The solution to that isn't tapping your boy's IM and chat history though. It's having a relationship with him where he feels comfortable mentioning he's talking to someone new.
If they trust a stranger they just met on the internet more than a parent, that's the problem.
No amount of technological redress is going to fix that.
I have a friend who was catfished in high school, and the fisher took on a persona for several years before "introducing" her to the fisher's "friend" who was actually the fisher -- and he maintained the ruse for several years after. I'm honestly unsure of how a parent could even prevent something like that. The only comfort I've got today is that video chat is normal and a friend who couldn't do that would probably noteworthy enough to mention. That comfort is diminishing: by the time my kid will be old enough to worry about, deepfakes will be that much more advanced.
1) make that communication remain innocuous long enough to fall into background ignore status
2) escalate in a way that will either avoid communicatong with you or even better seem fine to the child but not to you and so invoke the "my parent isn't fair" response and stop consulting you wholesale
Jesus, this thread of an exercise of people making more and more convoluted excuses to treat their own children like criminals.
Is this the HN that was against warrantless wiretapping, or did I mistakenly fall through into another forum?
I’m pretty sure there are different rules and regulations around issuing warrants for minors.
And that’s the whole point here. They are not adults.
It’s not a relationship between equals. They’re not ready for trust yet. Not in the same that trust can exist between two adults. And they need protection, in a way that adults don’t.
And it’s not a question of parenting either. No amount of parenting will make a person’s brain fully developed at 13.
A common refrain from parents in these situations is how strong they thought their relationship with their child was and how they never imagined it could happen to them. Thats scary. Weighing a very low probability extreme consequence vs. various questionably impactful interventions with certain downsides is hard (at least in my view).
Not to mention that there are risks the internet exposes you to that aren't sexual abuse related. Desensitization to violence, insane discourse (epithets dropped like candy), etc are also important aspects of a parent's moderation choices. Trust and conversations cannot address this since the desensitization takes place as a consequence of simple repeated exposure. In the extreme case, desensitization translates to usage, and I think thats clear if you listen to any 14 year old kid on an xbox stream.
And that's the essence of the decision.
IMHO, the sane move is not crippling your child's development and your trust relationship with them in exchange for preventing an extremely low probability event: that they will be approached by a sexual predator, who's convincing enough, decide not to talk about it with you, and successfully conceal it from you.
To me, it's a known harm (spying on your child) in exchange for a nebulous good (you might catch something).
Do I have conversations with my child about what they do online? Absolutely! Do I keep a weather eye on any new developments or characters who pop up? Absolutely!
But do I think the solution is technically spying on my child? Hell no. The proper means of redress are analog and emotional.