Parenting tech opens the door to state surveillance | Hacker News Reader

Parenting tech opens the door to state surveillance

wired.com

114 pointssamclemens67 comments

24/7 surveillance of individuals is just becoming culturally accepted. A terrible example, but a real one, is my grandma: she lives alone back in Colombia, and due to the fact most of her family is abroad, her grandchildren decided to pay a company to install cameras in every room of the house (except the bathroom) as to make sure we can all monitor her, "just in case". My attempts at convincing them a simple fall detection bracelet was sufficient were in vain, and my whole family doesn't see the issue, for it is "only for her own safety".

You are very correct. The slippery bathroom is also the place you want an alarm system ...

24/7 surveillance except where/when you need it to the most sums up so much of our world today.

I hope she is aware of this surveillance and agreed to it?

> I hope she is aware of this surveillance and agreed to it?

Or how easy this footage could be sold or leaked?

This is only really a problem if she was patronized and/or coerced into this. The line is sometimes hard to draw, but this is where the problem begins.

I always thought that the compromise, vis a vis CCTV surveillance of public places, was to have the camera record to an encrypted storage that is only unlocked with a judicial warrant, just like a regular physical search needs a warrant.

You get the security of knowing criminals have their actions recorded, but you avoid the privacy catastrophe of being recorded 24/7 no matter where you go.

Almost every solution I've seen in this space can be decrypted fairly easily because of a similar issue found years ago with SSL compression.

I think it was the CRIME attack on SSL iirc. Same issue is found across most consumer-based systems (including drones), pretty much anything that uses compression can run into this issue if care is not taken to pad. At least from what I recall about it.

> My attempts at convincing them a simple fall detection bracelet was sufficient were in vain,

Not making a pro-surveillance point, but fall detection bracelets are not sufficient monitoring for elders living alone. The fun starts when dementia rears its ugly head.

Choking, kitchen fires, gas leaks (no getting out of bed, so no falling), dementia compelling them to disassemble the house, dementia-induced hallucinations of intruders, dementia-induced claims of theft by neighbors and other helpers, and quick ability to verify/dismiss false positive alerts are huge selling points for cameras you'll wish you had if/when these shenanigans start.

Someone in such a state doesn't need cameras, they need a care taker. That kind of state you're worried about them hurting themselves or even properly eating. Cameras don't fix that.

> The convergence of parental anxiety and tech access can extend surveillant care into a total system, reaching past the baby and any employee in the home or daycare center to the street beyond. Increasingly, technophilic and/or anxious families are turning to websites like Nextdoor and smart home systems like Alexa, Google Home, Nest Cams, and Ring, not only to help with domestic management but to reinforce the barrier between the outside and the inside, keeping the outside out. These technologies slip from self-surveillance (when should I reorder my groceries?) to familial surveillance (what is my child watching?) to surveilling anyone who might come into contact with one’s children.

The battle for the hearts of parents is already concluded. Now Amazon and such just need to unveil consumer tech which is good enough. The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people.

Is there a way to walk it all back? It’s an issue that worries me to almost no end. Idealistically, I might say education could solve it, except that I see this huge lapse of empathy on the subject of surveillance that makes the education impractical past a point.

No, I don't see a way without legislation, and I don't see that happening without a significant event.

Having said that, ring doorbells are useful in finding people who try to break into homes and commit other crimes. Aiden Fucci was convicted with help of a Ring camera. I'm sure his victim's parents are grateful.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/23/aid...

> The idea that you can have a camera on your front door to see everyone is appealing to way too many people.

That kind of thinking was easy for me back when I was living in a safe area. Now I've had to move to a sketchy neighborhood, and if "surveillance" helps to keep my girlfriend from being r----, that's an acceptable tradeoff for me at this time.

I totally accept this, I think I would (re)act the same.

But not without being still conflicted: this is kind of a privatisation of security.

What should be available and enforced for everyone (security of people and things) is abdicated by the society authorities, and instead of resorting to pressure them to do their job (educate, prevent, accompany, protect), people take the fast/"easier" solution of a private, paid-for solution which promise is still dubious (as it does not completely remove the anxiety but can well fuel it).

Private security companies, insurances and tech equipment sellers all have an interest in this. And again, state/communal responsibility is abdicated.

Overall, it cost more to the same population to go towards the private solutions, rather than pushing, either for the same equipment/guarantees, but through a common public requirement (because costs would be bundled), either for a voluntary policy in urbanisation, education and prevention (because of the side effects).

How are cameras going to stop that from happening?

They could possibly help with attribution after-the-fact but wouldn't stop it from happening.

I'd suggest taking other more effective measures if you're worried about that happening.

I intentionally picked a DECT audio-only monitor on a shelf of high-tech gizmos. Secure, local, doesn't reward the monkey-brain need to "just check in" like video would, and works without configuration in a different building. Would do it again for sure.

I just don't get why you'd even want to sleep separately from your young child. They cry because they crave physical closeness, physical contact, the rhythm of their parents breathing, just like we've done for millions of years. All you do in denying that is create a lasting distance, nightmares, and worry for these monitoring companies to feed upon.

This seems to be a pretty hot debate these days: https://theconversation.com/is-there-such-a-thing-as-too-old...

You're being very uncharitable. It's wildly different to cosleep with a new born than a near teen that the article mentions. And the rest of the article mostly reviews the benefits of cosleeping, so I don't see your point.

I feel sad hearing about parents who practice the "cry it out" method.

I feel sad hearing about parents who can't stand to hear their child cry for a few a few minutes, a few nights in a row, and instead have children who take years to learn to properly sleep, causing sleep deprivation for the entire family.

It is a hard one to get right. I learned rather fast that there are a variety of cries ranging from 'look at me' to 'I am hurt' each with own modulation, pitch and sense of urgency.

In a practical sense, I agree with you. Unless there is a clear cause for distress ( and there well may be ), I usually just wait. It is actually quite amazing how well kids pick up on our willingness to react to their cries.

Naturally, the instant switch from cry to laugh upon distraction was a big eye opener for me.

The data does not support your misunderstanding at all.

And you feel justified in espousing this harsh judgement of others parenting choices based on what evidence?

What seems obvious to you isn’t for others, and parenting threads are typically just trading anecdotes and judgement without data.

Here's a decent article summarising the state of th evidence evidence. (I'm not making any claims about what the evidence says, I just found it interesting) https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220322-how-sleep-traini...

Yeah I read that last time there was a big thread about this on HN. It’s all pretty inconclusive. My clearest takeaways from that were that doing sleep training too early is not recommended, and that there was no observed long term difference in kids either way. And that we shouldn’t judge folk who need or want to try such things because they’re working parents, depressed, or have other family problems caused by lack of sleep.

> Results One hundred eight intervention and 107 control families provided six-week follow-up information with complete actigraphy data for 96 in each group: 96.9 % of intervention and 97.9 % of control infants had an average of 2 or more nightly wakes, a risk difference of −0.2 % (95 % CI: −1.32, 0.91). 4 % of intervention and 14 % of control infants had parent-assessed severe sleep problems: relative risk 0.3, a risk difference of −10 % (CI: 0.11, 0.84-16.8 to −2.2). Relative to controls, intervention parents reported improved baseline-adjusted parental depression (CI: −3.7 to −0.4), fatigue (CI: −5.74 to −1.68), sleep quality (CI: −1.5 to −0.2), and sleep cognitions: doubts (CI: −2.0 to −0.6), feeding (CI: − 2.1 to - 0.7), anger (CI: − 1.8 to - 0.4) and setting limits (CI: −3.5 to −1.5).

> Conclusions The intervention improved caregivers' assessments of infant sleep problem severity and parental depression, fatigue, sleep, and sleep cognitions compared with controls.

This is largely true for myself - sleep training is for the parents to get some semblance of their lives back.

The first 3 months of my daughter's life - i'd never been more tired in my life.

So it's a selfish choice that doesn't necessarily take into account the child's wellbeing. I don't know your religious/cultural motivations but maybe don't do something that makes you miserable and severely disrupts your life?

See the co-sleeping debate is never ending and highly dependant on family genetics but the statistics referenced above are related to the parents' perception and well-being and not the cognitive development and well-being of the infants themselves.

Parental well-being is important too, especially if increased risk of depression leads to a parent having suicidal thoughts. Having depressed or fewer parents raising the child is not a guaranteed improvement

Ah yes so parents should be more likely to be depressed, become unfit, lose motivation for life because they need to 100% be with their baby at all times. You are aware how that's not a viable long term solution right?

No government forces you to have kids. If you’re up to the task then do it perfectly and enjoy while doing it; if not don’t bring misery upon yourself, your baby and potentially the society by raising a kid without catering to their emotional needs because you’re too busy.

However my views are based on the economic/societal/parental expectations in (progressive) North America and it’s certainly different elsewhere.

Edit: Added specificity

It's okay. I was like you. Once you have kids the position and understanding shifts to be more compassionate towards other parents and their situation.

I do, actually.

First, forcing children to solo-sleep was invented by the aristocracy. It doesn't come naturally (as evidenced by archaeological record, anthropological studies of primitive societies, and primate studies).

Second, none of the so-called benefits of child solo-sleep are supported by solid evidence.

Just because it became the "norm" in modern society is not sufficient reason to give it credence. We also used to push formula on infants because it was supposed to be better for them (my immigrant grandmother had a fit when she discovered that the hospital was feeding her drugs as a matter of course to stop her lactating). This policy was pushed by doctors and hospitals and public health officials for decades, with no evidence to support it (this is not a rant against medical personnel, but rather against procedural inertia without evidence - the very reason why we have the scientific method).

It's right up there with the bizarre America-wide policy of washing the protective film off eggs so that they now need to be refrigerated to prevent spoilage (and of course, every American "knows" that you must refrigerate eggs).

If you wish to push for something artificially induced only recently, the onus is upon you to provide extraordinary evidence to support it.

Man, I would not want to personally know you.

This comment swings so hard at "you're a bad parent because..." that lacks any compassion for how difficult raising children. I have doubts you're a parent, but if you're a parent and are able to hold this highly judgmental opinions then your kids are the best sleepers in the world. Or perhaps have lots of help to be able to ignore everything else in life.

You're very lucky to be in a camp that can hold such opinions.

This is more about breaking persistent bad policies and social norms that were enacted without evidence, and empowering parents to withstand the public pressure to conform, much like the "free range kids" movement, and the breast milk movement. Now if we could just break the "nuclear family" norm...

If even one parent reads my post and says "hey yeah, we don't have to conform to this arbitrary social norm - there's nothing wrong with our child sleeping in our bed!" then I'm happy. Solo-sleeping was popularized by Europeans - it's not a universal thing, even today.

> If even one parent reads my post and says "hey yeah, we don't have to conform to this arbitrary social norm

I don't disagree with you there. I think that's a good goal.

But why do that in a way that lays down another arbitrary social norm? That seems contradictory to your stated goal.

Have you been on mum groups? It's 80% awesome and supportive people giving advice, and 20% intense judging. Of that 20%, there are so many parents with their own biased experience trying to justify their parenting actions by telling others it's the only and right way to raise kids, even when the answer is almost always YMMV.

I think of it as their own way of surviving parenthood.

Oh I actively avoid those (definitely not personally knowing any of them). But, I get it, it's your child and you only want the best - especially if its your first born.

But man, have a second kid - see if you still hold those ideals, haha. If you do, then respect - but still don't want to know you.

Some know-it-all with quite well behaving kids are the worst.

The funny thing is that what works is very child specific. So parents give each other good advice for their own children but might be terrible advice for others. Talking about child care became so much easier once I realized this.

Man, I would not want to be your child.

The poster was asked to provide arguments to his opinion, and when he did, your only reaction is "how dare you call me a bad parent"? I bet you also believe physical violence is great because it is so convenient for parents - just beat their ass, and the little mofos become nice and docile. I mean, it's so hard to be a parent! After all, the poor parents are suffering so much, what's a little violence in comparison? Little shits should feel lucky they're getting beaten.

You seem to make sleep training and corporal punishment morally equivalent.

Nice attempt at a strawman though.

I never said or implied that, I only think that such defensive parents are more likely to justify everything they do with their "being a parent is so hard" attitude, so much that they probably think corporal punishment is fine as long as it makes their jobs easier.

Nice attempt at a strawman, though.

To give a little perspective, we would cosleep back home when there's familial support. But we would let the kids sleep on their own when we're living in foreign land with no one else to help us.

Babies want physical connection during sleep, sure. But they also need me to not end up bed ridden because I pulled my back carrying them after having slept only 3 hours and forgetting to bend my knees. Twice. True story.

It's a balance of quality care. There's no need to turn everything into a giant conspiracy theory. Also, first baby fed with formula, second baby breast fed. IMHO, absolutely no difference other than having to supplement vitamin D for the BF baby, and the mother is ten times more depressed.

Even if America is dysfunctional, not everything needs to be hero derp murica.

I mean they cry for all sorts of reasons.

Even for no reason at all.

(disclaimer: I am a former child)

There's always a reason to cry.

(source: human)

Just today we were being lectured by our pediatrician that our two year old needs to sleep in her own bed, in her own room. When we asked why, she went on a tangent that parents also need their own sleep and that she did it with her own kids when they were a few months old, and that she couldn't imagine getting much sleep with her kids etc etc. Basically, she didn't have any scientific arguments why it was better for her to sleep separately, other than "that's how things always have been done" and projecting her own preferences onto us.

FWIW, doctors have opinions as well. We are all only humans after all.

Naturally, we have higher standards for well compensated professionals and we do expect more than platitudes from such professionals.

All that said, your experience does bring up an interesting point though. At the end of the day, you are the parent. As it relates to the care for your kid, you outrank them ( with some exceptions, but those usually apply for a very good reason ). They are there to help you make a good decision, but you are not bound by their words.

Unfortunately, like in every profession, they can be 'bad' doctors or ones that don't want to learn new things or both. Not to search very far, the sugar debate is now mainstream and doctors I talked to recently acknowledged that a lot of that word of mouth 'there is too much sugar in everything' has a point to it. In their defense, there is a lot of research that supports it now, but how long did it take to make it happen?

<< today we were being lectured by our pediatrician

I hear you. It is an aggravating experience and unless there is a good reason to keep that doctor, I would consider making a change. The relationship should not be an unpleasant one. In my neck of the woods, ours recommended covid shot for our kid on the basis that 'everyone does it'. Before I had a chance to go on a rant, my wife simply said no. There was some back and forth, but no remained a no.

I could offer more stories, but I don't really want anyone to extrapolate to some general wisdom. Each case is different and every one of us have to weigh those risks.

There is scientific literature confirming that around 12/18 months child indeed should start sleeping separately from their parents. Actually lots of literature point to much earlier.

Children need to develop their self soothing abilities as well as awareness that parents aren't always there already at this crucial age.

She wasn't projecting her preferences, it's dangerous to raise over protected children, separation anxiety in infants is normal but the response is to gradually increase the amount of separation week after week.

2 years old sleeping with child might actually be dangerous and I'm surprised hn would upvote a random netizen ignoring a professional's suggestion, only infants should sleep with parents.

[1] https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/140...

[2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10870...

> she went on a tangent that parents also need their own sleep

I know this seems like a tangent, but it's not. We all want to do the best we possibly can for our children, and yes, being a parent comes with a willingness to sacrifice yourself for them.

The problem is that those kids depend on you for more than just their need in the moment. You can sacrifice your night's sleep for theirs, but you still need to be able to take care of them the next day and the years after that.

At the end of the day, only parents can decide where the trade-off is, because only they are close enough to see what the baby needs and only they know how much they themselves can give.

There's no shortage of people that will tell you about The Right Way. It doesn't really seem correlated with any kind of medical degree either. Just remember that what worked for them, doesn't necessarily work for you. Take their ideas as ideas to think about, but not as rules to live by. You are different and your babies are different.

We've sort of had this feeling since we got a puppy last month. There's always that trade-off you're doing that needs to take into account your own long term willingness and ability to care for this lifeform.

I know how we approached it and it was a compromise as me and my spouse come from different worlds culturally. I personally think a lot has to do with 'my cousin/friend/fb friend did x and recommended it'. For a very new parent, it is not unreasonable to seek advice of their peers.

In our case compromise was: infant slept with us for a good half of their first year, but we slowly transitioned to a separate room with audio only radio ( no internet connection app craziness ).

All that said, we are already an outlier in our social circle that includes parents and about the only ones that have any concern about normalizing surveillance at such a young age ( and even that is mostly based on my preferences -- my SO takes my concerns into account ).

I had a child in Japan, and so we did it the Japanese way: The child sleeps with the parents until the child eventually decides otherwise.

Unless you are an expert in child care please don't post factually wrong things.

If you are, post scientific articles.

You must have a tough time here on the internet.

How many children do you have?

From people I know it’s only single-child parents who co-sleep. Reason being, when the next child enters the picture, it’s pretty harsh on the toddler when there’s constant waking up, so having them sleep separately becomes the obviously right thing to do to not mess with their sleep too much. Later on it becomes a question of fairness. ‘Why does X get to sleep with you, but not me?’ One solution would be for everyone to sleep together, but beds have their limits, and I don’t actually know anyone who’d co-sleep with more than one child.

3. Definitely did co-sleeping with 2 at a time early on.

Okay, I'll bite. Your just-so statements shouldn't convince anybody of anything, but I'll provide a few points to think about anyway.

> I just don't get why you'd even want to sleep separately from your young child.

People have different life experiences. It really shouldn't be the first time you hear about people doing things differently than you and still getting similar results.

> They cry because they crave physical closeness, physical contact,

Yes. They also cry because they're hungry, because their diaper is full and when they are tired.

When our kids were babies there were even times they cried because they needed to be left alone. They were overstimulated and we needed to stop trying to help them.

> the rhythm of their parents breathing,

Can't say I've noticed that one. Seems hard to isolate though. By the time they hear you breathing, they'll feel body heat, see your face and are usually also in your arms and getting some interaction. Not sure how you have determined that it was the breathing that was doing the trick...

> just like we've done for millions of years.

I can't tell if this is the fallacy of appeal to tradition, the fallacy of appeal to nature, or an equally silly "appeal to evolution".

Evolution didn't stop at some magical point in the past. There's no reason why what held back then must still hold now. Nor is longevity of a trait proof of an evolutionary advantage. It just has to not be a disadvantage to stick around.

> All you do in denying that is create a lasting distance, nightmares,

Funny how neither that "lasting distance" nor the nightmares panned out for our kids, who have slept their entire lives in their own room. Can't say I've noticed those things in many other kids either, which is strange since private rooms are very much the norm around here.

I'm already being fully parented by Apple, so what difference is more parenting tech going to make?

why did you give up?

Because it's like beating a dead horse.

I think people deserve better than constantly fighting against their systems. It's belittling, invalidating, insulting. I found that it's healthier instead of this fighting, I come out better to try to accommodate ("When in Rome, do as the Romans do"), or ditch the system/relationship altogether. Fighting against things like Windows telemetry is just yelling at clouds, a losing, uphill battle against something that's out of our control anyways. Very similar to trying to change a toxic person in a relationship.

> Very similar to trying to change a toxic person in a relationship.

This is a good comparison, except in the case of the duopoly you have only two people to choose from.

My parents give me more freedom.

Apple feels more like a sub-dom relationship - submitting to the nanny. iDevices are constantly correcting me, or preventing me from doing what I want, but I just can’t resist the secure feeling.

buy android and be free.

https://store.google.com/config/pixel_7_pro?selections=eyJkO...

First time iPhone buyer. Android has other compromises, and freedom has its own risks and costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com