Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Verizon to Launch Mobile 'Chaperone' Service 427

Billosaur writes "CNET is reporting that Verizon will soon be offering a service (branded "Chaperone") which will allow parents to keep track of their cell phone-carrying children. Following on the heels of a similar service started by Sprint in April, the system will allow parents 'to set up geographic limits and receive text alerts if their children, who also carry phones, go too far from home. The service also lets parents check where their offspring are via a map on their cell phone or computer.' Disney will purportedly be offering a similar service when it begins selling mobile phones sometime this summer. It's 10pm -- do you know where you child's cell phone is?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon to Launch Mobile 'Chaperone' Service

Comments Filter:
  • It's 10pm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:08PM (#15518245)
    > It's 10pm -- do you know where you child's cell phone is?

    Does someone else know where your child is?

    • by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:09PM (#15518266) Homepage Journal
      I can't wait for the new Verizon commercials.

      Annoying Kid: Can you molest me now? Good.
    • Re:It's 10pm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elliotCarte ( 703667 )
      Does someone else know where your child is?
      Also, does your stalker know where YOU are? Someone could hide THEIR phone in your car or something and track YOU as well. They'd just need to pick the phone up later, which wouldn't be difficult to find!... Small world, huh? Fancy meeting you here... again... and again... and here... and there. Yes, indeed. It IS a VERY small world.
  • Big Daddy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:08PM (#15518247) Homepage
    which will allow parents to keep track of their cell phone-carrying children

    We are all NSA's children...

    • Re:Big Daddy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by OctoberSky ( 888619 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:12PM (#15518291)
      How long until we find out that every mobile phone has this feature and it has been activated by the NSA.
      Of course Verizon will say they were forced to submit the information to the NSA.

      -October Sky
      Cell phone free since 2003!
      • Re:Big Daddy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by timeOday ( 582209 )
        "Oh don't worry, we're only monitoring where you go, not what you do when you get there. It's just traffic analysis, so it doesn't fall under the 4th Ammendment."

        You read it here first.

      • Re:Big Daddy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:24PM (#15518395) Homepage
        How long until we find out that every mobile phone has this feature and it has been activated by the NSA.

        Consider part 1 of your question answered with "now". Every mobile phone has this feature.

        If you are within range of two or more cell towers, then your position can be triangulated. The more towers nearby, the more accurate the reading will be. It's simply the nature of cell phones as broadcast devices. You can't broadcast a signal without revealing your location.

        The second part is a different story. Whether or not any government agency has used this ability is unknown; whether it would be accurate enough for their purposes is unknown to me as well. Nevertheless they certainly could use it to at least roughly track you.

        So if you really don't want your location known, do what the teenagers with these phones will do: Turn it off. And when mom/the G-men pick you up and want to know why they couldn't track you, tell them you couldn't get any service.
        • by eln ( 21727 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:37PM (#15518486) Homepage
          If Law and Order has taught me anything, it's that this capability can be easily defeated simlpy by uploading a virus to the phone company's switches to make them think I'm coming in from different towers every time they check.

          Unfortunately, the cops will figure this out and disable the software after I bury my victim alive, but not before she actually dies, and my whole operation will be foiled.
        • whether it would be accurate enough for their purposes is unknown to me as well.

          For example, if they want to know what room you're in at the Budget-99 Motel, probably not.

          But if they want to

          • Produce "proof" that you've done something naughty because you were in a neighborhood where "naughty" is just one of many fine services they offer, in order to blackmail you
          • Drop a half ton of explosives on you, to kill you and anyone else who might be near you
          • Provide "credible intelligence" that you agree with /
          • ...then the resolution should be more than sufficient. (And before anyone cries that they would never do these sorts of things, they already do them. They just haven't gotten around to doing them to white US taxpayers. Yet.)

            How would you know? Blackmail is most sucessful when it goes unreported. If the blackmailer is some shadowy arm of government or the police who are you going to report it to?
            • ...then the resolution should be more than sufficient. (And before anyone cries that they would never do these sorts of things, they already do them. They just haven't gotten around to doing them to white US taxpayers. Yet.)

              How would you know? Blackmail is most sucessful when it goes unreported. If the blackmailer is some shadowy arm of government or the police who are you going to report it to?

              Are you telling me you've never heard of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI? Thanks to the FOIA, we now at least know

    • > > which will allow parents to keep track of their cell phone-carrying children
      >
      > We are all NSA's children...

      What the government taketh away, the government also giveth. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

      When the federal government drops a $100M unfunded liability in your lap to set up a citizen tracking system, you've gotta recoup your expenses somehow.

      Lobbyists: Reaming out the last scrapes of pulp from the lemon since at least a generation before 9/11.

  • by tekiegreg ( 674773 ) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:09PM (#15518256) Homepage Journal
    1) Tell parent you are going to a friends house...
    2) At friend's house, tie Cellphone to family dog (make 'em think you're actually there and moving around)
    3) ???
    4) Profit!!!
    • The profit comes when some enterprising youngster figures out he can charge money to carry around his deviant friends' cellphones for the evening, maybe even send a text message every once in a while to complete the scenario.

      Or better yet, have a bunch of prepaid cell phones, which you loan out to people to use while you're carrying around their parentally-supplied one. After all, nobody wants to be without a phone: it's uncool.

      I look forward to watching the segment on CBS where they interview some kid who's doing this and everyone acts surprised that kids can actually think for themselves.
      • and if you set up call forwarding when you do the hand off.. well no one will even know. :)

        this is how guys at the office keep there US numbers when they are inthe UK..
      • Scenario-- It is ten oclock. Your kid asks you if he could spend another hour at his friends house for whatever reason. Because of this system you know that he is there and not in the front yard of some keg party somewhere... so you let him hang out a little longer. What is so bad about this?
        • by fooDfighter ( 916234 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @02:23PM (#15518868)
          Nothing, but if you can't trust your kids even a little I think underage drinking will be the least of your worries.

          Moreover I don't expect that a generation raised using surveillance will be particularly upset by increased government surveillance in their adult years. Or maybe that's the whole point.
        • Simple (Score:3, Insightful)

          by aepervius ( 535155 )
          It is as bad as having a permanent leash. I dunno for you, but having such a leash on me around my teen would have pushed me to rebellion (or rather a head on conflict), defiance toward my parents, and even complete and uter distrust. After all why should i trust somebody which do not trust me a bit. Trust is to be shared and exchanged. it ain't a one sided issue (unless you are waaaay naive). Worst case scenario if you are a leash for your whole teenage, you do not get to experience by yourself , and even
        • Because of this system you know that he is there and not in the front yard of some keg party somewhere... so you let him hang out a little longer. What is so bad about this?

          Because of this system, you believe that his phone is at his friend's house. You have no idea that the system is accurately reporting his position, or that the phone is actually in his possession. While you can probably safely assume that the position of the phone will be reported accurately, the latter is probably a bad assumption.

          If y

      • If the parents are such that they will allow Verizon or Sprint or whoever to spy on the kid's location for them, I don't think it would be unbelievable if those parents sued the pants off of whoever had their kid's mobile when something happens to that kid.
        • And that kid will be like "yeah good luck sueing me"
          And the parents will either A: have no money, so a lawsuit is meaningless...or B: have lots of money and will basically destroy the idiot family
      • I believe this kid-tracking service was previously (c. 2000) marketed to parents in Europe, then subsequently the ability to turn it off was marketed to the kids.
        • I believe this kid-tracking service was previously (c. 2000) marketed to parents in Europe, then subsequently the ability to turn it off was marketed to the kids.

          War is good for business. Selling to both sides, doubly so.

    • by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:50PM (#15518599)
      You can't do this with a cat.

      My god, according to GPS, Johnny hasn't moved in hours. I think he's dead!
  • by raitchison ( 734047 ) <robert@aitchison.org> on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:09PM (#15518259) Homepage Journal
    Seriously, the kids will know this kind of watching is being done and will either turn off their phone or leave it behind (or ata friends house inside the "permitted area".

    Then if the kids really get into trouble they won't have the option of calling for help.

    Sounds like a great plan to me.
    • Seriously, the kids will know this kind of watching is being done and will either turn off their phone or leave it behind (or ata friends house inside the "permitted area".

      Except the service will be linked to an RFID chip planted inside the pain center of the child's brain. Then, if they get further than 5 feet from their cellphone or roam outside the allowed area, a jolt of pain sensation can be sent directly through their body. Think of it as a giant invisible fence!

    • Obviously this technology would fail for teenagers. I think the intended audiance is that of parents with younger kids.
      • That reminds me of the new japanese watches with cellphone capabilities. Now imagine a future with watches transmitting the kids' pulse to their parents to make sure they're fine and not in danger (and NOT having sex! Teenagers will of course HATE this one :P )
    • Seriously, the kids will know this kind of watching is being done and will either turn off their phone or leave it behind (or ata friends house inside the "permitted area". Then if the kids really get into trouble they won't have the option of calling for help.

      It's funny but I was thinking late last week that I would like to implant a GPS in my kids. They're quite young at the moment and would not be able to use a cell phone or other device to alert me to their location. When they play, they play in t

      • That's why a "child-locator" device would be so wonderful to have. Think about all the kids that walk home from school and such. I think this is a great idea. Pop the phone in their backpack or put it in their pocket and make sure it's recharged every night and never turned off. I would punish my kids for turning it off for sure.

        Add to that some form of "panic button", so they could send the folks an instant SOS with their location, and this turns into quite a useful service.

    • by birge ( 866103 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:41PM (#15518511) Homepage
      I'm sure the people at Verizon have thought about this a little longer than you give them credit for. For one, the parents will be able to call the cell phone when they want, and bust the kid if he's not there. Any sufficiently clever parent will call at least once to check up on the kid, or establish a precedent of making it likely. Second, Verizon can alert parents when the number is forwarded, or disable forwarding of the number. There's really no way around that without unbelievably serious hacking. And if my kid could do that, then I'd be happy to let him go to where ever the hell he wants to go!
  • Where can I check the maps?

    This brings a whole new meaning to those "find available women in your area" banner ads.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    but children have no rights. Oh well.
    • by minion ( 162631 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:45PM (#15518551)
      but children have no rights. Oh well.
       
      This used to irritate me so much when I was under 18. It still irritates me, because no where in the constitution does it say anywhere, "these rights are only applicable to those 18 years old or older".
       
      What I find amusing is that a lot of emperors of China, etc, in centuries past were 13 years old. Somehow, recently, we decided an individual is too stupid to think for themselves until they turn 18.
       
      I think most can agree on here, age is no determining factor for intelligence - look at our politicians - most of them are in their 40s, and still brain dead.
      • What I find amusing is that a lot of emperors of China, etc, in centuries past were 13 years old.

        Don't consider this as implying even the remotest knowledge of Chinese history, but were any of these 13-year-old emperors actually running the empire vs simply being crowned while adult aides ran the show?

        Somehow, recently, we decided an individual is too stupid to think for themselves until they turn 18.

        No, not true. 18 is not the age at which we believe you are no longer too stupid to take care of yourself
      • Somehow, recently, we decided an individual is too stupid to think for themselves until they turn 18.

        Most, unfortunately, are still too stupid to think for themselves at this age and much older.
  • by ajiva ( 156759 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:11PM (#15518275)
    Seriously when I was growing up my parents never had any of this technology and yet they managed to keep me out of trouble. While I agree the world is a different place, and there are lots of new and different problems, it all boils down to the parents taking an active role in the child's life. Things like asking the kids how their day went, what sorts of issues they had, things that let the kid know that home is a safe place. Or how about
    making time to have dinner together, or helping with the homework or the millions of other things families should do together.

    Is this hard to do, hell yes. But nobody ever said life was easy, and in the long run spending time with your kids will be worth it. Remember it works both ways, when the parents are old and need someone to talk to, the children will be there.
    • Seriously when I was growing up my parents never had any of this technology and yet they managed to keep me out of trouble. While I agree the world is a different place, and there are lots of new and different problems, it all boils down to the parents taking an active role in the child's life. Things like asking the kids how their day went, what sorts of issues they had, things that let the kid know that home is a safe place. Or how about making time to have dinner together, or helping with the homework or the millions of other things families should do together.

      But in this age of two parents working, those kinds of things don't happen anymore. I spend 12 hours out of my day commuting and working. I get maybe 4-5 hours of sleep a night; the rest of the time is spent trying to pay bills, fix the house, make dinner (occasionally), take children to events/activities, etc. There's precious little time enough to have a true family dinner let alone quality time where a family can be together and share ideas and exchange thoughts. Heck, it's hard enough just getting my kids to sit down for a meal, and they aren't even teenagers yet.

      Maybe some would see this as a panacea or a substitute for poor parenting, but it might prove a boon to parents who can't be available as often as they'd like and still want to be able to watch their kids no matter where they are.

      • But in this age of two parents working, those kinds of things don't happen anymore. I spend 12 hours out of my day commuting and working. I get maybe 4-5 hours of sleep a night; the rest of the time is spent trying to pay bills, fix the house, make dinner (occasionally), take children to events/activities, etc. There's precious little time enough to have a true family dinner let alone quality time where a family can be together and share ideas and exchange thoughts. Heck, it's hard enough just getting my ki
        • by TheDarkener ( 198348 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:47PM (#15518571) Homepage
          Dual income households have become mandatory in most areas unless you're part of the relatively privileged few who can afford to have a spouse stay home and still maintain a roof over their heads and food on the table.

          "Priviliged few"? Like people are 'chosen' to be priviliged.

          Seriously. I don't have kids, so you won't listen to a word I say most likely, but I'll say it anyway:

          YOU make your OWN life. Nobody TELLS you who to be or how to live. And if they do, you need to change that. You're in control of your life - not your wife/husband, not your kids. Get some guts and start making your own decisions. If you're living somewhere where it's necessary to fix your house and pay for your 12MPG SUV, then maybe you should relocate and find alternate means to travel.

          Nobody is locking you into your lifestyle, you're just acting a scapegoat because it's easier to accept than to change.
        • by onkelonkel ( 560274 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:56PM (#15518636)
          Our new neighbors moved into our white collar suburb, from a not too distant blue collar suburb. They went from owning, clear title, a big 4 bedroom house, to buying a much smaller house with a $250k mortgage. The wife couldn't stay home with the kids any more, and had to go back to work full time, the kids into afterschool day care and the husband switched shifts so he could be home when the kids got up.

          I couldn't figure out why they would go through all this just to get into a neighborhood they could barely afford. Then the mom explained that at the school they moved away from, parent volunteers had to clean the kids playground every morning and pick up all the discarded needles and used condoms before the kids came out to play.

          Sometimes it isn't about the SUV and the plasma TV.
        • Dual income households have become mandatory in most areas unless you're part of the relatively privileged few who can afford to have a spouse stay home and still maintain a roof over their heads and food on the table.

          Waaaaah! Someone put a gun to my head and forced my lifestyle upon me!

          I mean, seriously... how much does it really cost to "keep a roof over 2 people and keep them fed" in a normal "middle class" neighborhood? One could live quite comfortably for under $2000 a month, which is just over $11 a
      • Kids never see their parents...you said it yourself, there is hardly any time TO BE A FAMILY. Hope your kids turn out OK.
      • by hyfe ( 641811 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @02:31PM (#15518932)
        But in this age of two parents working, those kinds of things don't happen anymore. I spend 12 hours out of my day commuting and working. I spend 12 hours out of my day commuting and working.

        Come again? You are two people working; You don't need long work-days. You don't need jobs with good pay, you need jobs with adequate pay. Seriously, find regular 8-hour work, preferably close to where you live.

        I mean, maybe you'll drop 20-30% in pay in the process, but you'll have time to actually enjoy life and actually meet your family.. and sleep occasionally :). Work is for getting for money you can spend on your freetime. Work is not your life.

        .. and before you say this is easy for me to say; you are right, it is really easy. Just as easy as doing it. There's nothing holding you back besides you... and your own preconceived notions of having to compete for having the biggest salary, having the least time to enjoy said money and having wasted the money on the most amount of crap you can show to friends in order to impress them with how successfull and well-adjusted you are. Free your mind :)

      • by DM9290 ( 797337 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @02:45PM (#15519045) Journal
        The problem in this "age" isn't a lack of time. It is that too many people accept it as entirely normal that you should have "precious little time enough to have a true family dinner let alone quality time where a family can be together and share ideas and exchange thoughts."

        We should not be finding ways to make slavery more convenient. We should demand the right to have the opportunity to raise our children PROPERLY OURSELVES.
        I wont even get into the moral issue of whether or not a parent even has any right to force their child to carry a homing device.

    • by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:43PM (#15518538)
      You make good points. I am the primary carer for my to children (my wife works 4 days a week, I work one day a week, and a couple of hours via e-mail and IM each evening) and we do all those things - have meals together do lots of activities, read etc.

      My kids are much too young for this - the oldest is three, and yet I am interested in this service. Let's face it - it's absolutely no good as tool to attempt enforcement - any smart kid will simply circumvent it.

      But it may (I haven't decided yet) be a useful tool to allow the kids a bit more freedom where there is a good degree of trust between child and parent.

      So, for example if my kids, when they are 8 or so want to go and play in the park by themselves or go to a friends house just down the road, I may sit them down and say 'yes, but with one condition - I'm going to worry about you, so please take this with you and keep it switched on. That way if I need you back home, I can call you, if you have a problem you can call me, and it will also let me know where it is roughly, so don't leave it lying around. Do you agree?'

      Playing with your kids is great, letting them explore by themselves is important too. Personally, I like the idea of them being able to play and make dens in the woods near our house, but I'm a worrying dad. This technology used wisely might be able to help us all out, we'll see.

      But as a tool of control? Stupid idea.

  • Really Smart (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:11PM (#15518279)
    Great idea. Now, when your child is thinking about doing something less than smart, they will also intentionally NOT take their cell phone with them.
    • Great idea. Now, when your child is thinking about doing something less than smart, they will also intentionally NOT take their cell phone with them.

      Thus continuing the fine tradition of Charles Darwin. So what's the problem?

  • How to defeat it: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Farrside ( 78711 )
    1. Teen sets up Call Forwarding on their number, forwarding to a friend's non-tracked phone.
    2. Teen LEAVES their tracked phone within set boundaries.
    3. Teen goes where teen wants, able to intercept calls from the folks on the other phone.
    4. Profit! Or at least an unlimited party region...
  • I called it my mom's voice. If she called out to me and I was out of hearing range she'd instigate the hew and cry by voice and telephone. It was alarmingly effective.

    "You'd better get home right now. You're mom's looking for you."

  • It's a service, if you don't like it either don't get it or put your tinfoil hat on the phone! I for one would probably use this, at least a little. My children aren't old enough yet, but this would be useful to spot-check on them periodically to be sure that the trust should still be there.

    Also useful in emergencies of course.

    • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 )
      It's a service, if you don't like it either don't get it or put your tinfoil hat on the phone!

      Some of us - Even adults for a good many years now - Believe that kids have some right to privacy. Personal experience demonstrated to me, at least, that the more controlling someone's parents acted, the worse that person turned out. You can let them know that they can always turn to you for help, but you can't actually do their thinking for them.

      Therefore, you can either have them learn to think while still
      • Some of us - Even adults for a good many years now - Believe that kids have some right to privacy. Personal experience demonstrated to me, at least, that the more controlling someone's parents acted, the worse that person turned out. You can let them know that they can always turn to you for help, but you can't actually do their thinking for them.
        Using this technology is not necessarily "acting controlling". Acting controlling is a matter of how it is used.
    • This is a fact of life. Your kid will lie about where he is going.

      They will set up alibi's to cover this. They will now just have to leave their phone at their alibi's house.

      It is a fact of life...

      You might as well A) Accept that they will lie about where they are going at times. B) Never even start with trust because it will be broken
  • Lets see,

    Ways to beat the system

    1/ Don't turn the phone on (sorry Mum, the battery went flat)

    2/ Leave the phone at a safe location while you go elsewhere (sorry Mum, I had the ringer turned off soo I wouldn't annoy people near me)

    Can anyone think of anymore ways?
  • by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:12PM (#15518296)
    Ways around it:

    1) Turn off your cell phone.
    2) Leave it somewhere.
    3) Pay some kid to carry it around (making it look like you're still moving)
    4) Hang out in tunnels.
    5) Line pockets with tin foil.
    6) Get better parents.

    If the kid doesn't want their parents to know where they are... then the parent's won't know where they are. All the company is doing is marketing a product to paranoid and overly-protective parents.

    However... that being said it does have some merits for emergency situations, knowing where to pick your kid up from, and it could be a fun project to map the paths of a group/herd of friends.
    • All the company is doing is marketing a product to paranoid and overly-protective parents.

      Isn't like 98% or so of ALL marketing based on fear*? So, how is this any different?

      * fear to get hurt, sick, be different, not cool, etc.
    • You missed one; break it.

      Or even, pay some other kid for the one he broke, and present the broken phone to your parents, who will refuse to get you a new (non-spying one), while selling your working unit, and using the cash left over to buy a non-spying phone!
    • 6) Get better parents.

      Parent 95 and Parent 98 crash all the time because they drink too much. Parent ME is terrible in every way. Parent NT is always in the hospital with the flu. Parent XP is somewhat better, but still has viruses and crashes. Parent Vista will never be released and has even worse DRM. Also, it constantly annoys people with safety warnings. MacParent Pro is too expensive. It wants to eat caviar and drive a Porsche. MacParent Mini looks stupid - I'm taller than it is!

      So, when does
    • I think it may work for the parents who aren't control freaks, don't try to use it for routine monitoring, but do use it to help get leads on where to find their children if they are unexpectedly very late and unreachable.

      I think it won't work for parents who try to use it to keep minute-by-minute tabs on their children and fly off the handle with rage any time their child appears, from the information it provides, to have broken a parentally-imposed rule.

  • I guess it is a good way to keep kids from taking advantage of all of those free off peak minutes and it will probably encourage them to get their own personal phones the parents don't know about.

    So it's a big win: charge parents for an extra service and then make money off of the kids who need to buy cellphones to carry with them when they leave their tracking devices at the house of the friend they say they are "with".
  • . . . when the phone is shut off so that Mommy and Daddy does not know that little 11-yr-old Bobby went with Sally to see the foo boy band's concert in the next county? "Uh, yeah mom, see, the battery in my phone went dead, and I, uh, popped my bicyle tire? Yeah, that's it. My bicycle tire popped, and, uh, because my phone was dead I couldn't call home, and, uh, I had to make like the professor and rig up a tube patch kit and a tire pump from bamboo and a couple of coconuts."
  • c'mon. If you NEED this service because you don't know where your kid is, your kid already has the solution figured out.

    What's that, you say?
     
     

    *** We're sorry, but the subscriber you have requested is not currently connected to the network.

  • Considering Verizon's crappy coverage in my area, I think the young delinquents here are perfectly invisible.
  • The thing is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alnjmshntr ( 625401 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:17PM (#15518335)
    this is not really for tracking your children, that's just the cover story. More likely be used for tracking spouses - without their knowledge, of course.
    • Re:The thing is (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gbjbaanb ( 229885 )
      lol. quite right. I implemented a mobile tracking utility for a breakdown service here in the UK (so when you called the call centre, they could figure out where you were even if you had no idea).

      First thing that happened.. one woman did the location lookup 50 times... yup, her boyfriends' mobile.

      Second thing, the manager's wife had her handbag stolen, with mobile in it (and housekeys and address). He tracked the bag to see if the burglars were heading towards his house. (they weren't, the bag moved in the
  • Well, this makes me want to cancel my Verizon serice. Seriously.

    Seriously, this is just gonna cause a lot of trouble- Now, kids aren't gonna take their cell phones with them when they're going to do something stupid. Somebody gets hurt, nobody's gonna have a phone to call for help. Way to go, Verizon.

    Oh well, I've been wanting to change services for a while now. The iN network is great, but it's the only reason to have Verizon service (instead of Sprint or something else). They cripple their phones like he

  • house....wow what sort of idiot would actually buy this?

    Clue for parents, your kids are going to lie about where they are going, you wont stop that ever. Just set reasonable limits that will be somewhat broken but that your kids dont go TOO far over the line.

    Rules will be broken, but it just depends how badly, and tracking on a cellphone sure as shit isnt gonna do anything.
  • Such hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doches ( 761288 ) <{Doches} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:28PM (#15518421)

    For years, I've found it astounding the amount of discrimination modern kids face. At school, their civil rights are limited; High school students are subject to what, if placed in any other context, would be blatantly illegal search and seizure. Federal law required that internet access at public high schools (and, for that matter, at public libraries) to be filtered for inappropriate content.

    This is really no different. Many Americans were furious to discover that the NSA had recently obtained their cell phone records, yet how many EFF members will raise a complaint against this system? None. Why? Because it's OK to discriminate against kids & students.

    Think about it. Afraid your kids will be negatively influenced by some content on the internet? Were you warped by exposure to foul language, racism, and pornography when you were in high school? I bet I know the answer to both of those questions, and I bet they're not the same.

    Read around on http://www.peacefire.org/ [peacefire.org]. Again, think about it.

    Disclaimer: For what it's worth, I'm 20. It's been years since I endured any discimination because of my age.

    • I'm 20. It's been years since I endured any discimination because of my age.
      20 eh? try to rent any cars lately?
    • Re:Such hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by P3NIS_CLEAVER ( 860022 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:44PM (#15518542) Journal
      Yeah, like when I was a kid and wanted to sleep over my friends house my bitch of a mom would speak with the other parent to make sure that it was okay. How fucking intrusive was that?
    • Federal law required that internet access at public high schools (and, for that matter, at public libraries) to be filtered for inappropriate content.

      Actually, Federal law does *not* require this across the board. It only requires it if the school or library applies for Federal funds. Kind of like the 55 mph speed limit - if you set a higher limit, you lost 10% of your highway funds or whatever.

      -b.

    • Re:Such hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      This is really no different. Many Americans were furious to discover that the NSA had recently obtained their cell phone records, yet how many EFF members will raise a complaint against this system? None. Why? Because it's OK to discriminate against kids & students.

      I buy a cell phone. I track the cell phone I bought and pay the monthly fee on. Next you'll be telling me that using OnStar for directions makes me violate my own rights, since I shouldn't know where my car is. This isn't a problem regar
    • Re:Such hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

      Because it's OK to discriminate against kids & students.

      It is.

      For all intents and purposes anything from a viable fetus to [your state's semi-arbitrary age] are treated as quasi-property.

      This status does not change until [your state's semi-arbitrary age] or a court says otherwise. This is why (in many states) 16 & 17 yr old runaways can spend a night in juvie before being given a police escort back to their parents, even if they do not want to go home.

      If the State decides that your parents are unfit

  • I'm guessing there's going to be some sort of account system so that people aren't able to track anyone they like, but I'd like to hear about a lot more safety with something like this. It's for safety, and yet it seems to me like they just put together the paedophile killer app. Track those kids! They're not at home! Meet new strangers!

    Or what about tracking spouses, or siblings, or parents. Is my phone going to have a special 'kid' chip that I can turn on and off so that I can't be tracked by this
  • by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday June 12, 2006 @01:31PM (#15518438) Homepage Journal
    For heaven's sake, think of the children!!!

    For heaven's sake, don't think of the identical chips in your own phone!!!
  • Mr. and Mrs. Lester -

    Your son/daughter from Michigan, USA is currently in:
    Amman, Jordan [wndu.com]

    Would you like driving directions to her location?
  • This service is being put in place primarily to:

    - BENIFIT CELL PHONE COMPANIES.

    This service will be of no real benefit as:

    - Children have brains as adults do
    - Children do not like to be 'leashed' as adults do not
    - Children are smarter than adults think and therefore will circumvent the system by any number of obvious means

    The ultimate outcome of this service will be:

    - Human tracking will be more accepted in society
    - Human tracking will continue to be precise only in governmental/highly paid commercial insta
  • So now kids will leave their phone somewhere and just go without it. Then if they really get into trouble they'll be without a phone. Also, does this work if the phone is off? If not, I'd just always claim I was going to the movies, go the direction of the theater, turn off the phone and then do whatever I wanted for five hours, cause I saw two shows. :-) Justin
  • Car alarm syndrome (Score:2, Interesting)

    by boyfaceddog ( 788041 )
    After the first 200 calls to 911 that "Tommy's cell phone has disapeared" (only to reappear an hour later when Tommy comes up from his freind's basement) the cops will stop replying to any calls based on this service.

    Utterly useless unless you want to find a lost/stolen cell phone which just happened to be left on.
  • While a lot of comments here have focussed on shortcomings that will undermine this system as used as a system of disciplinary control for children; used in a more restrained manner in a family that otherwise has good trust and communications, it could have good emergency uses. And not just for children -- I certainly wouldn't mind my wife having the additional information it would provide in the event of something happening to me. Now, of course, there are privacy concerns about keeping the information fr
  • Thins won't work as a tracker if the kid doesn't want to be tracked and will have devastating consequences for family relationships if the parent insists on their children using it. First off kids are smart. This system needs power to work so simply taking the battery out of the phone will make the child impossible to track. If this is similar to other tracking systems it will still work if the phone is switched off but take out the battery and there's no way to track it. For those kids that can't figure
  • Step 1: Enable call forwarding, forward to a friends cell.
    Step 2: Leave phone a site of the 'slumber party'
    Step 3: Rave all night, secure in the knowledge that Verizon is reporting you at Sally's slumber party while you do cocktails of meth and ecstasy in the middle of the desert.

Dreams are free, but you get soaked on the connect time.

Working...