Would you track your child's online activity?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s perfectly lawful for parents to monitor their children’s activities online and offline. They’re not monitoring your child’s activities, so your having a word with them for monitoring their own children’s activities isn’t likely to come to anything.

It's a written private communication though. As far as I can tell, if the sender does not consent the message being viewed by a third party, said third party can not legally read it, unless they believe the child to be in direct harm.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/print.html
Section 32 seems to limit legal access to parents (have NOT read the full act though, so open to correction!)

(Also, a child is defined as being 16 or under, so the 17 year old definitely has a case)

One eyed Jack

Strumms wrote: »

There isn’t the facility just to monitor your own child’s communications, there is the problem , because whomever is replying to them, their content is viewable too... that is not satisfactory. They have not given permission for their communications to be read by a third party...I’m betting their parents haven’t too.

That IS monitoring their own children’s communications. They’re not monitoring anyone else’s communications. Of course the other parties communications with their children are viewable, and parents don’t need any other parties consent to view anyone’s communications with their own children. It’s something I’ve always made my own child aware of - that any communications he sends or anything he shares, he has no control over who else sees those communications. It’s unsurprisingly effective in making him think twice about how he communicates with other people and who he communicates with.

Car99

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Under 12 possibly, if they are monitoring over that age the parents must have mental health issues, they should have stuck to having a dog or cat to control.

Do you have kids? Do you think a 12 year old should have unregulated access to the internet and communication with other people of any age?

Strumms

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That IS monitoring their own children’s communications. They’re not monitoring anyone else’s communications. Of course the other parties communications with their children are viewable, and parents don’t need any other parties consent to view anyone’s communications with their own children. It’s something I’ve always made my own child aware of - that any communications he sends or anything he shares, he has no control over who else sees those communications. It’s unsurprisingly effective in making him think twice about how he communicates with other people and who he communicates with.

They are monitoring what is being sent by child A and child B. They can not obtain context of a conversation by looking up just one side of what’s said.

Most parents of child B I’m guessing wouldn’t be satisfied with that. I wouldn’t.

17 year old A could be speaking about their sister having a medical problem and worried about her, it’s meant for the eyes and mind of his friend, child B... all of a sudden a parent of child B is off gossiping outside the post office....

A private conversation is a private conversation.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's a written private communication though. As far as I can tell, if the sender does not consent the message being viewed by a third party, said third party can not legally read it, unless they believe the child to be in direct harm.

Anyone is mistaken if they imagine they should have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with a child, notwithstanding the fact that a child in many jurisdictions could never legally be held responsible for upholding such an agreement.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/print.html
Section 32 seems to limit legal access to parents (have NOT read the full act though, so open to correction!)

(Also, a child is defined as being 16 or under, so the 17 year old definitely has a case)

The DPA wouldn’t apply in circumstances between parents and their children though, because their parents aren’t data controllers for one thing. But apart from any concerns about any privacy or safety aspects, who the DPA does apply to are data controllers who maintain personal data relating to children. You’ll experience the more insidious side of this if you’re a parent that has ever tried to get Facebook for example to close your children’s numerous alias accounts where they’re posting personal information about themselves that could be used to identify them or their location or even if they are being bullied on social media by their peers. If I were a parent in those circumstances and someone chided me for looking at who was communicating with my child or what they were communicating, I’d think that person should take some of their own advice and mind their own business.

As for the 17 year old in the opening post, even if they were in Ireland (I’m not sure they are, or whether the OP is, given they were on a Zoom call to friends abroad), they wouldn’t have a case against their parents for a breach of any imagined expectation of privacy.

One eyed Jack

Strumms wrote: »

They are monitoring what is being sent by child A and child B. They can not obtain context of a conversation by looking up just one side of what’s said.

Most parents of child B I’m guessing wouldn’t be satisfied with that. I wouldn’t.

17 year old A could be speaking about their sister having a medical problem and worried about her, it’s meant for the eyes and mind of his friend, child B... all of a sudden a parent of child B is off gossiping outside the post office....

A private conversation is a private conversation.

That’s simply a courtesy in most cases, it’s certainly not the case with parents monitoring their own children’s communications, regardless of whether the other person in communication with the child or children has given their consent for their communications to be seen or read by an unintended party.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone is mistaken if they imagine they should have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with a child, notwithstanding the fact that a child in many jurisdictions could never legally be held responsible for upholding such an agreement.

I'm talking about consent. If I send you a message and you show it to someone else that's one thing. But if someone else reads it even without you knowing about it, then it's invasion of privacy. Expectation doesn't justify or legalise it.

If you leave you house unlocked and someone breaks into it, expectation of not being broken into is not going to legalise the break-in.

The DPA wouldn’t apply in circumstances between parents and their children though...

But this is NOT between a parent and and their children - that's my point. It's between a parent and someone else's child.

Re the 17 year old - they'd have to consent. If they say no, the parents can't legally interfere. It's a bad idea because the 17 year old can simply buy or borrow a second phone. Doesn't even have to be expensive.

Ubbquittious

No. I dont believe in spying on people. I believe the tendency to spy as in this sort of stuff and CCTV in schools is more harmful than whatever potential boogeyman they are trying to ward off with it. Its spawning a generation of children who are used to an Orwellian society.

Besides some day you won't be there to watch over them. Better to get them used to looking after themselves

GarIT

Ubbquittious wrote: »

No. I dont believe in spying on people. I believe the tendency to spy as in this sort of stuff and CCTV in schools is more harmful than whatever potential boogeyman they are trying to ward off with it. Its spawning a generation of children who are used to an Orwellian society.

Besides some day you won't be there to watch over them. Better to get them used to looking after themselves

I don't believe children as the same as "people" I wouldn't let them use alcohol either and alcohol is much safer than some parts of the internet too.

tscul32

15 and 13 year olds here. The deal when getting a phone was that at any time we could ask to look and it had to be handed over unlocked immediately. Tbh neither is that in to social media. One isn't much of a mixer so he's not bothered and the other is suspicious of putting too much on the internet, bit of a conspiracy theorist. We've drilled the dangers into them for years. They've always happily handed over the phone, never looked nervous.
Wouldn't go through it without letting them know though, and always told them I wouldn't dig unless I had a good reason. They accepted that.
Snooping "just because" is something I wouldn't feel right about. I even felt guilty opening the 8 year old's Santa letter to see what he'd asked for! Just in case I didn't approve and had to contact Santa myself.

AndrewJRenko

danslevent wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Last night I was on a zoom call with some friends who are abroad. We all had a few drinks and just started chatting.

One of my friends is several years older than me and stepfather to a 17 and 14 year old. Him and his wife have a tracker on their online devices so they see every bit of activity their kids do, which obviously includes every message they both send and receive.

Personally, I was really shocked and said so. However, I don't have kids so I guess I don't know how they feel...what do you think? Bad form or necessary?

If I was 17 and found out my parents did that, I think I would be so angry. Especially since they were laughing at a certain genre of porn their 17 year old likes...

Wait till those parents find their kids backup phones with no monitoring software installed.

ByTheSea2019

tscul32 wrote: »

15 and 13 year olds here. The deal when getting a phone was that at any time we could ask to look and it had to be handed over unlocked immediately. Tbh neither is that in to social media. One isn't much of a mixer so he's not bothered and the other is suspicious of putting too much on the internet, bit of a conspiracy theorist. We've drilled the dangers into them for years. They've always happily handed over the phone, never looked nervous.
Wouldn't go through it without letting them know though, and always told them I wouldn't dig unless I had a good reason. They accepted that.
Snooping "just because" is something I wouldn't feel right about. I even felt guilty opening the 8 year old's Santa letter to see what he'd asked for! Just in case I didn't approve and had to contact Santa myself.

In my opinion this is the right balance between protecting them and maintaining their trust, because you've told them about it.

Ubbquittious

GarIT wrote: »

I don't believe children as the same as "people" I wouldn't let them use alcohol either and alcohol is much safer than some parts of the internet too.

Children not people, that is a new one on me. If they are very young I might count them as only half a person but still made of the same stuff none the less

danslevent

For those who asked, the kids don't know about the monitoring service.

I think that some monitoring is definitely necessary but they should be aware of it. It also shouldn't be to the extent they do it.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm talking about consent. If I send you a message and you show it to someone else that's one thing. But if someone else reads it even without you knowing about it, then it's invasion of privacy. Expectation doesn't justify or legalise it.

If you leave you house unlocked and someone breaks into it, expectation of not being broken into is not going to legalise the break-in.

It’s entirely justified by the fact that a child’s parent has a right to know who is communicating with their children and what they are communicating. That’s not to say children don’t have a right to privacy, it’s saying that any children’s right to privacy is balanced with the right of their parents who have a duty to be responsible for their children’s welfare and well-being. It’s how some adults who groom children are caught, and in one case in Ireland I know of which I can’t find now, it involved a child sending explicit pictures of themselves, being charged with distribution (couple of years ago now though). These are the considerations taken into account relating to children, not whether or not there has been an invasion of their privacy -


Children don't understand the consequences of sexting

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But this is NOT between a parent and and their children - that's my point. It's between a parent and someone else's child.

Re the 17 year old - they'd have to consent. If they say no, the parents can't legally interfere. It's a bad idea because the 17 year old can simply buy or borrow a second phone. Doesn't even have to be expensive.

No, it’s still between a parent and their children. The other person, be they an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child.

Re: the 17 year old, of course the parents can interfere, and not only can they interfere, but they have a duty to interfere because they have a responsibility towards their children’s welfare and well-being. Whether or not the child buys a second phone doesn’t nullify or negate a parents responsibility towards their children -


Mother reported 21-year-old son to gardaí after discovering child pornography on his phone


It’s just a courtesy that parents wouldn’t be expected to discuss their children’s porn habits with their friends, but some parents don’t believe there’s anything wrong in discussing things like that with other people in the same way as some parents don’t see any harm in uploading pictures of their children on social media. Wouldn’t do it myself personally, but if other parents choose to, that’s their own business, and they don’t need their children’s consent, although some people believe that people shouldn’t do it because their children haven’t given consent.

GarIT

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Children not people, that is a new one on me. If they are very young I might count them as only half a person but still made of the same stuff none the less

You said you were against spying on people. I was just saying that people and your own children are different to me in this context. There's a difference between being nosy and trying to protect your children from the dangers of the internet and online predators.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s entirely justified by the fact that a child’s parent has a right to know who is communicating with their children and what they are communicating. That’s not to say children don’t have a right to privacy, it’s saying that any children’s right to privacy is balanced with the right of their parents who have a duty to be responsible for their children’s welfare and well-being. It’s how some adults who groom children are caught, and in one case in Ireland I know of which I can’t find now, it involved a child sending explicit pictures of themselves being charged with distribution. These are the considerations taken into account relating to children, not whether or not there has been an invasion of their privacy -


Children don't understand the consequences of sexting


No, it’s still between a parent and their children. The other person, be they an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child.

You've already said all this, and I've already pointed out the fallacies in your thinking. You're not disagreeing with me at this stage, you're disagreeing with the law.

Re: the 17 year old, of course the parents can interfere, and not only can they interfere, but they have a duty to interfere because they have a responsibility towards their children’s welfare and well-being. Whether or not the child buys a second phone doesn’t nullify or negate a parents responsibility towards their children -

Again - the Data Protection Act 2018 clearly defines a child as someone under 16.

Mother reported 21-year-old son to gardaí after discovering child pornography on his phone


It’s just a courtesy that they wouldn’t be expected to discuss their children’s porn habits with their friends, but some parents don’t believe there’s anything wrong in discussing things like that with other people in the same way as some parents don’t see any harm in uploading pictures of their children on social media. Wouldn’t do it myself personally, but if other parents choose to, that’s their own business, and they don’t need their children’s consent, although some people believe that people shouldn’t do it because their children haven’t given consent.

A courtesy is not legally binding, and your news story is completely irrelevant.

Long story short - the point you're missing here is law. You can argue morally, ethically, whatever you want - but legally, you're in the wrong.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You've already said all this, and I've already pointed out the fallacies in your thinking. You're not disagreeing with me at this stage, you're disagreeing with the law.

Again - the Data Protection Act 2018 clearly defines a child as someone under 16.

A courtesy is not legally binding, and your news story is completely irrelevant.

Long story short - the point you're missing here is law. You can argue morally, ethically, whatever you want - but legally, you're in the wrong.

I’m disagreeing with your piss poor understanding of Irish law. It’s clearly not the same thing. I’ve already pointed out why the DPA doesn’t apply too, but you’re still wedging it in there as if it has any relevance to a parents monitoring of their own children’s communications. I’ve already explained that a third party, whether they are an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child. That’s where the law stands on this one and that’s why your introduction of the DPA is irrelevant here. What’s relevant here are parental rights and responsibility and the rights of children. The imagined rights of a third party to any expectation of privacy in their communications with children, just don’t exist.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m disagreeing with your piss poor understanding of Irish law. It’s clearly not the same thing. I’ve already pointed out why the DPA doesn’t apply too, but you’re still wedging it in there as if it has any relevance to a parents monitoring of their own children’s communications. I’ve already explained that a third party, whether they are an adult or a child, can have no expectation of privacy in their communications with a child. That’s where the law stands on this one and that’s why your introduction of the DPA is irrelevant here. What’s relevant here are parental rights and responsibility and the rights of children. The imagined rights of a third party to any expectation of privacy in their communications with children, just don’t exist.

Hey - I openly said I didn't read the full act and I'm open to correction. You haven't corrected me, just stated and restated an opnion.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hey - I openly said I didn't read the full act and I'm open to correction. You haven't corrected me, just stated and restated an opnion.

Eh? I’ve told you exactly why the DPA doesn’t apply to parents - because they are not data controllers for the purposes of the DPA!

I’ve also explained that it’s a question of balancing the child’s right to privacy with their parents rights as having a duty to be responsible for their children’s welfare, and that third parties whether they are children or adults, cannot have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children. It doesn’t matter that for the purposes of the DPA a child is anyone under the age of 16. It also doesn’t matter that for medical consent a child is anyone under the age of 16.

For the purposes of a parents responsibility for their children’s welfare, there is nothing unlawful about a parent reading another person’s communications with their children. You haven’t pointed to anything in Irish law which even comes close to contradicting that fact.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I’ve told you exactly why the DPA doesn’t apply to parents - because they are not data controllers for the purposes of the DPA!

No, you haven't. You said "expectation of privacy" and I debunked that. Now, if there's a specific part of the act (or any other legal reference) that overrides that - and there may well be - then just tell me what part of the act defines who is a controller and what limits they have to controlling someone else's data without that person's consent.

Throwing insults at people doesn't make you look mature or knowlegable.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you haven't. You said "expectation of privacy" and I debunked that. Now, if there's a specific part of the act (or any other legal reference) that overrides that - and there may well be - then just tell me what part of the act defines who is a controller and what limits they have to controlling someone else's data without that person's consent.

You haven’t debunked anything? What part of this are you having difficulty with exactly?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I’ve told you exactly why the DPA doesn’t apply to parents - because they are not data controllers for the purposes of the DPA!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You haven’t debunked anything?

Here it is again:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm talking about consent. If I send you a message and you show it to someone else that's one thing. But if someone else reads it even without you knowing about it, then it's invasion of privacy. Expectation doesn't justify or legalise it.

What part of this are you having difficulty with exactly?

The bit where you don't provide any factual evidence whatsover, obviously; and expect me to take you word as Gospel.

One last try:
Quote the law that says that you don't have an expectation to privacy with regard to written connunications.
Quote the law that states a parent is not classed as a controller and can view the written communications of a third party, not related to them.

The laws, not your opinion.

Ekerot

danslevent wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Last night I was on a zoom call with some friends who are abroad. We all had a few drinks and just started chatting.

One of my friends is several years older than me and stepfather to a 17 and 14 year old. Him and his wife have a tracker on their online devices so they see every bit of activity their kids do, which obviously includes every message they both send and receive.

Personally, I was really shocked and said so. However, I don't have kids so I guess I don't know how they feel...what do you think? Bad form or necessary?

If I was 17 and found out my parents did that, I think I would be so angry. Especially since they were laughing at a certain genre of porn their 17 year old likes...

What was the genre?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

One last try:
Quote the law that says that you don't have an expectation to privacy with regard to written connunications.
Quote the law that states a parent is not classed as a controller and can view the written communications of a third party, not related to them.

The laws, not your opinion.

That’s a neat trick, but you’re taking what I said out of context. I was speaking specifically in relation to anyone’s expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children, and I provided numerous examples to support my opinion that people cannot have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children, and I explained why too -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone is mistaken if they imagine they should have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with a child, notwithstanding the fact that a child in many jurisdictions could never legally be held responsible for upholding such an agreement.


The DPA wouldn’t apply in circumstances between parents and their children though, because their parents aren’t data controllers for one thing. But apart from any concerns about any privacy or safety aspects, who the DPA does apply to are data controllers who maintain personal data relating to children. You’ll experience the more insidious side of this if you’re a parent that has ever tried to get Facebook for example to close your children’s numerous alias accounts where they’re posting personal information about themselves that could be used to identify them or their location or even if they are being bullied on social media by their peers. If I were a parent in those circumstances and someone chided me for looking at who was communicating with my child or what they were communicating, I’d think that person should take some of their own advice and mind their own business.

As for the 17 year old in the opening post, even if they were in Ireland (I’m not sure they are, or whether the OP is, given they were on a Zoom call to friends abroad), they wouldn’t have a case against their parents for a breach of any imagined expectation of privacy.

As regards the DPA and Section 32 that you linked to, I can only guess because it mentioned the word parent, that particular section related to consultation with parents for organisations drafting codes of conduct relating to the processing of children’s personal data in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in order to comply with Irish law in relation to data protection. Nowhere in the Act, nor in Irish law, is it suggested that parents are data controllers who are bound by the DPA.

I’ve never stated at any point that the parents of any children could for example pick up the phone of another child unrelated to them and view their communications. I said specifically that parents have the right to view who is in communication with their own children, and to view what that person or persons are communicating to their own children. That’s why I said it doesn’t matter whether the other party is a child or an adult.

In the context of who is the data controller if it were applicable in the context of a third party communicating with a child, it’s the child who would be the data controller with responsibility for protecting the personal information they have received from the other party, who would be obligated to withhold that information from their parents. Irish law does not put that responsibility on children, nor does it put that responsibility on their parents, nor does it put that responsibility on ordinary people if they have concerns about a child’s welfare.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a neat trick, but you’re taking what I said out of context. I was speaking specifically in relation to anyone’s expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children, and I provided numerous examples to support my opinion that people cannot have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children, and I explained why too -





As regards the DPA and Section 32 that you linked to, I can only guess because it mentioned the word parent, that particular section related to consultation with parents for organisations drafting codes of conduct relating to the processing of children’s personal data in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in order to comply with Irish law in relation to data protection. Nowhere in the Act, nor in Irish law, is it suggested that parents are data controllers who are bound by the DPA.

I’ve never stated at any point that the parents of any children could for example pick up the phone of another child unrelated to them and view their communications. I said specifically that parents have the right to view who is in communication with their own children, and to view what that person or persons are communicating to their own children. That’s why I said it doesn’t matter whether the other party is a child or an adult.

In the context of who is the data controller if it were applicable in the context of a third party communicating with a child, it’s the child who would be the data controller with responsibility for protecting the personal information they have received from the other party, who would be obligated to withhold that information from their parents. Irish law does not put that responsibility on children, nor does it put that responsibility on their parents, nor does it put that responsibility on ordinary people if they have concerns about a child’s welfare.

So in other words, you dont know for sure. As I said, nether do I - but at least I was honest about it.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So in other words, you dont know for sure. As I said, nether do I - but at least I was honest about it.

This is rather tedious tbh. Those are your words. Not mine. There is no “so in other words” about what I said because there doesn’t need to be. I do know for sure that the DPA does not apply to parents. I do know for sure that anyone who has an expectation of privacy in their communications with children are mistaken. I don’t care that you do or you don’t know anything for sure, it has no bearing on what I know for a fact, and you’re not being honest if you’re trying to imply that parents are in violation of some imagined law in relation to any individual’s privacy if you imagine parents are in contravention of Irish law by monitoring their own children’s activities and who they are in communication with as they have that right and responsibility as their children’s parents which takes priority over their children’s right to privacy. By viewing who their own children are communicating with, parents are not interfering with anyone else’s right to privacy.

AllForIt

My biggest concern for kids online these days is not so much the online predators but the political and gender anarchist that wish to get to them at an early age.

By political anarchists I'm talking about socialists and even communists (who always lurk in the background), and by gender anarchist's I'm talking about those types that want to put everyone into boxes, some that aren't even real. I suppose I mean personality boxes which comprises elements of sexuality and gender which have no real basis in the fundamentals of humanity, just trivial stuff which leads to division, more 'them and us', this type and that type, which I think will end up in social anarchy in the end if we're not there already.

It's all a load of nonsense they aspire to, but I think the real threat is the 'ideologue'. The one that always thinks there is something so wrong in society as it is, and has a vision for how reality would be so much better based on their own fantasy they imagine after having a bad ****. Beware those that seek to change reality. They usually start with changing language which is a good indicator of the type they are i.e. social fantasists.

McGinniesta

Monitoring your kids online activity is a no brainer.

To point out the blindingly obvious, wht's the first thing a 13 year old boy will type into google.

The chances are that it will be " fanny, beaver, gash, box, minge, snatch, vagina, muff, crack or gee"

followed by "breasts, knockers, juggs, cans, titties, big titties, bad titties, bags and cleavage"

freshpopcorn

Well up until about 16 is fair enough. Providing the parents is realistic and doesn't blow a gasket over every little things.

I've seen some parents almost make their kids afraid on the internet tough.

I'd have grown up with the internet tough. In my experience. Those who were dozy when they were teenagers regarding meeting strangers online, sending pics, etc are still the same now in their late twenties.

Car99

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If I had a child and found out their online conversations to a friend were being monitored by that childs parents I would find that very disturbing.

Why?

Ekerot

McGinniesta wrote: »

Monitoring your kids online activity is a no brainer.

To point out the blindingly obvious, wht's the first thing a 13 year old boy will type into google.

The chances are that it will be " fanny, beaver, gash, box, minge, snatch, vagina, muff, crack or gee"

followed by "breasts, knockers, juggs, cans, titties, big titties, bad titties, bags and cleavage"

Is that really a bad thing though? We all did it, just before the internet age it was lingerie magazines.

jelem

Day Lewin wrote: »

Yes. Up to 16. How much sense do you think teenagers have? Online grooming? Street smarts?

None, that's how much.

They are FAR more influenced by what their schoolmates are doing and thinking (or say they are) than by anything adults tell them.
They are NOT grown-ups, even if they think they are. And it's a dark, dangerous world out there on the internet.

only get street smart if you experience street -- some show their lack of thought on life.

Triangle

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I’ve told you exactly why the DPA doesn’t apply to parents - because they are not data controllers for the purposes of the DPA!

I’ve also explained that it’s a question of balancing the child’s right to privacy with their parents rights as having a duty to be responsible for their children’s welfare, and that third parties whether they are children or adults, cannot have an expectation of privacy in relation to their communications with children. It doesn’t matter that for the purposes of the DPA a child is anyone under the age of 16. It also doesn’t matter that for medical consent a child is anyone under the age of 16.

For the purposes of a parents responsibility for their children’s welfare, there is nothing unlawful about a parent reading another person’s communications with their children. You haven’t pointed to anything in Irish law which even comes close to contradicting that fact.

GDPR is fuzzy in general but the concept in it is that as a child gets older they get more ownership of their data.
A 16/17 yo would have no problem legally getting an order to prohibit their parents reading their messages (unless there was underlying issues).
GDPR aside, it's a parents job to get their kids ready to be adults. Part of that is making mistakes and learning from them. They can't do that with micromanagement as it undermine the person being micromanaged.

jelem

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well up until about 16 is fair enough. Providing the parents is realistic and doesn't blow a gasket over every little things.

I've seen some parents almost make their kids afraid on the internet tough.

I'd have grown up with the internet tough. In my experience. Those who were dozy when they were teenagers regarding meeting strangers online, sending pics, etc are still the same now in their late twenties.

Strangers are friends you have not yet met

---

stranger danger myth has been put to bed.
Punk rock was the evil\sin etc . and dont go there, no piercings and cant go to work or school
dont try be garda or civil service as seen as mad\deluded etc.
last 10 years humans have been banned from learning and experience as part of hiding the facts
and truth -- "to protect" is the excuse for demanding conformity.

Ubbquittious

I watched all sorts of blood and gore and other things parents try to shield their children from when I was 13 and younger and it didn't mess up my brain permanently like a bricked iPhone


Sometimes I worry for lads whose parents try to shield them from the harsh reality of the world we live in. Thinking they're in for a big shock when they discover the truth as well as being naive and ill-prepared to take on the world

jelem

Triangle wrote: »

GDPR is fuzzy in general but the concept in it is that as a child gets older they get more ownership of their data.
A 16/17 yo would have no problem legally getting an order to prohibit their parents reading their messages (unless there was underlying issues).
GDPR aside, it's a parents job to get their kids ready to be adults. Part of that is making mistakes and learning from them. They can't do that with micromanagement as it undermine the person being micromanaged.

just so you know ireland does not comply with eu GDPR but has its own rules
which also has no criminal sanctions or fines as sanctions for braking GDPR
other laws are used to suit a set of circumstances.
you say 16\17 but that is i take here as other eu countries have differing ages
as far as consent etc. is concerned.
You are correct in parents preparing, yet how many in ireland are telling the 14 year old that
99% of what irish politicians say is false and stated in twisted words and sentences to avoid prosecution?.

Triangle

jelem wrote: »

just so you know ireland does not comply with eu GDPR but has its own rules
which also has no criminal sanctions or fines as sanctions for braking GDPR
other laws are used to suit a set of circumstances.
.

Ireland does comply with GDPR as far as I'm aware, I've had notifications from the DP commissioner saying so. Also stating they have the power to enforce the fines set out in GDPR.
I don't know the legal part, just what the Dpc tells me.

AndrewJRenko

AllForIt wrote: »

My biggest concern for kids online these days is not so much the online predators but the political and gender anarchist that wish to get to them at an early age.

By political anarchists I'm talking about socialists and even communists (who always lurk in the background), and by gender anarchist's I'm talking about those types that want to put everyone into boxes, some that aren't even real. I suppose I mean personality boxes which comprises elements of sexuality and gender which have no real basis in the fundamentals of humanity, just trivial stuff which leads to division, more 'them and us', this type and that type, which I think will end up in social anarchy in the end if we're not there already.

It's all a load of nonsense they aspire to, but I think the real threat is the 'ideologue'. The one that always thinks there is something so wrong in society as it is, and has a vision for how reality would be so much better based on their own fantasy they imagine after having a bad ****. Beware those that seek to change reality. They usually start with changing language which is a good indicator of the type they are i.e. social fantasists.

I'm not sure that anarchist means what you think it means, but regardless, isn't your 'beware' warning evidence of your own desire to change reality?

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

just so you know ireland does not comply with eu GDPR but has its own rules
which also has no criminal sanctions or fines as sanctions for braking GDPR
other laws are used to suit a set of circumstances.
you say 16\17 but that is i take here as other eu countries have differing ages
as far as consent etc. is concerned.
You are correct in parents preparing, yet how many in ireland are telling the 14 year old that
99% of what irish politicians say is false and stated in twisted words and sentences to avoid prosecution?.

GDPR is legally binding in Ireland and all EU countries.

jelem

Triangle wrote: »

Ireland does comply with GDPR as far as I'm aware, I've had notifications from the DP commissioner saying so. Also stating they have the power to enforce the fines set out in GDPR.
I don't know the legal part, just what the Dpc tells me.

Fact and i hold the evidence for which irish dpa refused to "consider" (polite corrupt word).
just for you and your innocence - why does france take and win cases against large tech.
ireland does not pursue - hint the alleged "jobs\economy" excuse is rolled out.
Add just when have tech in ireland been raided and servers seized to check what data is being transfered to usa
"in breach" it is very doubtful the garda if got urge had man power and if government would allow.
At local level == government dept. prints lies and hence fraudulent accounting by staff whom work with
power of court order.(dont have to put case before court before acting).
this one office and you think garda have manpower to "raid" all offices of that dept. to check\audit how many cases
in ireland.
the response to me in nov 2019 by garda at counter was Data Protection Act and get a solicitor.
this despite eu directives in dealing with reports from citizens.
try article 19 criminal justice___ - how does a citizen find out if a minister has complied with the act and if not
then charged.
YOU are unfortunately blind to what is going on and "children alng with protection" is a main deflection and
method to keep you and children ignorant

One eyed Jack

Triangle wrote: »

GDPR is fuzzy in general but the concept in it is that as a child gets older they get more ownership of their data.
A 16/17 yo would have no problem legally getting an order to prohibit their parents reading their messages (unless there was underlying issues).
GDPR aside, it's a parents job to get their kids ready to be adults. Part of that is making mistakes and learning from them. They can't do that with micromanagement as it undermine the person being micromanaged.

They would have considerable difficulty in doing so and it would have nothing to do with GDPR. I already gave the example of a parent trying to have Facebook close down their children’s numerous alias accounts due to their children giving out personally identifying information online as an example of one of the quirks of data protection legislation, which was a thing before the GDPR ever was enacted in Irish law. What PCB was suggesting though is that the child is regarded in Irish law as the data controller of another persons communications, and therefore it is the child who would be in violation of any laws relating to data protection if the parents viewed the communications of another party with their children, and that’s simply not the case and has never been the case.

I do agree with you about micromanaging children though. I said it myself earlier that neither extreme of helicopter parenting nor absentee parenting is healthy for any child’s social and personal development in preparation for adulthood.

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

Fact and i hold the evidence for which irish dpa refused to "consider" (polite corrupt word).
just for you and your innocence - why does france take and win cases against large tech.
ireland does not pursue - hint the alleged "jobs\economy" excuse is rolled out.
Add just when have tech in ireland been raided and servers seized to check what data is being transfered to usa
"in breach" it is very doubtful the garda if got urge had man power and if government would allow.
At local level == government dept. prints lies and hence fraudulent accounting by staff whom work with
power of court order.(dont have to put case before court before acting).
this one office and you think garda have manpower to "raid" all offices of that dept. to check\audit how many cases
in ireland.
the response to me in nov 2019 by garda at counter was Data Protection Act and get a solicitor.
this despite eu directives in dealing with reports from citizens.
try article 19 criminal justice___ - how does a citizen find out if a minister has complied with the act and if not
then charged.
YOU are unfortunately blind to what is going on and "children alng with protection" is a main deflection and
method to keep you and children ignorant

Ireland 'does not pursue '?

https://fod.ie/publications/irish-dpc-fines-twitter-e450000-for-data-breach/

jelem

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

GDPR is legally binding in Ireland and all EU countries.

yes if an irish citizen takes a case against the irish government to eu court
and that is some job as you need to prove "dealt with at first instance in local
courts" but garda and bar council\law society hinder one by brush off the
other by demand large cash.
yes i know complain about garda on official form then maybe 6 months later
some outcome and hence time limits abused as you find restrictions in place
on differing issues.

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

yes if an irish citizen takes a case against the irish government to eu court
and that is some job as you need to prove "dealt with at first instance in local
courts" but garda and bar council\law society hinder one by brush off the
other by demand large cash.
yes i know complain about garda on official form then maybe 6 months later
some outcome and hence time limits abused as you find restrictions in place
on differing issues.

Gardai have no role or function in data protection matters.

You don't need to go to Court to make a data protection complaint. You go to the DPC.

jelem

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ireland 'does not pursue '?

https://fod.ie/publications/irish-dpc-fines-twitter-e450000-for-data-breach/

On 15th December 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) announced its decision to impose an administrative fine of €450,000 on Twitter International Company (“Twitter”) following an investigation into a personal data breach reported by Twitter, under the self-reporting obligations of General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”). The breach arose as a result of a bug in Twitter’s android app which caused Twitter to unintentionally make some of its users’ private tweets public.

---

imposed =====
next will be either proof of payment or court case for NOT paying ( different law\legislation) the fine
unless you can prove it has been paid and whom too.
oh yes lets recall Apple and a tax mater for whom the government used taxpayers money (some could say
to defend) whilst reeling out pages of fishnet irish legislation and law.
look forward to the public announcement the fine has been paid

Ubbquittious

If the giddapoor isn't being enforced here you can bet your bottom dolla that it's done at the behest of Apple, Yahooglesoft and the other privacy invaders

ILoveYourVibes

danslevent wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Last night I was on a zoom call with some friends who are abroad. We all had a few drinks and just started chatting.

One of my friends is several years older than me and stepfather to a 17 and 14 year old. Him and his wife have a tracker on their online devices so they see every bit of activity their kids do, which obviously includes every message they both send and receive.

Personally, I was really shocked and said so. However, I don't have kids so I guess I don't know how they feel...what do you think? Bad form or necessary?

If I was 17 and found out my parents did that, I think I would be so angry. Especially since they were laughing at a certain genre of porn their 17 year old likes...

They are good parents.

Sensible enough to track him...and sensible to laugh at the porn he watches rather than freak about it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you haven't. You said "expectation of privacy" and I debunked that. Now, if there's a specific part of the act (or any other legal reference) that overrides that - and there may well be - then just tell me what part of the act defines who is a controller and what limits they have to controlling someone else's data without that person's consent.

Throwing insults at people doesn't make you look mature or knowlegable.

You’re mad in the head if you don’t think children under 17 should be monitored online. Have you ever seen those docus and videos online showing how easily kids are preyed upon online?

Absolutely not all children are at risk - there’s plenty of kids who would tell their parents or someone at least if they were approached by an unsavoury person online, cyber bullying, etc.

However, some kids are more vulnerable or easily preyed upon for one reason or another. Since it’s not like they have this stamped on their forehead, the only way to know is parents to keep an eye on their kids and who they speak to, follow, etc online.

This isn’t a matter of being nosy, it’s making sure your kids are safe online, the internet is a bloody expansive and can be a seriously dangerous place. Between cyber bullies, fraudsters & pedos its hardly somewhere you’d let any kid roam unsupervised & since this kind of monitoring software is a lot less intrusive than standing over their shoulder while online, I can’t understand anyone’s issue.

Like would you let a young child or teenager wander alone in an area well known for crime or where sketchy people tend to live? Would you allow them to be left alone with known pedophiles - or indeed any strangers?

People don’t (regularly) allow children and young people to be alone unsupervised outdoors, so why is it acceptable to do so online? They’re very similar to each other & outside of real life dangerous such as kidnapping or physical rape or assault, it doesn’t make the internet any safer a place for young kids or teens.

As for reading their conversations, in cases where you notice them speaking to someone new, I don’t see any harm in verifying the person isn’t interested in harming your child in any way etc.

I can only conclude from your arguments that you are either willingly ignorant or just deciding to ignore what knowledge of the dangers and stupidity of allowing kids free roam of the internet unsupervised to argue some fallacy that kids have a right to full privacy. All kids have levels of privacy as they get older obviously, I don’t think if you’ve got a child above 17 you should be spying on them - no more than you’d be in the same room as they got dressed, where you would be for a much young child, for one reason or the other.

Granted there’s a difference between doing this secretly which I wouldn’t condone because at that point you’re toying with trust. Unfortunately trust has to be earned & while a child first begins to explore the internet they haven’t built trust. How you’d think allowing a child to run rampant online without keeping their activity in check is beyond me.

And I’d love to know where this idea that in order to read a conversation my child has with another I need their parents consent? What a load of ****e.

A lot of people here obviously have no kids and probably say ridiculous things any time the topic of supervising and caring for children in a safe and loving manner is brought up - because when you don’t have kids or training to deal with them, you literally haven’t a clue.

That’s from someone who has kids, however I wasn’t born with them - so there was a good number of years I didn’t have them & had these same ignorant opinions.

One day, if you do have kids, thankfully you’ll grow up a bit before they’re looking to go online & won’t think such ridiculous and frankly, dangerous things.

Allowing kids online unsupervised.. God help me

AndrewJRenko

jelem wrote: »

On 15th December 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) announced its decision to impose an administrative fine of €450,000 on Twitter International Company (“Twitter”) following an investigation into a personal data breach reported by Twitter, under the self-reporting obligations of General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”). The breach arose as a result of a bug in Twitter’s android app which caused Twitter to unintentionally make some of its users’ private tweets public.

---

imposed =====
next will be either proof of payment or court case for NOT paying ( different law\legislation) the fine
unless you can prove it has been paid and whom too.
oh yes lets recall Apple and a tax mater for whom the government used taxpayers money (some could say
to defend) whilst reeling out pages of fishnet irish legislation and law.
look forward to the public announcement the fine has been paid

It's more likely that the next step will be an appeal in Court against the fine. That's the way the process works.

The Apple tax issue is nothing to do with GDPR or data protection.