Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

People always have to bitch about SJWs because reasons.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom.

Unless the phone bill is also covering the purchasing of the phone, he's paying nothing for the phone.

Paying the bill potentially gives him ownership of the phone account. It doesn't give him ownership of the device used to access that account, anymore than, say, your housemate paying the bulk of the grocery bill gives them ownership of your fridge.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom. Somebody mentioned in here that he's fronting the bill. At the very least, he has just as much right as the mother. But, (and here's a freebie for you Dakka-bingo players) I'm sure the SJWs in the crowd will say even if he pays 10x more to maintain it than what she did when she initially bought it, she has more right. Because reasons.

Not necessarily. Depending on the model of phone and the carrier, it might be a $700 iPhone that he's paying $50 a month for unlimited talk, text and data. He's going to need to be paying that bill every month for over a year to even equal the cost of the phone.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If dad is paying for the phone bill, then he's certainly paying more for the phone than mom. Somebody mentioned in here that he's fronting the bill. At the very least, he has just as much right as the mother. But, (and here's a freebie for you Dakka-bingo players) I'm sure the SJWs in the crowd will say even if he pays 10x more to maintain it than what she did when she initially bought it, she has more right. Because reasons.

I have a Wii U. My roommate has bought games on my Wii U and DLC. He used his own money. It is still my Wii U.

In this case, an even better example might be that your roommate pays the electric bill, so that means he also owns your Wii U. Because of SJW reasons, or something.

Unless I missed something, which is possible, it seemed like the general agreement was that the dad was fine in taking the phone* but should have given it back to the mother instead of holding on to it as he didn't own the phone proper, the mother did.


*Whether he should have been able to know about her conversation is a different kettle of fish.

 Ouze wrote:
In this case, an even better example might be that your roommate pays the electric bill, so that means he also owns your Wii U. Because of SJW reasons, or something.

SJBS!

 Ahtman wrote:
Unless I missed something, which is possible, it seemed like the general agreement was that the dad was fine in taking the phone* but should have given it back to the mother instead of holding on to it as he didn't own the phone proper, the mother did..

When the story was that the message was something 'inapropriate', that was the common opinion, yes.

When it turned out that the 'inapropriate' message was actually just her venting about her Dad's partner, his justification for taking the phone suddenly became somewhat dubious.

Minors can own things

Just because I paid for the pen my daughter uses to write a letter, doesn't give me the legal or moral right to read the letter she writes.

 insaniak wrote:
When it turned out that the 'inapropriate' message was actually just her venting about her Dad's partner

That seems like a pretty rose-tinted appraisal of the situation. I would be curious what was actually said and not sort of what was said. There is a difference between "I don't like Dad's new girlfriend" and "**** that ***** I hope she dies and can go **** herself", as far as concern from parents go.

From a teenager, those two statements are more or less synonymous. And prone to change at a moment's notice.

Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight. So...let's look at another example being a CAR. Little Timmy at age 16 buys a clunker of a car, $1500. Dad agrees to pay for registration, insurance, gas and maintenance. Car needs regular maintenance due to age and such, goes into the shop a lot. Plus say...$700 during the year for insurance. After , with all the maintenance and charges and such, dad pays $4000, while Timmy had only put in initial $1500. Timmy gets failing grades, caught with drugs, knocks up his sibling's babysitter, whatever; basically, he does bad stuff. Dad takes away rights to car.

And yes, that's basically the same situation, just a different item being punished. Timmy's name is on the car, but dad puts more money into it, repeatedly. If Timmy acts up, I'd say dad damn well has the right to pull the keys.

"I buy more food, so the fridge belongs to me". Seriously? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

An alternative view is that Dad's contributions of money for insurance and servicing are gifts. As such the money and car belong to Timmy and Dad therefore has no legal or moral right to take them away and certainly no right to check the GPS records on Timmy's satnav to see where Timmy has been driving around.

If Dad had said at the outset that he would contribute X but expected Timmy to behave properly in return, that would be a different kettle of fish.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

"I buy more food, so the fridge belongs to me". Seriously? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

The fact that it's a ridiculous claim is the entire point. It's no more ridiculous than your suggestion that paying someone's phone bill means you own their phone.

Only as a parent, and, only while the child lives under your roof. Look, I'm not a parent. But if I was 12, and I started sending inappropriate messages to people, and my dad confiscated my phone (or computer, as we didn't have cell phones until I was graduating)...hell, I'd feel it appropriate. At least now as an adult I would. As a 12 year old, I'd have been mad as hell. But 12 year old kids just don't have a clue. They really don't.

I actually planned to write an addendum, once I got onto an actual computer and woke up a bit more clearheaded. My previous post was ONLY acceptable when the child still lives under the parent's roof. And yes, the father SHOULD tell Timmy "these payments stop if you do this, this or this; you either have to FULLY pay yourself, or I take the car. Your pick." Yes, that should be something the dad says (and has in writing, to teach the son of the importance of written contracts), but it's not a 100% must. But should happen.

I have a friend with a teenage son. Son has bought his own X-Box 360. It's his. Yet when he got failing grades in school, because he was playing too many video games, his dad took away the X-Box. Even though his son fully bought it.
Are you going to tell me that's wrong? Because I consider that good parenting. Under parent's roof=living under parent's rules. The parents shouldn't abuse this, but when kids act up, there should be consequences. It's called a life lesson. Fewer and fewer kids are being taught them.

It's better than letting him fail, but I think it would be much better parenting to set down sensible rules about video game playing time when they ask for a machine, long before someone gets into bad grades territory.

Under parent's roof does not mean that all parent's rules are good ones.

Arbitrary confiscation of other people's property by the authorities is one of the things the USA supposedly was formed up to stop.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Just because I paid for the pen my daughter uses to write a letter, doesn't give me the legal or moral right to read the letter she writes.

While I agree with you on the moral grounds, I don't think that in this situation you wouldn't have legal grounds.


For example, when I was in basic training in the army, the drill sergeants weren't allowed to open my mail, but once I had broken the seal on the letter, they were then able to take said letter and read it. They really didn't often do this to letters, but did do this to packages as anyone who received contraband items had those items taken immediately.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I was in basic training in the army, the drill sergeants weren't allowed to open my mail, but once I had broken the seal on the letter, they were then able to take said letter and read it. They really didn't often do this to letters, but did do this to packages as anyone who received contraband items had those items taken immediately.

Oh I had fun with this one.

For example, when one of my younger brothers was going through basic I bought a set of lacy thong type panties for a chick with like a 60 inch waist. Had a female friend of mine spray perfume on them and write a 'Can't wait to see you again' love note, and then sent them to him. He had to open them up in the platoon open bay in front of his Drill and the rest of the guys.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I was in basic training in the army, the drill sergeants weren't allowed to open my mail, but once I had broken the seal on the letter, they were then able to take said letter and read it. They really didn't often do this to letters, but did do this to packages as anyone who received contraband items had those items taken immediately.

Oh I had fun with this one.

For example, when one of my younger brothers was going through basic I bought a set of lacy thong type panties for a chick with like a 60 inch waist. Had a female friend of mine spray perfume on them and write a 'Can't wait to see you again' love note, and then sent them to him. He had to open them up in the platoon open bay in front of his Drill and the rest of the guys.

Enjoy a +1 my friend

Well, I posted a response and it got lost in the failed connection. I forgot what I wrote. Something about reminding you that I wrote "parents shouldn't abuse their power blah blah blah".

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree-I think my friend provided proper parenting in his situation, and with knowing the father pays for the cell phone bill, (which depending on the length of time he's been paying will outweigh the cost of the initial phone purchase) I'd say he has as many rights as the mother in this situation. And I'd also say the father in my car example was in the right, although yes, it would be in the best interest of him and Timmy to determine a clause that could cause Timmy to lose the car.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's better than letting him fail, but I think it would be much better parenting to set down sensible rules about video game playing time when they ask for a machine, long before someone gets into bad grades territory.

Under parent's roof does not mean that all parent's rules are good ones.

Arbitrary confiscation of other people's property by the authorities is one of the things the USA supposedly was formed up to stop.

Yeah, not so much. Until such time as someone reaches legal majority, they are in essence the chattel of their parents. In the case where the parents are not a couple, the legal responsibilities for the upkeep and maintenance of the children is determined by whatever court order is in place. Parents are legally responsible to provide for their children and so, conversely, enjoy certain supervisory rights. The simple fact that a child has been gifted with certain items does not provide them with carte blanche usage of said items; if this were the case, the parents would not be legally responsible for their use of the items. In example, if a child drives a vehicle recklessly and causes an accident, the parent is responsible for the damages, not the child.

A common practice is to install "governors" on electronic devices that limit "screen" time. Amazon in particular has a built-in function that lets parents input exactly how much time each day a child is allowed to use the device and then prevents further use.

In the case of this father, it would have been easier for him to restrict or curtail use of the phone service via parental account controls that the major networks offer.

Children are not chattels. They are human beings and have most of the same rights as adults.

On a tangential point, it has been ruled that Employers have the right to access and read electronic communications of their staff during working hours. Now while that is a EU directive, and it has been recommended that employers do not use the powers excessively, it does kind of throw a huge spanner in the right to claim privacy.

If an employer is legally entitled to access your electronic communications while you are at work, why is it such a leap to accept a parent who accesses a childs electronic communications while they are in your care?

A parent has the responsibility to protect a child from harm when in their care. That includes protecting them from themselves, and that may, at some point, require checking at an extent that some people find excessive.

Cheers

Andrew

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Children are not chattels. They are human beings and have most of the same rights as adults.

Yes and no. While the historical status of children is one of viewing them as property; they do in fact have rights, though limited in many regards until such time as they reach the age of majority (17-19 years of age depending upon state laws). You may disagree with my usage of the term; however, please do not get stuck on that to the point where you ignore the rest of the conversation.

Just as in the case of school (Tinker v Des Moines). Children have no reasonable right to privacy in regards to parent oversight of their activities. SCOTUS has consistently held that parents have pre-eminent control of and responsibility for their children's development, placement, safety, education, health, and upbringing.
(Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510"] 268 U.S. 510; 268 U.S. 510; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205"] 406 U.S. 205; 406 U.S. 205; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158"] 321 U.S. 158; 321 U.S. 158; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390"] 262 U.S. 390. 262 U.S. 390. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, distinguished. Pp. 600-604.)

For this reason, the parent in question of this case was found to have improperly retained ownership of a device that was purchased by the other parent as technically the child has no property ownership rights.

 AndrewC wrote:
On a tangential point, it has been ruled that Employers have the right to access and read electronic communications of their staff during working hours. Now while that is a EU directive, and it has been recommended that employers do not use the powers excessively, it does kind of throw a huge spanner in the right to claim privacy.

If an employer is legally entitled to access your electronic communications while you are at work, why is it such a leap to accept a parent who accesses a childs electronic communications while they are in your care?

A parent has the responsibility to protect a child from harm when in their care. That includes protecting them from themselves, and that may, at some point, require checking at an extent that some people find excessive.

Cheers

Andrew

I imagine that those rights only extend to communication sent from devices owned by the company. Also, the requirement that it only applies during working hours is also there.

So you could sit on your phone during your lunch break send messages bitching about your boss and your boss would have no right to look at them.

Also, if you were using your privately owned phone or a personal email account during work hours then I don't think the directive would allow your employer to look at messages sent on them. You could just lock the phone and refuse to unlock it or log out of the email account. They may have the right to see what you sent but they don't have the right to force you to unlock your phone or log in to your personal email account.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I imagine that those rights only extend to communication sent from devices owned by the company. Also, the requirement that it only applies during working hours is also there.

So you could sit on your phone during your lunch break send messages bitching about your boss and your boss would have no right to look at them.

Also, if you were using your privately owned phone or a personal email account during work hours then I don't think the directive would allow your employer to look at messages sent on them. You could just lock the phone and refuse to unlock it or log out of the email account. They may have the right to see what you sent but they don't have the right to force you to unlock your phone or log in to your personal email account.

It was one of those curious (read as common sense fail) cases, where it was deemed that the ownership of the device didn't matter, though in the particular case it was a work device that was used.

I also think that the lunch hour is included in many contracts of employment, and so is still considered 'work time'.

The ruling only came through recently, 13th Jan I think, so there may be a lot of creases to iron out before we can see the full implications, of what they can and cant do with regard to access, but if they have the right to see something and you refuse to do so, doesn't that then land you in it for a breakdown of the working relationship? Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where someone was sacked after posting remarks on their FB page disparaging their boss?

Good old George wasn't that far off for his book, only 30 years or so. (even the chocolate ration is shrinking!!!!)

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I imagine that those rights only extend to communication sent from devices owned by the company. Also, the requirement that it only applies during working hours is also there.

So you could sit on your phone during your lunch break send messages bitching about your boss and your boss would have no right to look at them.

Also, if you were using your privately owned phone or a personal email account during work hours then I don't think the directive would allow your employer to look at messages sent on them. You could just lock the phone and refuse to unlock it or log out of the email account. They may have the right to see what you sent but they don't have the right to force you to unlock your phone or log in to your personal email account.

It was one of those curious (read as common sense fail) cases, where it was deemed that the ownership of the device didn't matter, though in the particular case it was a work device that was used.

I also think that the lunch hour is included in many contracts of employment, and so is still considered 'work time'.

The ruling only came through recently, 13th Jan I think, so there may be a lot of creases to iron out before we can see the full implications, of what they can and cant do with regard to access, but if they have the right to see something and you refuse to do so, doesn't that then land you in it for a breakdown of the working relationship? Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where someone was sacked after posting remarks on their FB page disparaging their boss?

Good old George wasn't that far off for his book, only 30 years or so.

(even the chocolate ration is shrinking!!!!)

Cheers

Andrew

What?!?!?! Let me get my pitchfork!

Children have no reasonable right to privacy in regards to parent oversight of their activities. SCOTUS has consistently held that parents have pre-eminent control of and responsibility for their children's development, placement, safety, education, health, and upbringing.

This case isn't about child safety, etc. it's about a bitter divorced dad snooping on his daughter's private messages and overreacting like a great big drama teenager because his daughter doesn't like his new girlfriend.

Also the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grammes a week.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.

Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Children have no reasonable right to privacy in regards to parent oversight of their activities. SCOTUS has consistently held that parents have pre-eminent control of and responsibility for their children's development, placement, safety, education, health, and upbringing.

This case isn't about child safety, etc. it's about a bitter divorced dad snooping on his daughter's private messages and overreacting like a great big drama teenager because his daughter doesn't like his new girlfriend.

Also the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grammes a week.

Exactly, and he has every legal right to do the snooping. Sure, we can bemoan his overreaction as outside observers who are not privy to the entire story (unless you're one of those rare people who believe that media outlets are comprehensive sources of information) but he acted within his rights up until he illegally withheld property that didn't belong to him (the phone) from the rightful owner (not the child but the mother).

I recall my short stint working social services and being forced to intercede between two siblings fighting over how much more in food assistance one received over the other. People are silly.