Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Verizon to Launch Mobile 'Chaperone' Service

Posted by timothy on Mon Jun 12, 2006 01:05 PM
from the spy-movies-will-need-new-gimmicks dept.
Privacy Communications
Billosaur writes "CNET is reporting that Verizon will soon be offering a service (branded "Chaperone") which will allow parents to keep track of their cell phone-carrying children. Following on the heels of a similar service started by Sprint in April, the system will allow parents 'to set up geographic limits and receive text alerts if their children, who also carry phones, go too far from home. The service also lets parents check where their offspring are via a map on their cell phone or computer.' Disney will purportedly be offering a similar service when it begins selling mobile phones sometime this summer. It's 10pm -- do you know where you child's cell phone is?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Verizon to Launch Mobile 'Chaperone' Service 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

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

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

    Does someone else know where your child is?

    • Re:It's 10pm... (Score:5, Funny)

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

      Annoying Kid: Can you molest me now? Good.
    • Does someone else know where your child is?
      Also, does your stalker know where YOU are? Someone could hide THEIR phone in your car or something and track YOU as well. They'd just need to pick the phone up later, which wouldn't be difficult to find!... Small world, huh? Fancy meeting you here... again... and again... and here... and there. Yes, indeed. It IS a VERY small world.

  • Big Daddy (Score:5, Funny)

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

    We are all NSA's children...

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

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

      -October Sky
      Cell phone free since 2003!
      • "Oh don't worry, we're only monitoring where you go, not what you do when you get there. It's just traffic analysis, so it doesn't fall under the 4th Ammendment."

        You read it here first.

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

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

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

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

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

        So if you really don't want your location known, do what the teenagers with these phones will do: Turn it off. And when mom/the G-men pick you up and want to know why they couldn't track you, tell them you couldn't get any service.

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

          by eln (21727) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:37PM (#15518486) Homepage
          If Law and Order has taught me anything, it's that this capability can be easily defeated simlpy by uploading a virus to the phone company's switches to make them think I'm coming in from different towers every time they check.

          Unfortunately, the cops will figure this out and disable the software after I bury my victim alive, but not before she actually dies, and my whole operation will be foiled.
          • True, but if 24 has taught us anything, we all now know that the phone companies are protect by Phoenix poison pill firewalls that cause everything to self-destruct when you try to break in. Not that it matters, though, because Jack Bauer's cell phone has pre-programmed backdoors to every computer system and can make flash memory cards self-destruct on command.
          • ...then the resolution should be more than sufficient. (And before anyone cries that they would never do these sorts of things, they already do them. They just haven't gotten around to doing them to white US taxpayers. Yet.)

            How would you know? Blackmail is most sucessful when it goes unreported. If the blackmailer is some shadowy arm of government or the police who are you going to report it to?
  • 1) Tell parent you are going to a friends house...
    2) At friend's house, tie Cellphone to family dog (make 'em think you're actually there and moving around)
    3) ???
    4) Profit!!!
    • The profit comes when some enterprising youngster figures out he can charge money to carry around his deviant friends' cellphones for the evening, maybe even send a text message every once in a while to complete the scenario.

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

      I look forward to watching the segment on CBS where they interview some kid who's doing this and everyone acts surprised that kids can actually think for themselves.
      • I believe this kid-tracking service was previously (c. 2000) marketed to parents in Europe, then subsequently the ability to turn it off was marketed to the kids.
        • I believe this kid-tracking service was previously (c. 2000) marketed to parents in Europe, then subsequently the ability to turn it off was marketed to the kids.

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

        • Re:Steps for Workaround (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fooDfighter (916234) on Monday June 12 2006, @02:23PM (#15518868)
          Nothing, but if you can't trust your kids even a little I think underage drinking will be the least of your worries.

          Moreover I don't expect that a generation raised using surveillance will be particularly upset by increased government surveillance in their adult years. Or maybe that's the whole point.

        • Simple (Score:3, Insightful)

          by aepervius (535155)
          It is as bad as having a permanent leash. I dunno for you, but having such a leash on me around my teen would have pushed me to rebellion (or rather a head on conflict), defiance toward my parents, and even complete and uter distrust. After all why should i trust somebody which do not trust me a bit. Trust is to be shared and exchanged. it ain't a one sided issue (unless you are waaaay naive). Worst case scenario if you are a leash for your whole teenage, you do not get to experience by yourself , and even

        • Because of this system you know that he is there and not in the front yard of some keg party somewhere... so you let him hang out a little longer. What is so bad about this?

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

          If y

        • Yes, I do think that many parents are this stupid. Remember all the stupid kids you grew up with? The ones that were better at getting the girls than you were? They're parents now, and I assure you, they're no more intelligent now.

    • Re:Steps for Workaround (Score:5, Funny)

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

      My god, according to GPS, Johnny hasn't moved in hours. I think he's dead!

  • How pointless is that? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raitchison (734047) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:09PM (#15518259) Homepage Journal
    Seriously, the kids will know this kind of watching is being done and will either turn off their phone or leave it behind (or ata friends house inside the "permitted area".

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

    Sounds like a great plan to me.

    • Re:How pointless is that? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by birge (866103) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:41PM (#15518511) Homepage
      I'm sure the people at Verizon have thought about this a little longer than you give them credit for. For one, the parents will be able to call the cell phone when they want, and bust the kid if he's not there. Any sufficiently clever parent will call at least once to check up on the kid, or establish a precedent of making it likely. Second, Verizon can alert parents when the number is forwarded, or disable forwarding of the number. There's really no way around that without unbelievably serious hacking. And if my kid could do that, then I'd be happy to let him go to where ever the hell he wants to go!
        • Reminds me of the kid that recently got lost in the woods. He nearly starved to death. Why? Because his parents made him so paranoid of strangers that he was hiding from the rescuers. What did his parents tell the press after the kid was found "I'm proud" that he was hiding from the strangers.
            • Sure, tell that to all the parents that have had kids abducted, raped and molested, and then murdered and left in some field somewhere.

              You must not have children, and if you do I hope you live in a safe area because you are the parent letting the kids run around and after a couple hours realizing they're gone and phoning your neighbors and going "uh, is Johnney over there?"

              Trust and relax. Please, get a frigging clue..

              Yep, trust and relax.

              Hey parents of kids who have had bad things happen, Newsfla

  • Where can I check the maps?

    This brings a whole new meaning to those "find available women in your area" banner ads.

  • What did parents do before this? (Score:5, Insightful)

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

    Is this hard to do, hell yes. But nobody ever said life was easy, and in the long run spending time with your kids will be worth it. Remember it works both ways, when the parents are old and need someone to talk to, the children will be there.

    • Seriously when I was growing up my parents never had any of this technology and yet they managed to keep me out of trouble. While I agree the world is a different place, and there are lots of new and different problems, it all boils down to the parents taking an active role in the child's life. Things like asking the kids how their day went, what sorts of issues they had, things that let the kid know that home is a safe place. Or how about making time to have dinner together, or helping with the homework or the millions of other things families should do together.

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

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

      • Re:What did parents do before this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hyfe (641811) on Monday June 12 2006, @02:31PM (#15518932)
        But in this age of two parents working, those kinds of things don't happen anymore. I spend 12 hours out of my day commuting and working. I spend 12 hours out of my day commuting and working.

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

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

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

      • maybe the "AGE" isn't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

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

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

        • Re:What did parents do before this? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheDarkener (198348) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:47PM (#15518571)
          Dual income households have become mandatory in most areas unless you're part of the relatively privileged few who can afford to have a spouse stay home and still maintain a roof over their heads and food on the table.

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

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

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

          Nobody is locking you into your lifestyle, you're just acting a scapegoat because it's easier to accept than to change.

            • Re:What did parents do before this? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Deagol (323173) on Monday June 12 2006, @04:26PM (#15519784) Homepage
              You don't get it. The median household income in the US was $43,318 in 2003. Half of all households make less than that. Many people in the US are barely scraping by with both parents working, often more than one job each. This is not their fault, either. They are not lazy, and not all of them are stupid. They are just unlucky. We have built a system that accepts this reality in exchange for the ability of a few to make outrageous amounts of money. This isn't about people making bad financial choices and whining about being forced into living beyond their means. This is about people having no choice but to live beyond their means, because their means are so small.

              I don't think you quite get it. How you do in life is usually more about your choices, rather than how you started out.

              My family of 4 lives comfortably on a gross income of around $17k/yr. My yearly income peaked 2 years ago at about $53k/yr. I'm able to live the way I do now because I planned and made wise choices with my money. I've been in the post-college workforce for about 10 years now. I consider myself "retired" from the 9-to-5 grind. I'm 34 and work half-time from home.

              No huge cash reserves anywhere -- in fact, my savings is pretty much nill right now. Just a modest bit of equity in some property I paid off a while ago when I was getting paid well, and low monthly financial commitments. I bought a $40k house in the "country" -- 75 miles from a large city where an average starter home costs $150k. I have a $275 home payment, a $320 auto payment, a couple of utilities, and the misc stuff required of the car (insurance, taxes, gas).

              We did the two-income thing for a few years early in our marriage, and it just wasn't worth it. The extra work wardrobe to maintain, the extra driving, the dining out because we were both too tired to cook. The need for TV to de-compress due to all the stress. When you break it down, most two-income families, in fact, come out worse at the end of the month.

              At the risk of being old-fashioned, if one of the parents stays home and actually makes food from scratch and does other productive things to save money by reducing consumption or creating consumables, you make out much better. Why? Because savings are tax free. That $15 dinner for 4 at McDonald's was really $20 if you count the gross income needed to buy it. Toss in a buck or two for the gas. Then there's the indirectly-related expenses, ones that allow for the 2nd job: daycare, the 2nd car (and insurance to go with), etc.. So that $15 McD's meal may, in reality, come out to $30.

              Now, a similar dinner made at home from scratch (where practical), may cost $7 in materials and a hour of time. Say it comes out to $10 when you count the applicable factors (outlined above) of a single working family member.

              Sure, I was "lucky" by getting to go to college and starting off on relatively secure footing in life. Many are not so lucky. However... I see many "poor" making simply dumb financial choises.

              I had a poor(-ish) neighbor that I would verbally assault on a regular basis due to her dog getting off his leash and harassing our livestock. I said, "Go spend $10 and get a body harness -- he'll never get loose again." She repsonded indignantly, "You have the money?!?", implying she had no money to spare. Yet she had a huge wide-screen TV and stereo set up in her house, she had a Dish subscription, and her high-school daughter would yap all night on the front porch with her cell phone.

              Drive down the "poorest" neighbourhoods in your town. Look at the people talking w/ cell phones on the porch/lawn, the fanicer-than-needed autos in the driveways, the cable/satellite installations, with big TVs in the living room. How many are smoking or drinking beer? Sure, this is a generalization, and some are better/worse than the average. But think what $100/month (cable, cell phone, plus cigarettes) could do to jumpstart a "poor" family if put into a simple savings acco

        • Re:What did parents do before this? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by onkelonkel (560274) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:56PM (#15518636)
          Our new neighbors moved into our white collar suburb, from a not too distant blue collar suburb. They went from owning, clear title, a big 4 bedroom house, to buying a much smaller house with a $250k mortgage. The wife couldn't stay home with the kids any more, and had to go back to work full time, the kids into afterschool day care and the husband switched shifts so he could be home when the kids got up.

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

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

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

          I mean, seriously... how much does it really cost to "keep a roof over 2 people and keep them fed" in a normal "middle class" neighborhood? One could live quite comfortably for under $2000 a month, which is just over $11 a

    • Re:What did parents do before this? (Score:5, Interesting)

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

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

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

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

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

      But as a tool of control? Stupid idea.

  • Really Smart (Score:4, Insightful)

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

  • Who will think this will work? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Transcendent (204992) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:12PM (#15518296)
    Ways around it:

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

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

    However... that being said it does have some merits for emergency situations, knowing where to pick your kid up from, and it could be a fun project to map the paths of a group/herd of friends.
    • 6) Get better parents.

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

      So, when does

  • Hey susan, could I leave my phone with you? (Score:3, Informative)

    by denis-The-menace (471988) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:14PM (#15518314)
    That way I can take a plane to see that guy I met on MySpace in the middle east. [mlive.com]

    So much for that Chaperone.

  • The thing is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alnjmshntr (625401) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:17PM (#15518335)
    this is not really for tracking your children, that's just the cover story. More likely be used for tracking spouses - without their knowledge, of course.
    • lol. quite right. I implemented a mobile tracking utility for a breakdown service here in the UK (so when you called the call centre, they could figure out where you were even if you had no idea).

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

      Second thing, the manager's wife had her handbag stolen, with mobile in it (and housekeys and address). He tracked the bag to see if the burglars were heading towards his house. (they weren't, the bag moved in the

  • Such hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doches (761288) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (sehcoD)> on Monday June 12 2006, @01:28PM (#15518421)

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

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

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

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

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

    • Re:Such hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:44PM (#15518542) Journal
      Yeah, like when I was a kid and wanted to sleep over my friends house my bitch of a mom would speak with the other parent to make sure that it was okay. How fucking intrusive was that?
    • This is really no different. Many Americans were furious to discover that the NSA had recently obtained their cell phone records, yet how many EFF members will raise a complaint against this system? None. Why? Because it's OK to discriminate against kids & students.

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

  • Who watches the watchers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday June 12 2006, @01:31PM (#15518438) Homepage Journal
    For heaven's sake, think of the children!!!

    For heaven's sake, don't think of the identical chips in your own phone!!!

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

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

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

      Therefore, you can either have them learn to think while still

    • Re:This seems like a violation of privacy rights.. (Score:5, Interesting)

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

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

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

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

        Most, unfortunately, are still too stupid to think for themselves at this age and much older.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.