Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Internet safety
In the NYTimes article “Undercover parent” 2008, Harlen Coben argues that parents should use spyware to monitor their child's online activity, however they must discuss their concerns and possibilities of spyware with their child before doing so. Coben explains that parents should be alert about the potential dangers of the Internet. Coben's purpose is to inform parents about spyware in order to prevent children from getting involved in risky activities. This author uses persuasive writing to appeal to parents and children about the dangers of the Internet. While Coben argues in favor of monitoring children's behavior online, parents should not spy on their children. When parents do this, it is an invasion of privacy which leads to distrust between children and their parents. Additionally, if parents spy on their children, the child will soon grow out of having overprotective parents who give them no privacy, that will eventually lead them to rebel. …show more content…
In other words, children will not be able to freely do anything online knowing their parents are watching their every move. In fact, by not giving children privacy, you essentially treat them like an object and not a human being. As a matter of fact, spying on children will most likely make them feel violated. For example, being a student in high school who obtains straight A’s, participates in extracurricular activities, and has never had any run-ins with dangerous substances such as drugs or alcohol, I would assume I earned the right to having privacy from my parents. However, my parents recently began to confiscate my phone everyday after school for no apparent reason. Provided that, my parents have made me very furious for having the need to punish me by taking my phone away with no explanation whatsoever. As a result of this, it has created distrust between my parents and
The expansion of the Internet infrastructure across the world, has brought an increased audience. Which has provided expanded markets for businesses and exploited new opportunities. There are virtually countless social sites and media used by individuals to access and share experiences , content, insights, and perspectives. Parents today tend to believe they should spy on their kids online activity. I argue parents should respect the privacy of a child's social life and his/her internet activity.
To begin with, many parents look for a connection with the author when it comes to subjects dealing with children and privacy. Coben’s targeted audiences are parents of adolescent children. Coben says “Loving Parents are doing surveillance here, not faceless bureaucrats” to slowly unhook any minds that aren’t already on board with spyware. The mention of pedophiles, porn, and teenage drug use are emotional appeals that will reach out to parents. Coben does well with identifying his audience but fails to establish credibility. In some cases Coben was being unrealistic, take for example a “Straight A” teenage girl sleeping with her dealer and using drugs are going to get parents attention but the reaction of the father may make them falter in reasoning. Not many parents in their right minds would calmly go to their daughter and just talk, there would be more yelling and rebelling involved. People need the truth just writing it off and down playing a serious situation as an after school sitcom will cause people to los...
Harlan Coben’s essay “The Undercover Parent” attempts to enlighten readers, specifically parents, of the benefits to installing spyware onto their children’s computers in order to keep record of their child’s online activity. Whilst admitting at first he was not particularly keen on spyware himself, Coben aims to persuade his audience of the benefits by highlighting the dangers of children using the internet unsupervised and without boundaries. However, Coben fails to supply factual evidence to back up his claims, all while stating a number of contradictions within his own arguments. Coben states, “…overprotective parents fight their kids’ battles on the playground, berate coaches about playing time and fill out college applications…” (19). This is a weak argument because it inadvertently suggests that overprotectiveness
In the article “The Digital Parent Trap”, written in August 2013 by Eliana Dockterman, she explains the assets of technology for young students. Dockterman uses many strategies to persuade parents of the benefits of technology. The author uses ethos, writing structure, and statistics to persuade the audience.
Lily Huang author of Protect the Willfully Ignorant states “An increasingly urgent question of privacy or how best to keep your public plot walled in” (474). Most internet users savvy or not, are aware of the potential risks. Most people know the potential risk for permanency and of the pictures or information we put out on social networks or other sites and the content being seen. We have all heard the warnings since grammar school from everyone about the internet and how to use it. Teachers, parents, librarians and school inundate our children all throughout school about information on safe usage. To be aware of predators and such is common knowledge. Why the need for laws to protect childrens’ privacy, and usage against exploitation? Similar reasons to why we wear seatbelts while driving and it is enforced by law. We all want our freedoms not to be infringed but at what cost and to who? We are aware of the statistics and outcomes of auto accidents without seatbelts and the need “to protect the willfully ignorant” (Huang). Lily Huang discussed consumer’s lack of expertise for making the best privacy decisions and how important default privacy settings are on social networks (475).
Online predators, pornography, drug trafficking, piracy, and hate sites are just some of the dangers that a child can face on the internet. The article “The Undercover Parent” by Harlan Coben states that parents should use spyware to monitor their children. Coben argues that parents should be able to know what is in their children’s lives. he believes that spyware can prevent children from being targeted by internet predators on social networking sites and even prevent children from being cyber bullied. I agree with Coben’s claim that parents should consider using spyware as a protection for their teens online. There are many possible dangers facing children on the internet and it is essential that parents install spyware.
I agree with Coben's argument. I agree because Coben does a good job of explaining his claim. His claim was that monitoring your child's use of the internet is a good thing to do. He has three reasons that stood out to me more than the rest. Those reasons are: monitoring your child on the internet is just another way you should watch your child, it is for the safety of your kids, and it is for the safety of their future.
While not always seen, overall, teenagers get far less privacy than adults do. Between schools checking through the belongings of their students without solid evidence to allow it, or parents monitoring the activity of their children online, teenagers today are subject to much of their privacy being taken away. It is true that this can sometimes be helpful in busting drug dealers or keeping teenagers from getting involved with bad habits online. However, it can also have an adverse effect, ruining the relationship between a parent and his or her child, or other relationships throughout the rest of the teenager’s life. Teenagers should be allowed more privacy, if not as much as adults have, as it will keep them less fearful, as well as help to keep their interpersonal relationships strong and their emotions in a good state.
I do not agree with parents eavesdropping some private conversation between their child and their child’s friend. It invades the child’s privacy and it would make him/her feel absolutely down about it since he/she can’t be free from his/her parents. Even if the parents tell their children that they have set up the spyware on their computer, they will always find a way to talk to their Internet friends privately. In paragraph 9, Coben stated, ¨Second, everything your child types can already be seen by the world-- teachers, potential employers, friends, neighbors, future dates. Shouldn’t he learn now that the Internet is not a haven of privacy?¨ First of all, this has nothing to do with Spyware. It is a good argument, but it doesn’t have to do with the parents actually. It’s the boy’s fault to type scandalous things on the Internet and it is his decision to do that. He shouldn’t have done that in the first place to avoid getting into trouble. In paragraph 12, Coben wrote, ¨Yes. But text messages and cell phones don’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet.¨ I agree that it doesn’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet. Nevertheless, he must’ve forgotten that people have a power to cyber bully other people through texts. Above all, the people who have a great desire to upload it on the Internet, could receive the inappropriate cyber bully. Hence, it also shows the danger of being cyber bullied. In paragraph 13,
In conclusion, it is important that parents give their freedom to make sure kids learn to be independent and now days most teens spend a lot of their time in the internet so by parents not letting them have their privacy there, they are taking over all their lives without even giving them a chance to “explored their identity and the world” like Boyd mention. Parents, need to realize that by over protecting their kids is like sending them to war without weapons because they will not know how to confront the world and worst of all they will not know they things they are capable of doing by themselves.
Letting officials search through your online technology is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects you from search and seizures. Maria Shepard, a teacher at Princeton Day School in New Jersey, stated that the parent, not the school, should monitor the student’s online activity. It is the responsibility of the parent to monitor and punish the student’s online
A parent’s job is to monitor their child at all times available to teach and to give the child a role model that shows them what is acceptable, which means they should scold and advise when unacceptable behavior takes place. In addition, the student-teacher relationship is based on trust and this should be portrayed at all times.“There should be a level of trust between teachers and students. Trust strengthens people’s values of commitment and responsibility,” says the article Freedom Comes First, by Akash Bagaria. A teacher forcibly getting into a child’s private life can break trust. Without trust there will be no commitment to the subject in which the teacher and pupil are related in, and this leads to bad results in the student’s education progression and success of the teacher doing their job. Furthermore, looking through someone’s phone is an invasion of privacy. In the Abuse of Power article, Valinten Perez said, “People could have....pictures in there, like of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not
However, sensitive information that may be shared might later embarrass the children as they grow older and realize what is available on the internet. Such events may result in resentment and misunderstandings on both the children and the parents’ sides. According to Steinberg (2017) in “Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media,” there have been long-term issues and conflicts regarding parental sharing and whether children have the right to control what is shared about them. Another long-term problem raised by parental sharing is the idea of data collecting. Per “Children’s Privacy in the Big Data Era: Research Opportunities,” “These trends raise serious concerns about digital dossiers that could follow young people into adulthood, affecting their access to education, employment, healthcare, and financial services. Although US privacy law provides some safeguards for children younger than 13 years old online, adolescents are afforded no such protections” (Montgomery, Chester, & Milosevic, 2017, p.
These individuals feel that it is an invasion of the teenagers’ right to privacy and the development of their trustworthiness. Kay Mathieson states “only by giving children privacy will they come to see their thoughts as something that belongs to them – to which they have an exclusive right.” In the United States and according to the law, monitoring the internet usage of a minor does not break any laws and is a moral obligation of the parent. Trustworthiness is an important development of a child to learn in order to develop genuine relationships with others in the lifetime. “Not only does monitoring have the great potential to undermine the trust of the child in the parent, and thus to undermine trust in others more generally, it also has the potential to undermine the capacity of the child to be worth of trust” (Mathieson). If the parent has not already had conversations with the teenager about monitoring internet usage and the parent is not telling the child about the monitoring, there is already an issue with the development of trustworthiness in the teenager. There was already a failure of development of this skill before the internet or internet monitoring was introduced.
Internet has become a new equipment to improve violence and disobedience. Teenagers can have easy access to the pornography sites or adult’s chartrooms. As a matter of fact recent researches has shown that Despite the potential negative effects on children using the Internet, more than 30% of surveyed parents had not discussed the downside of Internet use with their children (Internet Advisory Board, 2001), and 62% of parents of teenagers did not realize that their children had visited inappropriate Web sites (Yankelovich Partner...