008 p5). When parents feel like they have to step in to protect the health and welfare of their adolescent child they leave the child feeling disrespected or untrustworthy by their protective parents. (Levine, 2008 P223).
Parental influences can negatively impact a child’s life. An example of this is in the novel
I do not agree with parents eavesdropping some private conversation between their child and their child’s friend. It invades the child’s privacy and it would make him/her feel absolutely down about it since he/she can’t be free from his/her parents. Even if the parents tell their children that they have set up the spyware on their computer, they will always find a way to talk to their Internet friends privately. In paragraph 9, Coben stated, ¨Second, everything your child types can already be seen by the world-- teachers, potential employers, friends, neighbors, future dates. Shouldn’t he learn now that the Internet is not a haven of privacy?¨ First of all, this has nothing to do with Spyware. It is a good argument, but it doesn’t have to do with the parents actually. It’s the boy’s fault to type scandalous things on the Internet and it is his decision to do that. He shouldn’t have done that in the first place to avoid getting into trouble. In paragraph 12, Coben wrote, ¨Yes. But text messages and cell phones don’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet.¨ I agree that it doesn’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet. Nevertheless, he must’ve forgotten that people have a power to cyber bully other people through texts. Above all, the people who have a great desire to upload it on the Internet, could receive the inappropriate cyber bully. Hence, it also shows the danger of being cyber bullied. In paragraph 13,
However, sensitive information that may be shared might later embarrass the children as they grow older and realize what is available on the internet. Such events may result in resentment and misunderstandings on both the children and the parents’ sides. According to Steinberg (2017) in “Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media,” there have been long-term issues and conflicts regarding parental sharing and whether children have the right to control what is shared about them. Another long-term problem raised by parental sharing is the idea of data collecting. Per “Children’s Privacy in the Big Data Era: Research Opportunities,” “These trends raise serious concerns about digital dossiers that could follow young people into adulthood, affecting their access to education, employment, healthcare, and financial services. Although US privacy law provides some safeguards for children younger than 13 years old online, adolescents are afforded no such protections” (Montgomery, Chester, & Milosevic, 2017, p.
These individuals feel that it is an invasion of the teenagers’ right to privacy and the development of their trustworthiness. Kay Mathieson states “only by giving children privacy will they come to see their thoughts as something that belongs to them – to which they have an exclusive right.” In the United States and according to the law, monitoring the internet usage of a minor does not break any laws and is a moral obligation of the parent. Trustworthiness is an important development of a child to learn in order to develop genuine relationships with others in the lifetime. “Not only does monitoring have the great potential to undermine the trust of the child in the parent, and thus to undermine trust in others more generally, it also has the potential to undermine the capacity of the child to be worth of trust” (Mathieson). If the parent has not already had conversations with the teenager about monitoring internet usage and the parent is not telling the child about the monitoring, there is already an issue with the development of trustworthiness in the teenager. There was already a failure of development of this skill before the internet or internet monitoring was introduced.