Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 28 2017, @07:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the get-their-attention dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Kids have always been a little difficult.

Technology may have made things worse, as the young tend to know more about tech than their parents do.

They know, for example, how to ignore mom and dad and do whatever they like.

Nick Herbert found this a touch frustrating.

Kids have a habit of simply not replying to texts. Not because they're bad kids, but, well, they're doing something more interesting on the phone -- like playing a game.

So, as CBS News reports, Herbert conceived ReplyASAP. This is an app (currently available only on Android) that forces your child to address your texts.

By annoying the living hell out of them.

[...] Herbert insists that ReplyASAP is meant to be used only in emergencies. This isn't about annoying your kids all the time, however tempting that might be.

Indeed, he told me that it's not about forcing your child to reply. Instead, he said: "It is simply a means of getting an important message to the child, even when they have their phone on silent, and for the parent to know they have seen it."

[Ed Note - Updated Google Play link to correct a typo]

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1) by jpmahala on Monday August 28 2017, @07:28PM

    by jpmahala (6065) on Monday August 28 2017, @07:28PM (#560433)

    It would be much more helpful to have a working link in the article.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:30PM (35 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:30PM (#560435)

    ... as long as the kids get to use it on their parents, too.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 28 2017, @07:56PM (34 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday August 28 2017, @07:56PM (#560450) Journal

      ... as long as the kids get to use it on their parents, too.

      Why? Are parents not allowed to make the rules-of-use for the phones they're providing to their kids?

      I don't quite get the purpose of this submission. Why do we care about this app?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:14PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:14PM (#560466)

        ... when you, too, live under the same rules (as much as possible, I suppose).

        Children aren't your possessions; they are other people, whom a parent is meant to guide into adulthood.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday August 28 2017, @08:32PM (11 children)

          by edIII (791) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:32PM (#560479)

          Ohh, fucking bullshit. Sounds like a shill. You have no pubes right? ;)

          That sounds great... and like somebody who isn't a parent. There is a reason why kids don't have rights, and are indeed, a parents possession till 18. Which really should be till like 22 or 23 given the state of our youth today and their respect for my lawn. No, it doesn't go both ways. Children don't get to spy on their parents and force them to read texts about how Becky's butt is like so huge while they are at work. For that matter, if a kid texted a parent at work they're likely to respond. Why? Parents are responsible, love their children, and are concerned for their safety (with few horrible exceptions).

          I was a kid. Before cell phones and all the tracking technology existed. If my parents wanted me, they needed to bellow my name through the whole neighborhood and start phoning other parents to find me. Now these days you know perfectly well your kid is on their phone. So are all the adults. The addiction seemingly crosses all age and demographic barriers.

          Those cellphones don't belong to the children either. Technically, under the law, they belong to the parents. So they every right to do whatever they want with it, put whatever tracking technology they want, etc. Yes, it sounds like totalitarianism, dictatorships, and horrible, horrible, oppression. A.K.A, childhood.

          Are you going to say it isn't fair? Please say it isn't fair. Now that I'm adult, I can admit, I get a smile like the Grinch when I hear it :D

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:35PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:35PM (#560483)

            If parents are likely to respond, because they are responsible, then it shouldn't be a problem now should it?

            Try again, Mr. Butthurt about Something.

          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Monday August 28 2017, @08:55PM (8 children)

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:55PM (#560498) Journal

            There is a reason why kids don't have rights,

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but kids do have rights. [wikipedia.org] However the rights of a child are indeed different from those of an adult. But they exists, and everyone, including the parents, have to respect them.

            Having said that, I do not think the app in question violates the children's rights. The parents do have a right to make their children listen to them; this includes reading their text messages. However depending on how the app works (I didn't RTFA), there might be issues with it being active while the kids are at school, in case the way it annoys the kids also causes disturbance of the teaching.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Monday August 28 2017, @10:06PM (7 children)

              by edIII (791) on Monday August 28 2017, @10:06PM (#560551)

              Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but kids don't have any rights when they try to exercise them. I remember all the times I said it wasn't fair and that I had rights. Amazingly, none of the adults around agreed. The threat to call child services is often just funny, and I've heard of children calling the cops on their parents because they honestly believed their parents stole the tablet, cellphone, computer from them. Cops didn't hand the child back the "toy". For that matter, the idea of such behavior 40-50 years ago would've shocked people.

              The rights you cite, are basic human rights also afforded to adults. However, when a child's rights are violated, it is essentially the parent that is injured, or specifically the party with legal standing. Whether it is an adult, a legal guardian, or the state itself, somebody is taking responsibility for those rights. To make sure they are not violated, and are provided for. Yes, they have rights, but NO, they are not the ones to manage them, enforce them, defend them, etc.

              However, we are not talking about these rights, but the right of a child to use technology without any interference (technological or otherwise). Yet the fact remains that the property doesn't even belong to the child. So we must be talking about their 1st Amendment rights? I didn't grow up in Quaker house, or some insanely strict father situation, but I was well aware that I didn't have any rights over my property. I got it taken away from me several times as punishment :)

              I guess what we are really talking about is differing theories on how to raise children. It's understandable the idea that we should let them develop into their own persons, instead of just copies of their parents. However, that doesn't extend to letting the kid wander off with technology allowing the parent to interact with them, but the child refuses. I don't know about you, but in my childhood actively ignoring an adult talking to you was dangerous. I don't mean physically, but it was dangerous in that it could mess up my plans for the night quite easily.

              They are not little tiny adults. Do you have kids? I don't have kids, but just little relatives. They're fucking nuts, loud, dangerous, etc. We can't look at them as tiny people capable of adult judgement (although these days that bar has been lowered). They drive my cousins and siblings nuts :) Do I expect them to adequately provide for themselves and defend their rights? Hell no. I don't even trust young people to understand what their rights are today, much less the ideological arguments that go with it.

              These are kids man. It's not a big deal or oppression for a parent to be able to BARGE on the phone line. That's an actual technical ability we have with phones and texting, that management likes to use. Why shouldn't parents be able to use the same Enterprise-y apps to deal with their children? When it was a single analog phone line in the house with shared line appearances inherently, it was incredibly easy for a parent to barge in on the line. FUck, I'm so old I can remember getting pissed off because my parents picked up the phone while I had a session going with a German BBS. Bee Beee Beee BOOOOOOO *crackle* *hiss* brings back some memories.

              If we want to get biological, teenagers are clinically fucking insane. All those hormones and neural activity coupled with rather significant changes in their bodies, including secondary sexual characteristics, makes them pretty much a controlled insanity trying to make it to adulthood. Seriously, which would you be more concerned about? 30 adults in a park, or 5 teenagers just going through childhood? LOL, there is a reason why parents need to watch their kids.

              To be really honest, I'm Eddie Haskell. The shit I got away with and tried to pull off? I can be honest as an adult and say that I needed to be watched as a kid. Boy, did I need to be watched :)

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:34AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:34AM (#560705)

                So, you're basically claiming that children are chattel property of some other human.

                You did bad things as a child, therefore all children must be treated as the slaves you claim them to be!

                Either humans have rights (such as the right to life, which demands they are the sole owner of the body they inhabit) at ALL ages, or they have rights at NO age.

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:53PM

                  by edIII (791) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:53PM (#561070)

                  Oh please. You're being hyperbolic with chattel property. As for me being bad as a child, I think you need to step back, look at children in general, and realize just what it is you are saying.

                  Children have human rights because they're human. What they don't have is the experience, wisdom, strength, physical size, etc., etc., etc. to live in an adult world without subsidization or adults specifically tasked to taking care of them. We call those people parents.

                  Slaves!???

                  BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  Life comes full circle. You've reminded me of myself at 11 years old loudly proclaiming to my parents my knowledge of rights, and slavery, and all of the sophisticated intellectual reasons WHY I WAS A SLAVE BECAUSE I HAD CHORES. Yes, I was a slave. How dare they dictate that it was my job to take out the trash, clean the dishes, or mow the lawn. Straight up fucking chattel slavery!! Emancipation Proclamation!! Emancipation Proclamation!! I'm not your slave because of Lincoln dad!!

                  LOL.

                  Keep telling my how kids are slaves then. I'm not going to lie. It makes me beam with this huge smile. I'm just one big huge slave master ;P

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:55AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:55AM (#560739)

                Pro tip: Before answering to a post, read it completely.

              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:04PM (2 children)

                by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:04PM (#560931) Journal

                Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but kids don't have any rights when they try to exercise them.

                The US Supreme Court says you're wrong:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District [wikipedia.org]

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:09PM (1 child)

                  by edIII (791) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:09PM (#561084)

                  No it didn't.

                  The children's fathers filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the decision of the Des Moines school board. A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand, and forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968.

                  That was my whole point. A child has rights simply because every human being has them. However, as a species, we recognize that children simply don't have the ability to exists as adults, and that it's an unwise idea to expect that. I don't see what is controversial about it. It's not as if human being when born are fully matured, possess genetically transferred knowledge, skills, and memories, and can be responsible for their rights within hours of being born. A human being cannot even see correctly for months after being born IIRC.

                  As a result of this simple biological fact, like teenagers being controlled insanity (hormones, puberty, etc.), we don't recognize them as having rights on their own. Which, as you can see in bold, means that the fathers are acting with de facto power of attorney to represent the rights of their respective children. What if a father didn't want to? Now that would be a court case. A child initiating it against adults, and winning. I don't think that has ever happened outside of a few edge cases where some teenagers have been emancipated from their parents, and most of those cases had parental support. Has an orphaned child ever won emancipation? I dunno.

                  I really have to laugh at the ACs saying I support chattel slavery. I swear I had that argument with my parents over chores, and it didn't work out well for me :)

                  What I think is missing, and I will spell it out, is that I myself don't have the ability (or desire) to arbitrarily abridge the human rights of a child. However, their parents do. That's the fundamental point. Parents exist to take care of their children, and administrate their rights until emancipated, or have reached adulthood as agreed upon society. You haven't provided proof that a child on his own can defend his rights. Especially against his parents.

                  If you could.... where the fuck were you around 40 years ago dude?! I could've used you calling me on a phone and giving me pointers in my legal fight against chores. Heck, today, you would be very popular amongst kids that have had their iphones taken away....

                  Finally, there are some rights that children have that cannot be abridged by their parents. In those cases, we call it child abuse and have ways of dealing with it in our legal system. Obviously, I've never promulgated child abuse... unless you think giving kids chores, responsibilities, and consequences is child abuse.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:22PM

                    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:22PM (#561451) Journal

                    I think a good way to put it would be that children do of course have rights; what they lack is only power of attorney. Plenty of adults are in the same situation, but we wouldn't normally say they don't have rights. And there's plenty of adults who can't functionally defend their rights even if they do -- those who can't afford to hire an attorney, for example. Children are actually in a much better position in that case...for example, children are legally required to attend school, and school officials are legally required to report suspected abuse, so the kids have more ability to protect their rights than a vast number of perfectly competent adults. The child also doesn't generally need a specific designated person to initiate legal action, they just need any adult. And in some ways children even have MORE rights than adults -- a child has a legally enforceable right to food, for example, while adults generally do not. So if you're going to say that children don't have rights, I think you also have to accept that the majority of adults in this country don't have rights either...

              • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:43AM

                by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:43AM (#561293) Homepage

                The fact that kids don't understand that their parents confiscating their phone is not the same as stealing and that calling the cops is absolutely the wrong way to handle that is precisely why kids don't have full adult rights.

                It's the same reason psychiatric patients don't have the right to be handed knives by their caretakers.

                --
                Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 28 2017, @10:34PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday August 28 2017, @10:34PM (#560561) Journal

            Becky's butt is like so huge while they are at work.

            Damn, judging that reference your lawn must be AWESOME!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:46PM (#561006)

          Part of guiding a child into adulthood is teaching them that when someone else is providing your meals, your shelter, and your utilities, that entity gets to tell you what to do with those things, and otherwise lay down terms for whether or not those things will continue to be provided. That there's no such thing as a free lunch. Failure to teach these lessons has been shown to induce all manner of entitlement, leaving a child out of touch with reality. They get to make the rules for their own devices when they buy the phone and pay the bill for it, thereby reaping the reward of their labor (and incentivizing it in the first place).

          I'm sure your boss wouldn't impose any limitations on the company laptop you were assigned that he wouldn't be prepared to follow on his own device, right?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:33PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:33PM (#560480)

        "Rules for thee but not for me" is kind of a terrible concept to teach children.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday August 28 2017, @08:57PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:57PM (#560501) Homepage Journal

          It's how life works. A big, big part of life. If they don't learn it at home, they'll learn it at school. Or from the police. Can you imagine if Sheriff Joe had to follow rules? #ProTrump45

        • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday August 28 2017, @08:58PM (2 children)

          by NewNic (6420) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:58PM (#560502) Journal

          "Rules for thee but not for me" is kind of a terrible concept to teach children.

          Why? That's how society works, kids need to understand it.

          --
          lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:24PM (#560517)

            Kids need to understand that the world is that way, and that it should not be that way.

            • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:05AM

              by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:05AM (#560673) Homepage

              I was told frequently, "You'll understand when you're older." Had I pried them for more information I would have simply disagreed with it and disregarded it because I was the center of the universe back then and my knowledge and wisdom were absolute.

              Yeah, of course the line "You'll understand when you're older," was a fucking generic cop-out, but it turned out to be right. The shame is that sometimes it takes decades to realize exactly why, and they were wise enough to understand that arguing with me was only a waste of energy. And if you have to work and take care of rambunctious shitheads, energy is in short supply.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Monday August 28 2017, @08:59PM (3 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:59PM (#560503) Journal

          So if the parents drink beer, they should let their ten-year old kid also drink beer? Or do you think they should stop drinking beer until their kid is old enough to drink, too?

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:27PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:27PM (#560519)

            Adults do not have such physical problems; they are abiding one single rule: Drink alcohol only after a certain age.

            Alas, no such clear-cut, physical foundation exists for how a phone should be used.

            Try again.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:37AM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:37AM (#560637) Homepage
              You're hallucinating, or desperately desperately blinkered. Or trolling. It's perfectly fine for children to have small amounts of alcohol. Nothing wrong with a home-fermented kvas or mjod shared with the family over a meal table, or a taffelbier, if that's your local thing. Or a diluted glass of wine elsewhere.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:40PM (#560531)

            Sure, if they want some, why not? Seriously.

            You shouldn't let them get drunk, but there is nothing wrong with giving your 10 year old a drink if they want it (most kids tend not to).

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Monday August 28 2017, @08:55PM (10 children)

        by unauthorized (3776) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:55PM (#560499)

        Are parents not allowed to make the rules-of-use for the phones they're providing to their kids?

        Normally, a parent providing something to their kids would be presumed to be a gift, so no it would not be okay for them to suddenly start making rules. If you and your kids have a different understanding or if you set the rules beforehand, then I could see your point. Still, I would consider it infringement of their natural (NOT legal) right to self-determination to abuse their inability to take care of themselves considering the fact that you as their parent forced them into this state of existence by choosing to have kids. It should be every parent's responsibility to ensure their kids have the maximum degree of personal freedom it's reasonable to afford them. And yes, that includes not imposing your interpretation of what's an "important" message. If you cannot convince your kid to install this software and give you access to priority messages then you should respect their decision. You can do without paremanent instant communication access to your kids, just as everyone who raised kids before the 21st century did. Teaching your kids to be submissive to authority is orders of magnitude worse than your convenience.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 28 2017, @09:09PM (4 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:09PM (#560509) Journal

          Normally, a parent providing something to their kids would be presumed to be a gift, so no it would not be okay for them to suddenly start making rules.

          As the giver, you can put a condition on a gift. This applies to any gift to anyone. The receiver is, of course, allowed to not accept the gift under those conditions. But accepting the gift while rejecting the condition is not an option.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday August 28 2017, @09:34PM (3 children)

            by unauthorized (3776) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:34PM (#560527)

            Incorrect, a gift is specifically giving something without expecting anything in return. If you put conditions on it, it's no longer a gift. Don't get me wrong, you can transfer ownership by setting conditions, but if and only if you clearly define them beforehand.

            But accepting the gift while rejecting the condition is not an option.

            I did not mean to imply you can singlehandedly decide which parts of a deal apply to you.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:29AM (2 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:29AM (#560702) Homepage
              Your absolute definition of "gift" is legally naive. Of course there exist conditional gifts. Consider engagement rings - in many states, California for example, the ring will be surrendered to the wronged party if one party calls off the marriage, either deliberately, or through fault (e.g. cheating).

              Plus, of course there's the fact that when we're talking about a parental relationship, the parents are wards who can confiscate anything they see fit, if they think it's for the good of the child. It's not an equal relationship. Likewise teachers when /in loco parentis/.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)

                by unauthorized (3776) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:29PM (#561100)

                My definition is the well-established common English language definition of "gift". If your local laws disagree, that a problem with your laws and not with my usage of the word.

                • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:20AM

                  by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:20AM (#561414) Homepage
                  If you are so strict with the definition of the word, then perhaps you should stop using it for what happens when a parent hands over some chattel and says "there you go". I've never known a parent to hand over something to one of their kids and say "this is a gift, in the strictest sense, from me to you, unconditional and irrevocable", so it seems as if your strictness makes your usasge the irrelevant one.
                  --
                  Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:42PM (#560532)

          do you have any kids

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:23PM (#560558)

            Asking "Do you even kids, bro?" is such a waste of everybody's time. Why did you even think it was worthwhile to type that out?

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:33PM (2 children)

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:33PM (#560957) Journal

          You're absolutely correct...as long as the child is the one paying their own cellphone bill. Which I don't think they can, unless it's a tracphone or something, since kids can't generally enter into contracts of any kind.

          Even an adult has no right to demand unlimited usage of someone else's network infrastructure, so I'm not sure why a child would. Even when I was living in a dorm in college, you couldn't get online unless you had approved anti-virus software installed. If a 19 year old who's paying rent (or "housing fees" as they called it) can be forced to install software to get online, why can't a child?

          • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:22PM (1 child)

            by unauthorized (3776) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:22PM (#561097)

            You're absolutely correct...as long as the child is the one paying their own cellphone bill. Which I don't think they can, unless it's a tracphone or something, since kids can't generally enter into contracts of any kind.

            No, you don't get to control someone's hardware just because you are bankrolling a service they use through that hardware. I suppose you can choose to exhort your child into compliance by threatening to end their service if you really wanted to. I can see why the children of such a parent wouldn't trust them enough to install this software on the parent's request.

            Even an adult has no right to demand unlimited usage of someone else's network infrastructure, so I'm not sure why a child would. Even when I was living in a dorm in college, you couldn't get online unless you had approved anti-virus software installed. If a 19 year old who's paying rent (or "housing fees" as they called it) can be forced to install software to get online, why can't a child?

            I disagree, your dorm should not be forcing you to install software. One man's abuse of power does not justify another's abuse of power.

            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:43PM

              by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:43PM (#561463) Journal

              I disagree, your dorm should not be forcing you to install software. One man's abuse of power does not justify another's abuse of power.

              Well, if I didn't want to install the software I could just opt to not use the internet. Perfectly reasonable policy. But as far as I know, nobody ever actually did that, because what would be the point?

              No, you don't get to control someone's hardware just because you are bankrolling a service they use through that hardware. I suppose you can choose to exhort your child into compliance by threatening to end their service if you really wanted to. I can see why the children of such a parent wouldn't trust them enough to install this software on the parent's request.

              Well yeah, when I was a kid I had numerous devices my parents had no control over or even awareness of, but they weren't good for anything other than playing music (Or DOOM if you didn't mind playing that on a one inch screen!). A cellphone is pretty useless without any form of network access, and there's no much reason to take it away from a kid at that point, they can't really cause any trouble with it. I also had a phone at one point that did have service that my parents weren't aware of...got it from a friend (their parents tested consumer electronics for a living so they had literally hundreds of devices and dozens of free service plans...they gave it to her, she gave it to me, they never even knew.) And certainly my parents would have had no right to touch THAT phone...but the phone they eventually gave me and the service plan for it was theirs to do what they wanted with, even after I went to college since they were still paying for it. Of course, those were also subsidized phones, and so ownership of the phone was itself part of the contract they were paying...and also the phones weren't really a gift, they were given with an understanding that I was to use them only for certain purposes and with certain rules in place. If you were to give the kid a fully paid phone as a Christmas gift I *would* probably think that's a bit different.

              There's also the "my house, my electricity, my rules" argument. I mean my parents did once revoke my access to my own computer...which seems perfectly reasonable, considering they were housing and powering the thing. They'd have no right to take it away and sell it, because I bought it with my own money...but they can block me from using it while it's in their house, and they can certainly block me from using it on their network. Although the monitor was technically still theirs so they could have taken that too!

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @07:59PM (5 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @07:59PM (#560452)

    This actually has lots of general applications; and it would be great if mainstream apps had more support. I definitely would like to be able to send increasing level urgency texts to certain people in emergencies. My wife, doesn't touch her phone when commuting home... what with it being illegal; and she has it set to silent etc so as not to be tempted. I'd occasionally need to reach her and would love to be able to send a 'hey, pull over somewhere and call me back..' and have that bypass the silence setting. And likewise for her to reach me in the same situation.

    My kids also...I don't normally want to bypass silence while they are in class, but i want it impossible for them to miss the message from us when they do check their phone after school or between classes. And sometimes I do want to reach them after school, but frequently they still have it on silent from being in school and I do want to be able to bypass that. (And no they aren't just ignoring me... they genuinely forget. I myself frequently forget to take mine back off silent after a meeting or going to a play movie or play; and it'll be hours or the next morning before I notice. It would be a useful feature for certain people to be able to send me a message that gets past it.

    It would be a useful feature too, if instead of putting my phone on silent I could trivially just set it on silent for X hours or until X time. I usually always know when i want my phone to start making noise again when i silence it; but i usually forget to turn it back on at that time ... out of sight, out of mind. Is that already a feature? Heh.. seems obvious that it should be... I should check.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:10PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:10PM (#560460)

      The timer on silent mode is a good idea others having control over it not so much.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @08:56PM

        by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:56PM (#560500)

        others having control over it not so much.

        As long as the user of the phone has control over who can beat silent mode it's reasonable. But I agree its still a fine line... at a movie theatre or in class if the phone is set to silent that should be respected always. If you give a remote helicopter parent the power to interrupt anything anytime it does create problems. I guess 'turn the phone OFF' will still work.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 28 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:11PM (#560462)

      Android has had priority alert implementations for a while. You set your phone in do-not-disturb, and set specific people who can get through.

      As far as making your kids see your message: lock the screen, flash the screen, buzz the vibration on a specific pattern, potentially emit a loud sound after a while. Repeat automatically until the kids send you a message.
      If you do that during school and they get yelled at, you get sent to the principal.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @08:45PM (1 child)

        by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:45PM (#560491)

        Android has had priority alert implementations for a while. You set your phone in do-not-disturb, and set specific people who can get through.

        That sounds precisely "not good enough".

        Most of the time I want my messages to respect the D-N-D settings. If my wife has her phone set to silent because she's in a meeting; I don't want a random 'hey, luv ya' getting past that. What I want is to be able to prefix my message with say 'urgent:' or 'interrupt:' and then, and ONLY then, have the message pass the dnd settings. (Also keep the idea of being able to set specific people who can get through -- so *I* have to say 'interrupt' AND they have 'permit interrupts' from me before it breaks DND settings.) Likewise with my kids, I don't want 99.9% of our messages sent to them in class to break dnd...I can't really think of a message I'd need to break through to them during class. Even if someone died, I'd just have them paged through the office. But right after school for example, if they're hanging out and chatting with friends because we usually pick them up half an hour later, and they haven't taken their phone off DND yet, and the neighbor is picking them up a bit earlier then usual and I want them to get that message so the neighbor doing me a favor doesn't have to wait around for 30 minutes before my kids even think they should start heading out to look for us -- then I'd like to push that message and just that through DND, because I know they're out of school and just haven't looked at their phone yet. This sort of thing happens pretty often.

        • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:35AM

          by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:35AM (#560706)

          I generally agree with the sanctioned "break DnD" approach. My take is: text (SMS) is FYI not requiring a response or confirmation. Phone call is for questions and guaranteed delivery. Think UDP and TCP.

          > if someone died, I'd just have them paged through the office.
          The apropriate approach would be a proper face to face conversation. Yes, it is not urgent. A person in a hospital, on other hand, might be, but still a phone call would be my choice. The emotional feedback from my child, if any, is important to receive.

          > [...] the neighbor is picking them up a bit earlier [...] my kids [...] just haven't looked at their phone yet.
          Again, I'm just sharing my approach here, not claiming to be the definitive guide. And I'm talking 12+ y.o. kids. I'd call them (each of them!) and get confirmation they understood and agreed. Skipping the second part is easy but unfair. What if some kid doesn't want to go home then and opt for the bus instead? Neither the neighbour should wait nor the kid should feel guilty. If I want to mandate the returning hour that's a reason for a dialogue. And last, if nobody picked the call (a single one), I'd shoot a text FYI. If they want to argue about it it's their initiative now. In any case I'd warn the neighbour to wait no longer than 5 min, after it is a favor and I don't want to abuse their time. If any kid didn't show in time, well, bus/walk time for them. Makes them bear the consequences for their behavior.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:11PM (#560463)

    You're going to have your kids following you around the house all day yelling "DAD DAD DAD HEY DAD DAD HEY DAD" until you stop using the app on them. Good luck.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:48PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:48PM (#560493)

      That's when I reach for the belt.

      • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:09AM

        by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:09AM (#560603) Journal

        ~"If you put a dog's nose in its mess it will learn, but if you put a human's nose in its mess you'll end up with a hefty bill for therapy and a new fetischist" -- Davan (R.K Milholland)
        (Paraphrasing from memory)

  • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday August 28 2017, @08:27PM (4 children)

    by richtopia (3160) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:27PM (#560473) Homepage Journal

    I'm confused. If there is an emergency, why not make a phone call? That way you have verbal conformation that the message was received.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @08:52PM (3 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:52PM (#560497)

      Quite a few kids don't have any plan at all, and just go from wifi to wifi with mom or dad's old phone or an ipod touch or ipad mini etc; because rate plans are expensive for a lot of people. So phoning isn't an option there either, but being able to ensure you reach them next time they connect would be a good feature too. In my particular case, my kids actually don't have voice minutes either.. they have a pre-paid plan that for $99/YEAR gives unlimited texting. But I realize that's something of an exception to the usual rule.
      Finally, even with a full phone service in place, if the phone is on silent a phone call is useless.

      There are lots of legitimate cases where a parent want to push through silent mode.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bart9h on Monday August 28 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)

        by bart9h (767) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:57PM (#560546)

        VOIP?

        Hangouts, Whatsapp, Telegram, they all have an option to make a voice call.

        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:12AM

          by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:12AM (#560667)

          VOIP and equivalents don't accomplish anything if the phone is on silent and the 'call' goes unanswered/unacknowledged.
          They also require data, which with the kids is hit and miss as they don't have a data plan... my kids and most of their friends just wifi hop because its cheaper.

          I'd rather a solution that queued the message for them, delivered it when it could, and made sure they saw it. (My daughter might have 1000 IM from 20+ people over 5 different apps after turning her phone to silent for a few hours...(Much of that 1000 is going to be new messages from group chats e.g. on skype... where hundreds of the messages are just her friends chatting with eachother... )

          The point is that the fact that she got a message from Mom and Dad might easily go unnoticed under an avalance of notifications like that until she goes through it*; where I want her to see we sent her a must-read-asap message even if she just checks the time.

          * And I say that from personal experience; I've missed messages from my family for hours if I had tons of email, call, and other IM notifications piled up after a meeting. I'll glance at the phone, or check my schedule... see that stuff has piled up; and don't dig into it until later. But I would have wanted to see certain urgent messages from my wife right away up front.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:12AM (#560606)

        Was just thinking, so? Then I remembered some US carriers charge both parties on a mobile call for some ridiculous reason. I suppose that means you can't actually call someone who is out of credit.

  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 28 2017, @09:01PM (10 children)

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:01PM (#560505)

    In what world is "sorry missed your text" a valid excuse? And why would a parent send a text for something urgent enough to use this app on? Looks like yet another attempt at using technology to fix bad parenting.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @09:13PM (8 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:13PM (#560511)

      In what world is "sorry missed your text" a valid excuse?

      I miss peoples texts all the time. Why should this never happen to my kids?

      And why would a parent send a text for something urgent enough to use this app on?

      What should they use if the device is on silent?

      Looks like yet another attempt at using technology to fix bad parenting.

      Quite a leap from wanting to reach your kids to 'bad parenting'. I posted in another thread about other applications for an app like this that I'd appreciate; nothing to do with 'parenting'.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by crafoo on Monday August 28 2017, @09:35PM (7 children)

        by crafoo (6639) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:35PM (#560529)

        No, it's bad parenting. If a child does not respond, ignores you, and then claims ignorance you take the phone away. Then you explain why. Finally you set out the rules for getting the phone back.
        If you're trying to communicate something urgent to your child through a text message you are a bad parent.
        Teaching responsibility and that actions have consequences is job #1 for all parents. Everyone sucks at it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:54PM (#560542)

          Apparently, children might not have plans which allow them to receive phone calls. If the US didn't have the user pay for incoming calls to mobiles, I guess this wouldn't be such an issue.

          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @11:52PM

            by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @11:52PM (#560595)

            Even then if the phone is on silent, it would be just as easy to miss phone calls.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:01PM (#560549)

          I, and my children feel blessed that you aren't our parent.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @11:48PM

          by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 28 2017, @11:48PM (#560590)

          No, it's bad parenting. If a child does not respond, ignores you, and then claims ignorance you take the phone away.

          If the child has the phone on silent because they are in class or at a movie or eating dinner with a friend -- then they should be applauded for being polite and respectful.
          Then the child then doesn't look at their phone for several hours, thus being ignorant of the message you sent for hours. Perhaps they even left it in their school bag, downstairs with their shoes and then spent the afternoon upstairs chatting/playing games/whatever. And in your house this a punishable offense?

          Then you explain why.

          Is the explanation that you are some sort of crazy asshole control freak?

          Finally you set out the rules for getting the phone back.

          The children must check their device for new instructions every 15 minutes OR ELSE ?

          If you're trying to communicate something urgent to your child through a text message you are a bad parent.

          If that is the communication channel you have, then that is the communication channel you use. What does that have to do with the quality of parenting. My kids can receive SMS, and if they're on wifi have a number of other apps they use for messaging. Plus lots of kids don't have phones at all; including apparently yours the minute the battery dies and they fail to respond to you immediately. Are those the best parents or the worst?

          Teaching responsibility and that actions have consequences is job #1 for all parents. Everyone sucks at it.

          I don't know about "everyone" but I do think you're doing it wrong.

          What does that achieve? If *I* set my phone to silent going into a movie, I often don't catch it, and miss all messages and calls for hours after the movie, often its mid-morning before I notice.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday August 28 2017, @11:59PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 28 2017, @11:59PM (#560598) Journal

          No, it's bad parenting. If a child does not respond, ignores you, and then claims ignorance you take the phone away.

          And you lose any chance of getting to your kid other than physical presence - which is an imposition on child attention much bigger than a simple text message ("your parent wants to see you" instead of "your parent needs you to know this/that").
          Somehow this loss of capability is called "good parenting" in your opinion.
          Do you care to provide arguments for your position?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:42AM

          by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:42AM (#560708)

          > If a child does not respond, ignores you, and then claims ignorance you take the phone away.
          To make sure you cannot reach them anymore at all. Right. Doesn't work and doesn't even sounds good.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:31AM (#560728)

          > If a child does not respond, ignores you, and then claims ignorance you take the phone away.

          And then they can't ignore you because you can't contact them! Genius!

          Do you solve all your problems by cutting off your nose?

    • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 28 2017, @10:13PM

      by t-3 (4907) on Monday August 28 2017, @10:13PM (#560554)

      Texts get dropped all the time...

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:31PM (#560523)

    Dad sends text. Kid replies with nude photo. Dad goes to prison.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:47PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:47PM (#560565)

    s/child/peon/g

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:39AM (#560707)

      Is the parent/boss paying for the device and service used by the child/peon? If so, then what's your objection?

  • (Score: 2) by snufu on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:28AM (2 children)

    by snufu (5855) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:28AM (#560619)

    How did I make it to adulthood without miracle phone apps like this?

    • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:44AM

      by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:44AM (#560709)

      You mean you didn't see your parent's texts?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @11:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @11:33PM (#561223)

      I'm scratching my head about that as well. Heck, I didn't even carry quarters for the payphone; it was "1-800-CALL-ATT" (for collect calls, to those too young to remember) and when it asked for my name the answer was "Mom, come get me". She'd deny the charges and show up 10-15 minutes later.

      I got my own phone at the very timely age of 18, but that was unlimited voice calls only for the first couple of years, with $0.10/sms which went almost entirely unused.

      A book detailing just how I survived this harrowing ordeal should be out as soon as I finish negotiations with the publisher, and ensure that the statute of limitations for neglect and abuse has passed so as to keep my parents from being locked up.

(1)