in

Love ItLove It

More on tracking your child (dog or Elderly person you are a caregiver for)

The concept of tracking was the discussion I started yesterday. I know, you can track your child or your pet today. It isn’t hard. You can also track those elderly folks that are functionally impaired. All of these are good things overall.  It is a great ability if you are considering having removable trackers for your child or your aging parent (or that cat or dog that refuses to stay home). What I worry about is the end game. Funny, as a technologist, I shared this yesterday as an informational piece but also to start the process of thinking. I often present information on MyLot or Virily and then see what the comments bring. They, comments, are like rain, they bring blooms!

Now, the blooms have started. I liken this to Carolina’s wonderful Magnolia bloom and other blooms she shared (she has also shared many flowers, but I am not at that point with this yet). What has started in my head is an argument between the three open questions that I have arrived at after all the comments I got yesterday.

1. If it becomes mandatory to have a tracking device, that has some interesting legal ramifications, there are legally assigned tracking devices today. These are normally given to people that are on house arrest. They are allowed to be at their house, and go to work but nowhere else. There are legally tested arguments that allow those devices to be applied to someone that has been found guilty or is on the trail but considered a significant flight risk.

a. If there is an employer that makes employee tracking mandatory (as a condition of employment) that is going to be a legal battle

b. If a child has the chip when they are 18 can they have it removed

c. Dogs have chips today, but they are passive ( you have to scan the dog’s leg)

d. Would this be more than simply tracking your phone

2. Another open issue that remains for me is the Privacy issue. If I can be found no matter where I am, I am giving up a piece of my privacy.

3. Is this the right thing to do.

Here are the other arguments to consider. If this process prevents one person from being kidnapped and killed, then the loss of privacy needs to be evaluated. If this presents 100 people from being kidnapped or killed, then the privacy issue is a lot less of a factor.

I am still in the position of not completely sure, not normal for me when it comes to technology. To everyone that responded yesterday thanks for helping me reach the middle. I am still not sure where I stand on this issue.

  • Does peace of mind mean more than Privacy?

    • Yes
    • No
  • Does peace of mind mean less than Privacy?

    • Yes
    • No
  • Does being able to track your (insert dog, child or elderly person here) bring you peace?

    • Yes
    • No

What do you think?

13 points
Legend

Written by DocAndersen

I am a long time blogger and technology poster.I focus on what is possible, but I also try to see what is coming. In recent years I have been focused on sharing the memories of my family, as part of my Family History Project.

29 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Q: Does peace of mind mean more than Privacy?
    Yes (7 votes) – 70%
    No (3 votes) – 30%
    Q: Does peace of mind mean less than Privacy?
    Yes (3 votes) – 33%
    No (6 votes) – 67%
    Q: Does being able to track your (insert dog, child or elderly person here) bring you peace?
    Yes (8 votes) – 73%
    No (3 votes) – 27%

  2. if you are a parolee and you agree to the chip, then that’s fine. I have no problem with it, but only until your sentence is up. none of this “felons have to be tracked at all times” nonsense

    let me be clear; chipping parolees under house arrest is okay. giving parolees a three decade probation for the purposes of tracking them is not

    you can’t chip your employees. ever.

    • You’ve brought an interesting pen to this fight, Alex.

      I do agree there is the right to choose. I also agree that having employees chipped as a condition of employment is bad (but we need a court case to make this illegal).

      Your comments about chipping parolees are a whole new aspect of this argument. I hadn’t honestly thought about that.

      If I am intent on “going straight” I would agree to a chip.
      If I am not, I would not agree.

      But what if the chip was a condition of parole?

  3. Tracking has two “pay”, good and bad. It depends on where and why it is used … where it is used, etc. I fully understand that it follows a man who is sentenced or has a house arrest. I also understand the tracking of the animals. In the case of other tracks, I begin to think whether it’s right or wrong. Everyone needs some privacy.

  4. My opinion is that we do not have any more privacy now … no matter where we go almost everywhere under the cameras … whether it’s on the road, in shopping centers, in the doctor … it’s too much for me … and also children must have their own privacy and can have it if they are well-educated … this is my opinion

  5. Well, here is my situation. My husband wears a watch and it can be tracked. He is aware (sometimes) that is why he wears it. If he wanders off, can’t find home, isn’t sure who he is or what year it may be and gets in some kind of issue, I can find him. We made the decision shortly after his formal diagnosis. Wearing his watch is a normal thing for him and thankfully I have never had to use the tracking feature other than a weekly check to make certain it is still working. It’s hard to say if it gives him peace of mind, but it does bring peace of mind to me.

    I know many that believe it is the wrong decision. They may be correct. Some suggested med-alert instead, but he likes to push buttons. So we agreed to the watch.

  6. I am totally against the idea of forcibly implanting chips in people, in ‘some’ cases it may seem good, but does it respect the privacy of the person – i am not so sure.

Leave a Reply