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.

 dogma wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

if the phone had inappropriate content on it he should have taken it to the police (if it was anything potentially illegal) which would have meant he would not have been in charge of returning it

But what constitutes inappropriate content? If she was using her phone to create CP both parents are potentially liable for distributing it.

 Wulfmar wrote:
The article suggests that the mum called the police straight away rather than talking to the father - it works both ways. It's a little difficult for him to talk when he's had the police called on him. I'm not surprised he thought 'stuff it'.

No, it isn't. It isn't hard for a man to behave in a humble manner.

The article in the OP specifically says "rude and inappropriate".... which to me suggests it isn't CP, but rather the fairly typical 12 year old insults "like, OMG, your braces are so, like, nasty!"


And while it isn't hard for a person to behave in a humble manner.... I can also understand his behavior in this instance, as I can see myself responding in such a way.

I mean, think about it.... You take a phone away from your kid because of something you see on it.... Kid returns to other parent. Next thing you know, the cops are knocking on your door, telling you to give it up. While I doubt it happened this exact way, I can also see the wife at the edge of the drive way with another officer, acting all distraught, and then doing the "locate my phone" app thing, and then when the cops arent looking, giving the ex-husband the "gotcha bitch!" look.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

The article in the OP specifically says "rude and inappropriate".... which to me suggests it isn't CP, but rather the fairly typical 12 year old insults "like, OMG, your braces are so, like, nasty!"

Can activity be typical but also "rude and inappropriate"? To me "rude" necessarily disqualifies 'typical", with inappropriate as a significant modifier. And I'm not sure parents get the right to violate their children's privacy in that way.

 Wulfmar wrote:
The article suggests that the mum called the police straight away rather than talking to the father - it works both ways. It's a little difficult for him to talk when he's had the police called on him. I'm not surprised he thought 'stuff it'.

I think it's clear the article is trying to push an adgenda here, so I would not asume that the absence of details on what happened before the police became involved means that nothing happened.

[The mother] wouldn't have to call the police, her new boyfriend was one. It is very convenient when that happens.

Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?

Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx

 Wulfmar wrote:
Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?

Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx

Apart from the fact that this is not what happened. Nowhere does it say that there was no discussion. All we know is that he took the phone that was apparently the property of his ex wife and refused to return it to his ex wife. He had still did not return it 3 months later. He refused time and again to return the phone to its owner. He is not in the wrong for confiscating the phone, he is in the wrong for refusing to return it to the owner, his ex wife. I would guess if he had given it to the officer when he turned up that day nothing would have happend, which would have been the reasonable response had she called the police in an over reaction. But he didn't. He chose to hold on to it, not just from his daughter, but also from his ex wife and the police. For a long time, with no intention of returning it even after it went to court.

 dogma wrote:
And I'm not sure parents get the right to violate their children's privacy in that way.

That's where you are wrong.


Children, when it comes to their parents, have no right to privacy.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?

Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx

Like most things in life, this is not a binary yes/no, black/white, right/wrong answer. Both parties were being foolish, stubborn, and immature.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?

Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx

By my count, 7 people have already done so on the very first page of this thread.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
And I'm not sure parents get the right to violate their children's privacy in that way.

That's where you are wrong.


Children, when it comes to their parents, have no right to privacy.

Of course children have a right to privacy. How much depends very much on the age of the children, but they don't have no right to privacy.

How does that meme go?
"That escalated quickly!"
Removal from use of electronic devices for inappropriate behavior is pretty basic (good call by him, we need to monitor and feedback social interactions... privacy at a young age is premature and not a good idea).
Returning the phone with daughter to mother with a report of the issue would be a reasonable hand-off (that was his error).
A further rule of phone stays separated from daughter during time of care would be a prerogative as well (I think would be his right).
Phone being used as a "spying device" or to threaten "I'll tell mom!" I could see going out of control and I would be tempted to remove for that reason alone (Do not allow either the mother or daughter to give in to easy temptation).
Ex-wife deciding to sick the cops on father of her child one would think is weapon of last resort: you would have burnt the bridge better than a divorce and not made a "friend". (Ummm... psycho crazy, use your words! grownups remember?)
Step-dad cop should have been the light of reason on this... too bad on that. (Letting his peers be used for this kind of garbage? Really?)
Well, crazy happens, looks like the divorce was legit.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That's where you are wrong.


Children, when it comes to their parents, have no right to privacy.

Parents do not possess children, they are not slaves. Children have Constitutional Rights, even when in conflict with their parents.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Hold on... people actually think that the guy who confiscated the phone because it had inappropriate stuff on it, who then had the police called on him the same day before any discussion with the mother was had... is in the wrong?

Simple yes or no will suffice as I try and understand - then if you could explain why - thx

Reading the thread prior to your post might have helped somewhat.

He's in the wrong because he refused to return the phone to its rightful owner.

His wife is also in the wrong for getting police involved in what should have been a fairly easily resolved family issue. However, from the point where he refused to return the phone when asked, perpetuating the stupid here is entirely on him. If he had just handed the phone over when the police showed up at his door, the ensuing silliness would likely have been avoided, and he could have demonstarted to his daughter an adult way of resolving disputes.

 insaniak wrote:
If he had just handed the phone over when the police showed up at his door, the ensuing silliness would likely have been avoided, and he could have demonstarted to his daughter an adult way of resolving disputes.

Or at least let it be known that deciding to take a stand with police is just stupid in the extreme, which was demonstrated in reality quite well.

 dogma wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That's where you are wrong.


Children, when it comes to their parents, have no right to privacy.

Parents do not possess children, they are not slaves. Children have Constitutional Rights, even when in conflict with their parents.

Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.


Therefore, children have no right to privacy.

Christ - I asked a question to better gauge peoples replies (hence the yes/no followed by expansion because unlike a load of you English isn't my first language and it would help my comprehension).

And I get a load of BS replies being sarcastic including a Mod - well done.

I read the previous replies, I wanted to know if people were in favour of some aspects or all. It's not difficult for native speakers, but apparently it's too much to ask.

So, this is your shtick, huh? You come into established threads, stir the pot, and ask for people to explain (the stuff you didn't read), and then get butthurt when people aren't receptive to that?

Well, it's fresh and new, I'd give you a 6/10.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Christ - I asked a question to better gauge peoples replies (hence the yes/no followed by expansion because unlike a load of you English isn't my first language and it would help my comprehension).

And I get a load of BS replies being sarcastic including a Mod - well done.

That will happen when you come into a thread on page 2 asking for people to explain their point of view when that's exactly what they've already been doing for the last page and a half.

If there was something that had been previously posted that you felt was unclear, then addressing that directly rather than posting a blanket 'Please explain?' would have garnered a much less negative reaction.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.


Therefore, children have no right to privacy.

Supcom has ruled that children have Constitutional Rights, regardless of what their parents say.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.


Therefore, children have no right to privacy.

I'm not seeing how your conclusion fits your premise.

How does responsibility for someone give you the right to refuse them privacy?

 dogma wrote:
Parents do not possess children, they are not slaves. Children have Constitutional Rights, even when in conflict with their parents.

I have an 11 year old that thinks he is in full charge of his life and his parents only get in the way.
He still makes decisions from silly to dangerous to his well being.
We are in charge and "guardians" for a reason: to give a safe environment so they can learn and not kill themselves off before they are a contributing member of society.
They have the right to food and shelter, a caring family life but zero rights to privacy until all the various nasty pitfalls of social interaction and dealing with "bad people" have been covered and addressed: I am not as concerned what my child says but what others say to him.

Children are not property, but they are a terrible responsibility not to be taken lightly while being cute enough to not drive parents completely crazy.

My boy got all angry with me the other day when I was telling him shouting while in a moving car is not a good idea and a punishment was to be given since he ignored me for the 3rd time.
He was about to "storm off" out of the van for school drop-off and I had to cloths-line him as he was about to run out in front of a moving car (school drop off is dangerous!).

Or my favorite was going to Buffalo and watching a Penguins and Buffalo game and my son was bad mouthing the Sabers for a while till I pointed out the density of fans around us not being Penguins (thought he was going to get me killed with him!).

Even as they enter their teen years they can be pretty good 95% of the time but that 5% is brutal and gives us all heart attacks.

I think Dogma is right, although I think it's not a very clear line as far as privacy goes. You guys that are saying kids have no rights to privacy know it too, if you think about it. To use a hypothetical, do you think a parent who insisted on watching a 15 year old shower for whatever reason wouldn't wind up in trouble?

 dogma wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.


Therefore, children have no right to privacy.

Supcom has ruled that children have Constitutional Rights, regardless of what their parents say.

That only applies in certain circumstances. Children do enjoy certain protections under the law, but not to the extent that those of their legal majority do.


Parents are well within their rights to search their children's property, search their place of dwelling, confiscate their property, forbid them to leave the residence (or any other local), etc, etc.


To say that children have the full rights and privileges of adults past their legal majority is false. And it's a ridiculous notion to boot.

It could probably depend on the circumstance. I don't think that parents have a right to search a room because they are a parent, I think they have a right to search a room because they own the room. If they buy their child a car, they can search it. If the child has a job and buys his own car I would argue that it is off limits to the parents without consent. Stuff like that is what makes sense to me. Children do have a right to privacy when it comes to their own property. I don't think google is going to hand you a password just because you are a parent as another example.

There appear to be some unhealthy boundary issues in this thread.

 Talizvar wrote:

They have the right to food and shelter, a caring family life but zero rights to privacy until all the various nasty pitfalls of social interaction and dealing with "bad people" have been covered and addressed: I am not as concerned what my child says but what others say to him.

But what if a parent is one of the "bad people"?

 insaniak wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Children are the responsibility of the parents until they reach their legal majority. It's not a matter of slavery or the Constitution.


Therefore, children have no right to privacy.

I'm not seeing how your conclusion fits your premise.

How does responsibility for someone give you the right to refuse them privacy?

Responsibility of the child, and for their safety and well-being. If a parent suspects something out of the ordinary, they are well within their rights to take measures to insure that the child isn't at risk to themselves and others. That includes violation of privacy, confiscation of property, and suspension of privileges.




@Ouze:




I think Dogma is right, although I think it's not a very clear line as far as privacy goes. You guys that are saying kids have no rights to privacy know it too, if you think about it. To use a hypothetical, do you think a parent who insisted on watching a 15 year old shower for whatever reason wouldn't wind up in trouble?



An over the top, and silly, example. And completely beside the point. What you describe is criminal behavior on the part of an adult. Children enjoy protections under the law from such criminal behavior against their person.



They don't enjoy Constitutional protection against parent fulfilling their parental responsibilities and obligations to the child.

What if you want to make sure they don't have genital warts and just want a quick peek because you are a nurse? They don't have a right to privacy and it is your job to keep them healthy.

I was using an extreme example because I don't think anyone would dispute that, and which then shows that "kids have zero privacy rights" isn't accurate.

It's a fuzzy line which moves as they get older.

So are we following Aristotle in our idea the children are not actual human beings?

 d-usa wrote:
What if you want to make sure they don't have genital warts and just want a quick peek because you are a nurse? They don't have a right to privacy and it is your job to keep them healthy.

Once again, an irrelevant, silly, an over the top attempt to deflect.


If the child is in pain, the parent does have the right to investigate and see what is wrong. It's call being a good parent. And being a nurse, it goes doubly so if it's your own child, and the kid is complaining.


Since people want to keep throwing around "examples", I'll do one of my own.


What if you noticed the grip of a revolver sticking out from under your kid's mattress? One that they bought from somebody else with their own money? It's technically theirs, is it not? Just like their cell phone and diary, right? The fact that they had it hidden, means they want you to respect their privacy, right? Going by the opinions I'm seeing so far, I get the impression that some think the parent has no right to violate their privacy, even in circumstances such as this.