Teens, drug use, and the limitation of privacy.

[Atilla]

Counterpoint:

If I own a house or am co-owner of a house and there's a possibility that contraband is in one of the rooms in the house that I own, I will that room to ensure that I am not breaking the law. Whether or not some kid claims that room is her own private property isn't of consequence to this homeowner. Should something illegal be in that room, I'm responsible for it.

If I am renting a house and my landlord uses his key to come in and riffle through my belongings behind my back, I would be terminating the lease agreement rather quickly. I mean, an inspection of the house to make sure you don't have a marijuana crop in the basement, maybe. But ask yourself this: if you went to a hotel, and the owner demanded to go through your phone, search your car, and go through all your luggage to ensure you weren't doing drugs, wouldn't you find that slightly offensive? What if they didn't even tell you and you came back to find the hotel staff picking through your suitcase?

Isn't monitoring some of your child's activity also a part of parenting?

To an extent. That doesn't mean you have carte blanche to violate their privacy, though, in the same way that "discipline" doesn't mean you're allowed to give your kid a black eye when they do something wrong (or just give them one every week even if they haven't done something wrong, just to make sure).

And, really, if your kid is doing drugs and refuses point blank to talk about it, I'm not sure what finding that they have drugs is actually going to achieve. I think it's fair to say that if you're in a situation where it would be at all justifiable to conduct this kind of search, you're already concerned about your child's behaviour. I don't see how actually finding the drugs changes the situation much - this kind of search just undermines your child's trust and respect for you (by demonstrating that you don't trust or respect them), and therefore makes it less likely they will respond to your concerns.

[blue_tetris]

Counterpoint:

If I own a house or am co-owner of a house and there's a possibility that contraband is in one of the rooms in the house that I own, I will that room to ensure that I am not breaking the law. Whether or not some kid claims that room is her own private property isn't of consequence to this homeowner. Should something illegal be in that room, I'm responsible for it.

If I am renting a house and my landlord uses his key to come in and riffle through my belongings behind my back, I would be terminating the lease agreement rather quickly. I mean, an inspection of the house to make sure you don't have a marijuana crop in the basement, maybe. But ask yourself this: if you went to a hotel, and the owner demanded to go through your phone, search your car, and go through all your luggage to ensure you weren't doing drugs, wouldn't you find that slightly offensive? What if they didn't even tell you and you came back to find the hotel staff picking through your suitcase?

Yeah. If I had a lease with someone, I'd check the contract on what they could do in the way of searching my place. And if I went to a hotel and they, having given me the right to privacy, checked through my stuff, they'd get a lawsuit. But the contract between you and the hotel is a little different. First off, I'm paying the hotel for service. If the service is bad, the hotel loses business. So I've bought, among other things, the privacy that comes with that room. It's been afforded to me because I used money to attain it.

I guess if my parents went through my stuff, I'd stop doing my chores. Or stop paying them. I dunno. I'd certainly be offended, as the child, but as the adult--an elder person whose sole intention is to make sure that the child isn't breaking a law in my home--I think I'd be justified in what I did. And I don't think I'd have any remorse looking through my child's things. If I found drugs, I'd have a chat with them. If I found anything that didn't look like drugs, I'd ignore it.

Moreover, I support the right of any parent to try to get involved in their child's life and make sure they're not doing anything wrong. I'd expect to be met with resistance by any child I spoke to about this. Maybe being a good parent is not always agreeing with your child's right to privacy (or other things) when those things conflict with the law or your own moral code. On the one hand, you want your child to have the freedom to do what they please in most regards. On the other hand, you have an obligation (Lord knows the media and community will hold you to the obligation) to raise a child with the correct morality, even where it doesn't violate law.

If you don't do that, you're a bad parent. If you do do that, apparently you're violating the child's rights and are still a bad parent. :(

Isn't monitoring some of your child's activity also a part of parenting?

To an extent. That doesn't mean you have carte blanche to violate their privacy, though, in the same way that "discipline" doesn't mean you're allowed to give your kid a black eye when they do something wrong (or just give them one every week even if they haven't done something wrong, just to make sure).

I don't think privacy is as inherent a right to children as the right not to get hit. Additionally, without observing in some fashion, there's no way to tell if they've done anything wrong. So, now, the act of observing is tantamount to punishment? How will you ever be able to issue proper punishment when things do go wrong? I mean, I don't want to be one of those parents that spanks their children. Now, I can't be one of those parents that watches their children? I'm wondering what step is next.

As for a pre-emptive rebuttal: It's probably fine for a parent to be forthright with a child and say "Don't do anything wrong in this house, because I intend to search your room." I don't see why it's necessary for a parent to go to such measures just to make sure they can monitor their children.

And, really, if your kid is doing drugs and refuses point blank to talk about it, I'm not sure what finding that they have drugs is actually going to achieve. I think it's fair to say that if you're in a situation where it would be at all justifiable to conduct this kind of search, you're already concerned about your child's behaviour. I don't see how actually finding the drugs changes the situation much - this kind of search just undermines your child's trust and respect for you (by demonstrating that you don't trust or respect them), and therefore makes it less likely they will respond to your concerns.

Seriously? I did drugs and didn't tell my folks about it. You don't tell your parents when you do drugs. That's how you can keep doing drugs.

Because I hid my habits, my parents didn't know whether or not I was doing drugs. When they asked "Hey, you're not doing drugs like the ohter kids, right?", I would comfortably answer "no". They had no reason to think I was doing drugs. I gave no inclings that I was getting high at any point. So when they didn't search my room, I was content that the lie succeeded. Had they searched my room, they would have found an eighth under my bed, and confronted me to say: "David, you lied to us. You were doing drugs."

I would have felt very bad having let down my parents. I wasn't a complete jack-ass beyond corrigibility. I was a conflicted dude who respected his parents and thought he could sneak something by them. I wasn't yet perfectly aware of the consequences of my actions. Because I was a child. And they were grown-ups. And if they searched my room, I'd likely have been grounded from hanging out with those friends for a while and come to make new associations who didn't use drugs. Things would have gotten resolved. Moreover, they could've searched the room and said that they were "just tidying up" and I'd have never known the difference. I doubt I'd think they were spying on me at all. I'd just think mom kept good care of the place.

Thankfully, they never found my shit, I kept hanging out with those people, and I kept getting baked. As luck would have it, alcohol and drugs never ruined my life. :)

[Ampersand]

To an extent. That doesn't mean you have carte blanche to violate their privacy, though, in the same way that "discipline" doesn't mean you're allowed to give your kid a black eye when they do something wrong (or just give them one every week even if they haven't done something wrong, just to make sure).

And, really, if your kid is doing drugs and refuses point blank to talk about it, I'm not sure what finding that they have drugs is actually going to achieve. I think it's fair to say that if you're in a situation where it would be at all justifiable to conduct this kind of search, you're already concerned about your child's behaviour. I don't see how actually finding the drugs changes the situation much - this kind of search just undermines your child's trust and respect for you (by demonstrating that you don't trust or respect them), and therefore makes it less likely they will respond to your concerns.

As a parent and legal guardian, yes, by all means you have carte blanche to violate their privacy - privacy "violations" while under someone's care aren't the same as privacy violations in the Patriot Act sense. You're certainly not allowed to hit them, because that goes *against* the idea of guardianship and protecting their wellbeing, whereas "violating" their privacy is a social issue, and while they may object to it, you're doing it for their greater wellbeing. Now, I suppose the argument could be made that hitting a child in discipline could also end up being for their greater wellbeing, but I think a rational person can certainly divorce the two ideals from one another.

What is privacy? What concept ensures a minor's privacy above and beyond all other things? If I am responsible, as a parent (And therefore legal guardian) of anyone under my direct care, then their privacy goes out the window. You don't get privacy as a right, you get it as a privilege and a benefit of whatever inherent ruleset that has been passed down. Children earn respect and trust - It's not a universal right or guaranteed set of predetermined human rights laws. If the child has broken said trust by being disobedient to the point where my own suspicions were raised, then it's entirely their fault and problem. I think Mr. Tetris said it a bit more eloquently than I, but I fail to see the logic in your argument, 'Tilla.

I wasn't yet perfectly aware of the consequences of my actions. Because I was a child. And they were grown-ups.

Felt it was also important to emphasize this.

[wolfgang]

My initial reaction was completely against the concept, but that was a very personally driven reaction. I would have been very unhappy with my parents if they had ever violated my privacy like that. It would have shaken my trust in them and really damaged what is a great relationship. But then again, this is a selfish expectation because our relationship is so breezy because I lie to them all the time, and for some reason I never feel much guilt.

If your child is getting into dangerous situations then you probably have the moral high ground to try and intervene, the problem is that you have to take action on suspicion and parents don't always have the best judgement and sites like that create a completely unrealistic image of what constitutes a dangerous situation.

I think that the best way to try and retain your child's trust is honesty, be upfront with them. They'll probably still resent you, but what can you do? I mean, you can go behind their back but it will blow up in your face if they find you.

[Atilla]

I guess if my parents went through my stuff, I'd stop doing my chores. Or stop paying them. I dunno. I'd certainly be offended, as the child, but as the adult--an elder person whose sole intention is to make sure that the child isn't breaking a law in my home--I think I'd be justified in what I did. And I don't think I'd have any remorse looking through my child's things. If I found drugs, I'd have a chat with them. If I found anything that didn't look like drugs, I'd ignore it.

Moreover, I support the right of any parent to try to get involved in their child's life and make sure they're not doing anything wrong. I'd expect to be met with resistance by any child I spoke to about this. Maybe being a good parent is not always agreeing with your child's right to privacy (or other things) when those things conflict with the law or your own moral code. On the one hand, you want your child to have the freedom to do what they please in most regards. On the other hand, you have an obligation (Lord knows the media and community will hold you to the obligation) to raise a child with the correct morality, even where it doesn't violate law.

Perhaps, but the right of parents to be involved in their child's life isn't what you were talking about earlier - as I understood it, you were talking about a property owner being obligated to go through people's stuff to make sure not a single ounce of drugs ever tarnishes their premises. That's quite a different matter, and as I think the hotel analogy demonstrates, most people would find that kind of search objectionable, especially if it occurred without their knowledge.

Also, I think you're being somewhat too generous as to parents' intent. While a lot of parents would conduct such a search out of genuine concern, there is considerable potential for abuse. I actually know parents who steal their childrens' money and belongings (which come from employment, not an allowance) and try to use this as an excuse when caught. There's also a large potential for power games, particularly with regard to monitoring private correspondence and contacts, which I imagine is quite common. One of the things which makes it difficult for people to escape domestic abuse is that the abuser frequently attempts to cut off contact with anyone who might help the victim; this is why having someone demand to monitor all your phone conversations and everyone you speak to is problematic.

I don't think privacy is as inherent a right to children as the right not to get hit. Additionally, without observing in some fashion, there's no way to tell if they've done anything wrong. So, now, the act of observing is tantamount to punishment? How will you ever be able to issue proper punishment when things do go wrong? I mean, I don't want to be one of those parents that spanks their children. Now, I can't be one of those parents that watches their children? I'm wondering what step is next.

That wasn't at all what I was suggesting. Rather, just as there is a line between discipline and abuse, there is a line between observing your child and being creepy and overbearing. If you have a tracking device surgically implanted in your child's torso, or demand strip searches "to ensure they're not carrying drugs", that's going too far. I think going through people's private belongings behind their back or listening in on all their conversations is also going a bit far. Privacy is generally treated as a right; spying on people is considered creepy, eavesdropping is rude, and as I have pointed out most people aren't exactly enamoured of the idea of other people going through their stuff. Respecting a child's privacy is a reflection of the value society places on privacy.

Because I hid my habits, my parents didn't know whether or not I was doing drugs. When they asked "Hey, you're not doing drugs like the ohter kids, right?", I would comfortably answer "no". They had no reason to think I was doing drugs. I gave no inclings that I was getting high at any point. So when they didn't search my room, I was content that the lie succeeded. Had they searched my room, they would have found an eighth under my bed, and confronted me to say: "David, you lied to us. You were doing drugs."

I would have felt very bad having let down my parents. I wasn't a complete jack-ass beyond corrigibility. I was a conflicted dude who respected his parents and thought he could sneak something by them. I wasn't yet perfectly aware of the consequences of my actions. Because I was a child. And they were grown-ups. And if they searched my room, I'd likely have been grounded from hanging out with those friends for a while and come to make new associations who didn't use drugs. Things would have gotten resolved. Moreover, they could've searched the room and said that they were "just tidying up" and I'd have never known the difference. I doubt I'd think they were spying on me at all. I'd just think mom kept good care of the place.

Thankfully, they never found my shit, I kept hanging out with those people, and I kept getting baked. As luck would have it, alcohol and drugs never ruined my life. :)

Being of a somewhat more cynical bent, I think that many parents wouldn't be anything like that calm about it.

Anyway. My parents were both rather protective and terribly naive. My mother once expressed her horror at having heard a kid at secondary school swear. Oh no! Of course, most kids my age started swearing about grade three and haven't stopped since. You've said a lot of things about the parents knowing best and looking out for their kids. But from my experience? My parents really didn't know much about the shit that goes down in the real world. The very fact that I can use the word shit without blinking would shock them. They couldn't have protected me from everything they wanted to even if they had been aware of it, save by locking me in my room for 20 years. Parents don't always know best and, particularly as they get older, kids need to become independent, make their own choices and deal with their own problems. Of course you should try to discourage them from making bad decisions, but if you ever want them to grow up you eventually have to let them make their own mistakes.

Another anecdote: a lot of kids who go to fancy private schools have trouble with their work at university. Why? Because at school their parents and teachers are always pushing them to study, reminding them to do their homework and not to go to parties and so on. As soon as they don't have someone standing over them, they can't get their shit together. Nobody taught them to take responsibility for themselves, because they were so busy protecting their kid from ever making a mistake.

As a parent and legal guardian, yes, by all means you have carte blanche to violate their privacy - privacy "violations" while under someone's care aren't the same as privacy violations in the Patriot Act sense. You're certainly not allowed to hit them, because that goes *against* the idea of guardianship and protecting their wellbeing, whereas "violating" their privacy is a social issue, and while they may object to it, you're doing it for their greater wellbeing. Now, I suppose the argument could be made that hitting a child in discipline could also end up being for their greater wellbeing, but I think a rational person can certainly divorce the two ideals from one another.

What is privacy? What concept ensures a minor's privacy above and beyond all other things? If I am responsible, as a parent (And therefore legal guardian) of anyone under my direct care, then their privacy goes out the window. You don't get privacy as a right, you get it as a privilege and a benefit of whatever inherent ruleset that has been passed down. Children earn respect and trust - It's not a universal right or guaranteed set of predetermined human rights laws. If the child has broken said trust by being disobedient to the point where my own suspicions were raised, then it's entirely their fault and problem. I think Mr. Tetris said it a bit more eloquently than I, but I fail to see the logic in your argument, 'Tilla.

Seriously? You think you can do whatever the fuck you want without regard for you kids' privacy? You'd be totally down with parents surgically implanting a tracking device on their kid? And a microphone and camera, so they can monitor everything they do 24/7? Demanding strip searches when they get home from school each day to make sure that they're not carrying anything illicit? You don't think that any of these things might be slightly disconcerting in any way? You don't think it might be degrading and humiliating for a sixteen-year-old boy to have his mother conduct a body cavity search for drugs? You don't think that it might enable abuse, if the victim is constantly under the scrutiny of the abuser?

When your kid goes to school, the school temporarily has the rights of a guardian. So, I'll ask you all these things again: are you comfortable with teachers being able to demand your daughter strip whenever they want? Installing cameras in toilet cubicles? Going through your child's phone to see who they associate with? Because they have legal guardianship and kids have no right whatsoever to privacy, remember.

I also don't think you can simply wave it aside with "Oh, it's just a social issue, not a right." I'm not entirely sure what that's even supposed to mean. It just looks like a way of saying "Okay, so it might be a stupid and harmful way to behave, but that doesn't matter because it's a social issue!". According to Wikipedia, social issues include "discrimination", "violence" and "suppression of human rights", and I'm pretty sure we don't want parents engaging in those because it's "just a social issue".

Also, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Right of the Child state that nobody/no child shall be "subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy", though that might be more concerned with state interference. We also have laws against the invasion of privacy, which is defined as "The wrongful intrusion into a person's private activities by other individuals or by the government. Tort law protects one's private affairs with which the public has no concern against unwarranted exploitation or publicity that causes mental suffering or humiliation to the average person." (source). I think it's pretty clear that many of the above actions constitute intrusion into a person's private activities by another individual which would cause humiliation to the average person. See also the section on Intrusion on solitude and seclusion in Wikipedia's article on US privacy law.

Even if these things may not technically apply to the case of a child in the home, I think they make clear that privacy is considered valuable by society, it is considered that people do have a right to privacy, and that it is widely acknowledged that breaches of privacy can be harmful. You said that hitting a child goes against their wellbeing - don't you think that humiliating and degrading treatment, treatment which could serve to enable abuse or to trap a child in an abusive situation, might also be against that child's wellbeing? Because if you deny point blank that children have any expectation of privacy, you're saying that it's okay to subject children to that kind of treatment.

[Tanner]

As a parent and legal guardian, yes, by all means you have carte blanche to violate their privacy - privacy "violations" while under someone's care aren't the same as privacy violations in the Patriot Act sense. You're certainly not allowed to hit them, because that goes *against* the idea of guardianship and protecting their wellbeing, whereas "violating" their privacy is a social issue, and while they may object to it, you're doing it for their greater wellbeing. Now, I suppose the argument could be made that hitting a child in discipline could also end up being for their greater wellbeing, but I think a rational person can certainly divorce the two ideals from one another.

What is privacy? What concept ensures a minor's privacy above and beyond all other things? If I am responsible, as a parent (And therefore legal guardian) of anyone under my direct care, then their privacy goes out the window. You don't get privacy as a right, you get it as a privilege and a benefit of whatever inherent ruleset that has been passed down. Children earn respect and trust - It's not a universal right or guaranteed set of predetermined human rights laws. If the child has broken said trust by being disobedient to the point where my own suspicions were raised, then it's entirely their fault and problem. I think Mr. Tetris said it a bit more eloquently than I, but I fail to see the logic in your argument, 'Tilla.

"The case of a 13-year-old Arizona girl strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain-reliever will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this week." - Link

Carte blanche? Really? You can't see any negative repercussions to that policy? Well, I've helped you out. That news story is happening right now.

[blue_tetris]

Also, I think you're being somewhat too generous as to parents' intent. While a lot of parents would conduct such a search out of genuine concern, there is considerable potential for abuse. I actually know parents who steal their childrens' money and belongings (which come from employment, not an allowance) and try to use this as an excuse when caught. There's also a large potential for power games, particularly with regard to monitoring private correspondence and contacts, which I imagine is quite common. One of the things which makes it difficult for people to escape domestic abuse is that the abuser frequently attempts to cut off contact with anyone who might help the victim; this is why having someone demand to monitor all your phone conversations and everyone you speak to is problematic.

I can definitely see how some methods of parenting would be too invasive. I wouldn't have disagreed with that to begin with. I think it's important to see how some methods of parenting can be too lax. Enough to say that my initial argument that some monitoring is necessary still seems sound.

The argument opposing me would be to say that no monitoring is valid; consider my initial statements on the matter.

Secondly, if you're a homeowner, you have some obligation to ensure that anything unlawful occuring in your home is not something you can be charged with. It doesn't matter if you're a landlord, a parent, or whathaveyou: You need to either make sure there's nothing illegal in there or you need to waive your responsibility to another party. My lease stipulates that I am responsible for anything illegal that I do with my home--that's why the landlord doesn't have to search my place.

I don't think privacy is as inherent a right to children as the right not to get hit. Additionally, without observing in some fashion, there's no way to tell if they've done anything wrong. So, now, the act of observing is tantamount to punishment? How will you ever be able to issue proper punishment when things do go wrong? I mean, I don't want to be one of those parents that spanks their children. Now, I can't be one of those parents that watches their children? I'm wondering what step is next.

That wasn't at all what I was suggesting. Rather, just as there is a line between discipline and abuse, there is a line between observing your child and being creepy and overbearing. If you have a tracking device surgically implanted in your child's torso, or demand strip searches "to ensure they're not carrying drugs", that's going too far. I think going through people's private belongings behind their back or listening in on all their conversations is also going a bit far. Privacy is generally treated as a right; spying on people is considered creepy, eavesdropping is rude, and as I have pointed out most people aren't exactly enamoured of the idea of other people going through their stuff. Respecting a child's privacy is a reflection of the value society places on privacy.

So we can agree that this is an issue of degrees. Because the same things which are considered basic parenting activities by a parent can likely be considered an "invasion of privacy" by a child. I still think I am justified in disagreeing with this line (which was my initial point):

You'd only have to resort to violation of privacy if you were a terrible parent to begin with.

That line implies that it's not an issue of degree, but instead that correct parenting requires no monitoring. My argument was there, at its core. But let me explain the phrase "violation of privacy", because when it happens in the home, it's got little actual meaning: Any time my parents "parented", I always felt like they were overstepping their boundaries. And I'd have said they were invading my privacy half of those times. Most of those times, I was reprimanded and I didn't do that stuff anymore.

Because I hid my habits, my parents didn't know whether or not I was doing drugs. When they asked "Hey, you're not doing drugs like the ohter kids, right?", I would comfortably answer "no". They had no reason to think I was doing drugs. I gave no inclings that I was getting high at any point. So when they didn't search my room, I was content that the lie succeeded. Had they searched my room, they would have found an eighth under my bed, and confronted me to say: "David, you lied to us. You were doing drugs."

I would have felt very bad having let down my parents. I wasn't a complete jack-ass beyond corrigibility. I was a conflicted dude who respected his parents and thought he could sneak something by them. I wasn't yet perfectly aware of the consequences of my actions. Because I was a child. And they were grown-ups. And if they searched my room, I'd likely have been grounded from hanging out with those friends for a while and come to make new associations who didn't use drugs. Things would have gotten resolved. Moreover, they could've searched the room and said that they were "just tidying up" and I'd have never known the difference. I doubt I'd think they were spying on me at all. I'd just think mom kept good care of the place.

Thankfully, they never found my shit, I kept hanging out with those people, and I kept getting baked. As luck would have it, alcohol and drugs never ruined my life. :)

Being of a somewhat more cynical bent, I think that many parents wouldn't be anything like that calm about it.

And maybe they wouldn't. In what capacity could they parent, though, if they didn't know what their child was doing?

Parents don't always know best and, particularly as they get older, kids need to become independent, make their own choices and deal with their own problems. Of course you should try to discourage them from making bad decisions, but if you ever want them to grow up you eventually have to let them make their own mistakes.

The idea that "parents don't always know best" is all fine and well until the community needs to find someone to blame for how a kid turns out. Then, the parents "should have done more". "Why didn't they know there were pistols in their room" or "why didn't they care to find out what they were playing on the computer", etc. etc.

If parents don't know best, why hold them accountable for their children at all? If they don't know how to feed, bathe, and do general upkeep on their children as they age, then why do we trust them with that responsibilty? Is the role of a parent simply to decide how much money to allot to each child? Child services should just let the kids run free and collect child support from the parents.

Another anecdote: a lot of kids who go to fancy private schools have trouble with their work at university. Why? Because at school their parents and teachers are always pushing them to study, reminding them to do their homework and not to go to parties and so on. As soon as they don't have someone standing over them, they can't get their shit together. Nobody taught them to take responsibility for themselves, because they were so busy protecting their kid from ever making a mistake.

There's surely something to be said of underparenting. I still don't think you're a bad parent if you monitor your children.



Also, I'm interested in finding out what the acceptable methods of disciplining children are these days. Spanking is out, right? Can you ground them? That 's imprisonment. I can't think of a single punishment that doesn't encroach, just a little, on a child's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So we need to leave children to learn from their own mistakes? I guess all we can do is hope none of those mistakes end them up in juvenile hall for ten years. And if they do, you can comfortably say about your child: "I did all that I could do for them (where it didn't violate the law or common opinion)."

[T3chno]

I'd just like to express my anger when my parents go through my AIM logs. -_*

Seriously, what bad could I be doing on there? Drug deals? Shit, they know I'm not that type of person.

[jean-luc]

As a parent and legal guardian, yes, by all means you have carte blanche to violate their privacy - privacy "violations" while under someone's care aren't the same as privacy violations in the Patriot Act sense. You're certainly not allowed to hit them, because that goes *against* the idea of guardianship and protecting their wellbeing, whereas "violating" their privacy is a social issue, and while they may object to it, you're doing it for their greater wellbeing. Now, I suppose the argument could be made that hitting a child in discipline could also end up being for their greater wellbeing, but I think a rational person can certainly divorce the two ideals from one another.

What is privacy? What concept ensures a minor's privacy above and beyond all other things? If I am responsible, as a parent (And therefore legal guardian) of anyone under my direct care, then their privacy goes out the window. You don't get privacy as a right, you get it as a privilege and a benefit of whatever inherent ruleset that has been passed down. Children earn respect and trust - It's not a universal right or guaranteed set of predetermined human rights laws. If the child has broken said trust by being disobedient to the point where my own suspicions were raised, then it's entirely their fault and problem. I think Mr. Tetris said it a bit more eloquently than I, but I fail to see the logic in your argument, 'Tilla.

I think you're dramatically oversimplifying the separation between being "under someone's care" and "in the Patriot Act sense."
You make the differentiation that parents are looking out for their children, guarding them, or protecting them. Is this not what the government does to us? The government is supposed to look out for our good, and we are under the care (and under the authority) of the government. When the government violates our privacy, they're doing it for our wellbeing[1]. By your argument, privacy from our government and it's agencies 'goes out the window' as well - it is not a right, but a privilege that the government grants us at it's sole discretion.

The idea that we have no privacy against those that are over us both in guardianship and authority, as in a parent, has far-reaching implications that you don't account for. If we have no right to privacy against our parents, but we do have a right to privacy against our government, then why is this so? what is the differentiation?

[1] - Of course, you can argue that the government is not always acting for our good. Outright corruption or simple misguidance may result in the government violating our privacy in a manner that does not benefit us. But, does this same theory not apply to parents? While I'm sure we'd all like to think that our parents would not be susceptible to outright corruption, we must leave misguidance as a (large) possibility.

[SlappyMcGee]

How can a parent determine what is the right and what is the wrong amount of privacy invasion? There isn't a textbook, and certainly if there was it could be outdated by tomorrow. Certainly the argument here comes down to why you feel the need to privacy in the first place. If you view your parents as your basic guide to life, then why do you insist on hiding things from them that aren't wrong in the first place? If your parents are fine with you having, say, condoms in your room, then they understand the importance of safe sex and are probably pretty good parents. On the other hand, if they do not want you to have condoms because they are the latex product of Satan and Werner Herzog themselves!, then you would probably hide them, and they would find them if they did a room search and be angry at you. Being angry at you because you have condoms sounds like something a bad parent would do.

What I'm trying to reinforce is Tsukatu's statement. If they are good parents, then they understand the stuff that you will do and try as a child and they won't need to invade your privacy because you can be open with them. They will have effectively taught you right from wrong, and therefore, unless they see concrete evidence otherwise, they should have no likely reason to believe that you are doing anything wrong. Bad parents, on the other hand, won't be able to properly explain why some things are correct and others are not; they won't be able to convey the proper moral set on their child, and the child will then probably do things that need hiding from his parents. If you're doing things like drugs or something that your parents disapprove of and hiding it, then they'll probably look through your room and find something. So, ultimately, I find the issue isn't so much about the child's rights to privacy, but whether the parents have properly taught the child. Whether or not it becomes a legal issue depends on the material or information in question, and so therefore does not apply to all situations involving this privacy issue.

[jean-luc]

This debate raises an interesting artifact, one perhaps deserving of it's own thread. It seems that most of you pretty readily agree on the point that drugs are bad. Yet, although this isn't discussed directly for forum policy reasons, I think it's fairly apparent that a large number of people here use, at minimum, cannabis. Why the seeming hypocrisy?

I'm not sure whether or not this topic warrants it's own thread. It ties very directly in to the matter being discussed here, though, since there seems to be a rift between what you think parents should enforce and what you, personally, have done (or your parents have enforced).

[Ampersand]

I think you're dramatically oversimplifying the separation between being "under someone's care" and "in the Patriot Act sense."
You make the differentiation that parents are looking out for their children, guarding them, or protecting them. Is this not what the government does to us? The government is supposed to look out for our good, and we are under the care (and under the authority) of the government. When the government violates our privacy, they're doing it for our wellbeing[1]. By your argument, privacy from our government and it's agencies 'goes out the window' as well - it is not a right, but a privilege that the government grants us at it's sole discretion.

The Government *DOES* guarantee privacy as a right. Parental guardianship does not.

The idea that we have no privacy against those that are over us both in guardianship and authority, as in a parent, has far-reaching implications that you don't account for. If we have no right to privacy against our parents, but we do have a right to privacy against our government, then why is this so? what is the differentiation?

See above.

'Tilla - Depending upon the offense, yes. If I suspect my child is hiding something in their underwear drawer that will do harm (Drugs, firearms, etc.), I will search. If I've found drugs in their drawer before and suspect they're hiding them in their backpack, I will search their backpack. If my child has lied to me numerous times before, then I'm going to take ever-increasing measures to keep the rules of my house intact. No reasonable person would anally violate their child, since any rational person would also have a fair idea of where the line is, and why you shouldn't cross it. Strip Searching a child is blaaaaaaaaaaaaaatantly over-the-top to keep your children safe, and anyone with half a brain would see that. You, of all people should have been able to glean the rationale from my argument.


You guys are silly. I love arguments where someone says "I think that car is red," and the response that person gets is "GOD YOU'RE CALLING THE CAR MAROON? AND BURGUNDY? AND CRIMSON AND RUBY AND RUST AND VERMILION AND SANGRIA????? GOD WHAT AN IRRATIONAL BITCH YOU ARE!!!"

[Tanner]

You guys are silly. I love arguments where someone says "I think that car is red," and the response that person gets is "GOD YOU'RE CALLING THE CAR MAROON? AND BURGUNDY? AND CRIMSON AND RUBY AND RUST AND VERMILION AND SANGRIA????? GOD WHAT AN IRRATIONAL BITCH YOU ARE!!!"

I know you're new but please review the rules for the debate forum.

[blue_tetris]

You guys are silly. I love arguments where someone says "I think that car is red," and the response that person gets is "GOD YOU'RE CALLING THE CAR MAROON? AND BURGUNDY? AND CRIMSON AND RUBY AND RUST AND VERMILION AND SANGRIA????? GOD WHAT AN IRRATIONAL BITCH YOU ARE!!!"

I know you're new but please review the rules for the debate forum.

I don't think he's violated any rules of Debate, trolly McTroll Troll.

I followed his argument just fine.

[otters~1]

I think it's fairly apparent that a large number of people here use, at minimum, cannabis.

If that's all we get from this thread, so be it.

[SlappyMcGee]

You guys are silly. I love arguments where someone says "I think that car is red," and the response that person gets is "GOD YOU'RE CALLING THE CAR MAROON? AND BURGUNDY? AND CRIMSON AND RUBY AND RUST AND VERMILION AND SANGRIA????? GOD WHAT AN IRRATIONAL BITCH YOU ARE!!!"

Can you point out what that was in regard to, Blizz? I don't see where anybody made an assumption like that, except for what Dave already addressed.

[Amadeus]

I would follow the motto 'innocent until guilty'. If your child hasn't been caught, or the children have given you no reason for you to accuse them of abuse, perhaps one should give them the benefit of the doubt. The children have done nothing wrong to have their civil liberties infringed upon.

[Minion_of_Pi]

I'd say that teens forfeit the right to privacy by living off of their parents' food and shelter.

Agreed, and lol'ed when I read that.

[Ampersand]

You guys are silly. I love arguments where someone says "I think that car is red," and the response that person gets is "GOD YOU'RE CALLING THE CAR MAROON? AND BURGUNDY? AND CRIMSON AND RUBY AND RUST AND VERMILION AND SANGRIA????? GOD WHAT AN IRRATIONAL BITCH YOU ARE!!!"

Can you point out what that was in regard to, Blizz? I don't see where anybody made an assumption like that, except for what Dave already addressed.

Specifically, Tanner and 'Tilla with their "YOU MEAN YOU THINK I SHOULD STRIP SEARCH GIRLS AT SCHOOOOOOL??????" thing.

[jean-luc]

I think it's fairly apparent that a large number of people here use, at minimum, cannabis.

If that's all we get from this thread, so be it.

Well, I'd hope that's not the only thing anyone gains from this argument. It was apparent in the first place, I was just mentioning it as part of a question.

Specifically, Tanner and 'Tilla with their "YOU MEAN YOU THINK I SHOULD STRIP SEARCH GIRLS AT SCHOOOOOOL??????" thing.

I think that's a pretty valid extension of the idea that teens have no privacy from their guardians. Your use of all caps and too many question marks makes your paraphrase entirely unlike what was actually said, which makes it hard to take you seriously.

[blue_tetris]

I think it's fairly apparent that a large number of people here use, at minimum, cannabis.

If that's all we get from this thread, so be it.

Well, I'd hope that's not the only thing anyone gains from this argument. It was apparent in the first place, I was just mentioning it as part of a question.

Specifically, Tanner and 'Tilla with their "YOU MEAN YOU THINK I SHOULD STRIP SEARCH GIRLS AT SCHOOOOOOL??????" thing.

I think that's a pretty valid extension of the idea that teens have no privacy from their guardians. Your use of all caps and too many question marks makes your paraphrase entirely unlike what was actually said, which makes it hard to take you seriously.

That would be a valid extension, if anyone was arguing for teens to have no privacy whatsoever from their guardians. But this issue is one of degrees and it seems like no one on the opposing side of the argument gets that. Instead, the opposing side opts to make those who favor more active parenting seem like sponsors for an Orwellian panopticon to which no child has heretofore born witness. The statement "Good parents shouldn't have to violate a teen's privacy" is absolute, and that was the claim that was leveled. The rebuttal wasn't in saying the opposite extreme, and no one had done that; the rebuttal was in saying that the statement was false, because the issue is one of degree.

I don't know how this can get more clear.

[jean-luc]

That would be a valid extension, if anyone was arguing for teens to have no privacy whatsoever from their guardians. But this issue is one of degrees and it seems like no one on the opposing side of the argument gets that. Instead, the opposing side opts to make those who favor more active parenting seem like sponsors for an Orwellian panopticon to which no child has heretofore born witness. The statement "Good parents shouldn't have to violate a teen's privacy" is absolute, and that was the claim that was leveled. The rebuttal wasn't in saying the opposite extreme, and no one had done that; the rebuttal was in saying that the statement was false, because the issue is one of degree.

I don't know how this can get more clear.

There does seem to be a certain component of the debate that believes that there is no right to privacy:

As a parent and legal guardian, yes, by all means you have carte blanche to violate their privacy

You'll notice I was more or less directly responding to that.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think that the component of the argument that Ampersand was trying to make is that legally, we can't argue about this issue because guardians do have carte blanche. On the other hand, what relative degrees which parents are going to indulge to their child is a component of parenting which we can debate and debate, but ultimately it comes down to a judgement call.

I think what you should take from this argument is that your own personal beliefs on the civil liberties of children shouldn't allow you to judge other parents.

[Atilla]

That would be a valid extension, if anyone was arguing for teens to have no privacy whatsoever from their guardians.

And you don't see how asserting that you have carte blanche to violate someone's privacy, and furthermore that privacy is not a right but a privilege, might be construed as arguing that it's okay for that person to have no privacy whatsoever?

I think that the component of the argument that Ampersand was trying to make is that legally, we can't argue about this issue because guardians do have carte blanche.

I don't think they even have legal carte blanche, though - for example, I can certainly see that demanding your child strip might lead to charges of sexual abuse, as might putting hidden cameras in their room or in toilets.

There's also the fact that legality doesn't really come into it. I don't think anyone was arguing that it was illegal for a parent to riffle through their child's belongings, just that it's not really the best way to go about things.

I think what you should take from this argument is that your own personal beliefs on the civil liberties of children shouldn't allow you to judge other parents.

I dunno. I think if parents are telling their kid he can't go out with one o' them gol-dang niggers, for instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to judge them as horrible parents. We all judge people on their decisions and the way they behave all the time. I don't see why being a parent should give you a magical immunity to all criticism, and it's not like I'm advocating that we send the SWAT teams in to "liberate" their children.

[SlappyMcGee]

That would be a valid extension, if anyone was arguing for teens to have no privacy whatsoever from their guardians.

And you don't see how asserting that you have carte blanche to violate someone's privacy, and furthermore that privacy is not a right but a privilege, might be construed as arguing that it's okay for that person to have no privacy whatsoever?

I think that the component of the argument that Ampersand was trying to make is that legally, we can't argue about this issue because guardians do have carte blanche.

I don't think they even have legal carte blanche, though - for example, I can certainly see that demanding your child strip might lead to charges of sexual abuse, as might putting hidden cameras in their room or in toilets.

There's also the fact that legality doesn't really come into it. I don't think anyone was arguing that it was illegal for a parent to riffle through their child's belongings, just that it's not really the best way to go about things.

I think what you should take from this argument is that your own personal beliefs on the civil liberties of children shouldn't allow you to judge other parents.

I dunno. I think if parents are telling their kid he can't go out with one o' them gol-dang niggers, for instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to judge them as horrible parents. We all judge people on their decisions and the way they behave all the time. I don't see why being a parent should give you a magical immunity to all criticism, and it's not like I'm advocating that we send the SWAT teams in to "liberate" their children.

But nobody suggested any of your examples. Do you honestly believe that parents who read internet logs and search their kids rooms are going to strip search their children? Or hate on the black folk? Racism is against the law, for the most part, these days, so legally speaking, the latter example would not be without legal precedent. As far as strip-searching their children, I think that that is also against the law. And having videos of a minor getting nude? Huh. Against the law. Legally speaking, we've already covered all of the bases you've brought up, and it isn't up to you to opine that these people are bad parents, because the only things you've described that make them "bad parents" are breaches of the law, and therefore a legal matter. As far as searching a room of the house that they own and let their son stay in? I probably wouldn't do it, but I can certainly understand parents that want to monitor the things being brought into their house. I wouldn't think of them as bad parents; maybe just overly careful ones.