| "I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous to suggest that kids lack the intellectual sophistication to evaluate the consequences of using our app whilst simultaneously suggesting that they are fully capable of evaluating all the dangers in the world that they inhabit: " Since I never made that suggestion, I don't have to defend it. Your "kids live in a dangerous world they can be protected from my constant surveillance" is an argument/frame you added not something I said. You are taking one part of my argument, adding some bits you thought up and creating a false dichotomy. What I said. (1) Kids don't have as much intellectual sophistication as adults to see through the wiles of product marketing folks. (2) Kids are not in a position of equality of power with parents. This is ok in general and is only an issue with folks like you use the "but kids opt in too" as an argument. "Consent" is dicey in a situation of unequal power. In other words I am thinking your "opt in" argument is weak. Now that is what I said. Where is the disingenuousness again? The rest of it is your frame. The following is your opinion not mine - (1)Kids live in a very dangerous world and are at high risk of bad things happening to them unless they can be monitored constantly. (2) Parents can protect them by tracking them constantly (and letting some random company store and process this data) What I think (a) Most kids don't live in an an ultra dangerous world, Sure there are dangerous parts of the world. Most kids do just fine avoiding those. (b) Parents who are constantly worried about their kids being abducted or killed or whatever and need to spy on them to reassure themselves and have to bribe them with phones to get their "consent" to be spied upon are probably paranoid. (c) irrespective of the "danger level" of the world, constant surveillance by parents is not the solution.(This is the same argument governments make when they try to reduce privacy of their citizens _ "See there are all these terrorists out there and dangerous things may heppen to you when we are not looking so we have to snoop on you for your own good. If you aren't doing anything sinister what is your problem anyway?". Sure it is a good scare tactic, but hardly a sound argument. (d) Whether constant surveillance by parents actually reduces any existing danger is yet to be shown. You are only addressing the paranoia not the danger. (e) All of this this has nothing to do with your product reducing the kids privacy to essentially zero from some non zero value, (sure "just to protect them" ;-) ). I am trying to give you feedback honestly (since this is HN. I wouldn't bother elsewhere) Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, now I am getting dubious about you guys personally. You are meeting honest feedback with mis characterization. Not a good sign. I am done talking to you gentlemen. Have a great day and Good Luck with your company. |