Google releases smart watch for kids • Hacker News Board

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#581

Post by locococo » Thu, May 30, 2024, 9:52 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #576

locococo wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in europe, and I had two instances where I came close to being abducted as a kid. You are naive if you think parents are overreacting. once you become the statistic the statistic is meaningless to you

I don't see how a wristwatch tracker would have helped, though. Nowadays I'm sure potential kidnappers are well aware that kids often have some kind of tracking device on them (smartwatch, smartphone, AirTag, etc.), and will quickly get rid of any such devices before taking an abducted child with them.

It would have helped because I was walking home from my music lessons. My dad was supposed to pick me up but he was late. This was before cell phones were widely available and I was about 10 years old.

Predators don't just snatch you up like in some movie, they watch their targets first, or lure them away.

People/children have a gut feeling when something is not right and can call for help.

Will it be 100% effective, no, but it will drastically improve response times just by knowing the exact/last location.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#582

Post by dspillett » Thu, May 30, 2024, 9:52 AM UTC

bagels wrote: post #542

scotty79 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't phone numbers longer than they used to be?

Yes, in 1920 they were shorter.

My parent's number growing was initially 77099, though it later became 577099 when the numbering system was tinkered with to allow for growth and efficiency at the exchanges. This was only as far back as the 90s, and such short numbers still work for landline-to-landline calls today. I don't have a landline, and if I did I'm not home enough for it to be a useful way o get hold of me. My numbers now are 11 digits, not as easy to drum into the head of a kid I expect (I don't speak from direct experience: child-free and planning to stay that way, but I know many people with kids at various ages).

OK, technically my parent's number was 10 digits rather than 5 because it was 577099, but that didn't matter as I'd almost always be local to that code, and if not could state my home town if talking to an adult who was doing the calling (or if I'd dialled the operator number, which I'd need to do anyway for a revere-charges call) and they'd know that bit.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#583

Post by gizmo » Thu, May 30, 2024, 9:53 AM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #316

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

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…

> This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. This topic is always so alarmist. I have kids and a spouse. We all have Find My and Location Sharing on our phones. I don't FrEaK oUt that my kids are going to die if I'm not tracking their every movement. But it's nice to glance at Find My app and see if the k…

No adult would share their location with uber 24/7 so pickups would get marginally more convenient. Living under constant surveillance is bad psychologically, even when the surveillance itself is benign. Being able to lie to your parents about your whereabouts gives children valuable freedom even if they never exercise it.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#584

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 30, 2024, 9:57 AM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #414

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord. As I recall, a big part of growing up was spending time and doing things my parents didn’t want me to do. The idea of them tracking me is super creepy, as is tracking one’s spouse for that matter.

“Tracking” is a scare word. The ability to see where my spouse is, when needed, without having to call or send a text, is a convenience. There’s nothing wrong with not sharing your location with your spouse if you don’t want to, but there’s also nothing weird about doing so. Neither of us “cares” one bit where the other is, but it’s frequently useful to know.

[deleted]

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#585

Post by locococo » Thu, May 30, 2024, 9:58 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #332

locococo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am speaking from experience as a father of two. The watch teaches the kids to reach out when they feel overwhelmed. They are fully in control of their own destiny. They don't always end up where they planned they were going and that is perfectly ok for me because they can reach me if there is an issue.

I will note that a way to reach out does not need to involve location tracking capabilities.

My kids spend a lit if time outside, riding bikes running around the forest...

If they have an accident it's useful to be able to get to them quickly.

Please spare me a response about the qualities of facing adversity and walking home 3 miles with a broken collar bone.

If you lack the imagination of how location information is useful then that is ok. Companies offer it because it is, and people want it

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#586

Post by kelnos » Thu, May 30, 2024, 9:59 AM UTC

eks391 wrote: post #230

thinkingkong wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its weird the types of sacrifices we expect kids to make with regards to survival. Like when a school shooting happens we wouldnt event consider banning assault rifles. Those kids dont survive. But if having a tracker on your kid marginally increases their chance for survival in the rarest of circumstances it’s totally out of the question to not have it.

Do you know what an 'assault' rifle is? I only heard that term used by people who want them banned, who usually think this means automatic weapons, like the other commonly misused term machine gun. The correct term that 'assault' has become an umbrella for is semi-automatic. That means 1 bullet shot for every 1 time the trigger is pulled. There are technically other guns, like pump-action, that require literal pumpin…

Not the person you're replying to, but I fully support repealing the 2nd amendment and strictly regulating gun ownership, up to and including total bans on certain classes of firearms, magazines, and ammunition. I would also personally have no problem with a total ban on any kind of firearm ownership, but I don't think the evidence supports that a total ban would make us meaningfully safer than more targeted restrictions and regulations. But for the guns we might allow in my fantasy of a US with sane gun laws, every gun owner should be required to take both a safety course and general training course, and complete a practical skills exam before being licensed (yes, licensed) to own a firearm. That training should have to be repeated (perhaps an abbreviated version) at some reasonable interval, such as every year or two.

Regarding your nitpicking of what "assault" means, that's irrelevant. But to discuss it anyway: "assault weapon" has not become an umbrella for any semi-auto weapon. Semi-auto pistols, for example, are not what people are talking about when they want "assault" weapons banned. For people who don't really know much about guns, "assault weapon" means "a type of gun that someone in the military on a TV show or movie might have slung across their chest". An imprecise definition, to be sure, but in general I'd agree that no random civilian has any need for such a weapon. And any civilian who believes they have an actual need for such a weapon probably should not be trusted with one.

I do know people who own some of these types of guns. They're responsible, train, and treat the weapons with the respect and care they are due. But I still don't think they should have them.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#587

Post by kelnos » Thu, May 30, 2024, 10:01 AM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #281

vineyardmike wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird to think as a society that we can build a walled garden around human nature. We literally can. We built lane assistance and airbags and cars that sometimes self drive because humans naturally are bad drivers. We created fire alarms and automatic sprinklers because sometimes people forget about the thing in the oven. We invented medication for mental illness and obesity. We invented padded rooms and rehab…

> We invented padded rooms Precisely. > Guns are one of the most dangerous things a person can own Actually it's an extension ladder. > any other weapon is a lot easier to stop and a lot harder to kill with. Where's your can do spirit now? We literally invented metal detectors and have dogs that can smell guns and explosives because sometimes mentally unwell people have weapons. > That’s why other places don’t have t…

>> Guns are one of the most dangerous things a person can own

> Actually it's an extension ladder.

Fair point, but I think it's more useful to consider that an extension ladder is a tool designed for non-violent uses, and deaths involving extension ladders are (nearly?) all due to accidents.

Guns are tools designed to inflict injury and death. While many gun deaths are accidental, the guns in those instances are performing to purpose.

> We literally invented metal detectors and have dogs that can smell guns and explosives because sometimes mentally unwell people have weapons.

I don't particularly want to live in a world where we have to have metal detectors and dogs present at the entrance to any decent-sized building. That sounds pretty dystopian.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#588

Post by ngrilly » Thu, May 30, 2024, 10:05 AM UTC

altacc wrote: post #521

gofreddygo wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh jeez. I'm so glad i had none of this goofy tracking gump growing up. If teenage me had something that tracked every location, and I knew it, and my friends had them on too, I'd probably miss out on a lot of stuff I cherish. I had time limits, and a hard immovable low budget that made a lot of the bad stuff impossible. The rest was up to us to figure out and learn and improvise as we go. I'm better for those learni…

I agree with you that tracking as a teenager is not ideal, although teenagers track each other's locations incessantly at least they should be free from their parents tracking. However this watch is aimed at younger children than teenagers. My kids started walking to school and friends houses at 7 and are still preteen. After school they can be anywhere as they'll go to a friend's house or just hang out somewhere for…

Where are you living? Asking because I think letting kids walk alone to/from school and friend's houses depends a lot on the culture of the city/country.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#589

Post by kelnos » Thu, May 30, 2024, 10:09 AM UTC

lawgimenez wrote: post #503

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

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…

My kid is non verbal with autism, this would be great for parents who has kids with special needs. Maybe you should try to be open minded perhaps.

Maybe you shouldn't assume that GP is talking about niche cases such as your example, but is instead talking about the kind of helicopter parent that would love something like this. Maybe assume the more charitable explanation that nearly everyone knows that pretty much every "rule" has exceptions, and nothing is absolute.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#590

Post by immibis » Thu, May 30, 2024, 10:17 AM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #316

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

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…

> This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. This topic is always so alarmist. I have kids and a spouse. We all have Find My and Location Sharing on our phones. I don't FrEaK oUt that my kids are going to die if I'm not tracking their every movement. But it's nice to glance at Find My app and see if the k…

You might not freak out that you don't have to track your kids all the time.

Your kids, however, freak out that you could be tracking them at any time. They are effectively barred from going anywhere that might not elicit parental approval, ALL THE TIME - not just when you are actually tracking them. It's the panopticon principle.

Depending on their age, this could have major effects on their development. If they are 6, it is probably fine - especially if they don't know you can track them. If they are 16, not so much.