Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…
> Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! It turns out times change. Before you think I’m disagreeing with the entirety of your comment, my own kids are the most free-range in-the-dirt kids I know. But it’s location-dependent. I trust cities and their people far less than wild animals.
No, they weren't, which is why this is a poor analogy. We discovered that seatbelts could save an enormous number of lives with minimal impact on individuals, so we mandated them.
With child safety it's difficult to get comparable numbers (overall crime spiked in the 90s, so it's difficult to say whether kids were less safe because they had less tracking or just that overall crime was higher then), a big reason experts give for the reduction in crime affecting kids is they're simply inside a whole lot more.
They'd be even safer if we just put them in a plastic bubble I guess.