This House would allow parents to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.

I. Introduction

This debate has a fairly large scope as it concerns itself with children, as defined by the United Nations Convention

on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC), that is, “any human being under the age of 18” [1] and parents, whether biological,

social, or legal. The proposed action is a form of parental control called “monitoring” in all its forms whether manually

(i.e. browsing Internet History), through the help of software (i.e. keystroke logs, transcripting of messages, screen

capturing), or any act that acquires information about a child’s digital activities in all intentions and circumstances,

particularly whether or not the act is done under the child’s awareness or consent. Any other parental controls such

as content filtering, use restrictions, contact management, and privacy protections are not to be considered as

“monitoring” but may be discussed for the purposes of the debate. The receivers of the action are the online and

mobile communications of the child which includes any information that is transmitted and received by the child

through the Internet and mobile networks, made possible through computers, PDA’s, cellphones, gaming consoles,

media players, and the other digital devices. It should be noted that some of the statistics supporting some assertions

are exclusive to either the U.S. or U.K. Also, while the idealized age range is “any human beings under the age of

18”, the age range of some statistics may fluctuate minimally but retains the relevance to the matter at hand.

Point:

Social approval is especially craved by teens because they are beginning to shift focus from family to peers. [1]

Unfortunately, some teens may resort to cyberbullying others in order to gain erroneous respect from others and

eliminate competitors in order to establish superficial friendships. Over the last few years a number of cyberbullying

cases have caused the tragic suicides of Tyler Clementi (2010), Megan Meier who was bullied online by a non-

existent Josh Evans whom she had feelings for (2006), and Ryan Halligan (2003) among others. [2] Responsible

parents need to be one step ahead because at these relevant stages, cognitive abilities are advancing, but morals

are lagging behind, meaning children are morally unequipped in making informed decisions in cyberspace. [1]

Guidance would only be effective if parents chose to monitor their children’s digital behavior by acquiring their

passwords and paying close attention to their social network activity such as Facebook and chat rooms, even if it

means skimming through their private messages. Applying the categorical imperative, if monitoring becomes

universal, then cyberbullying will no longer be a problem in the cyberspace as the perpetrators would be quickly

caught and disciplined.

Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.

For

Point:

Parents also need to monitor their children to ensure that they are properly using the time they have with the

computer and the mobile phone. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 40% of 8- to 18-year olds spend 54

minutes a day on social media sites.[1] and that “when alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new

tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task” resulting to 20%

lower grades. [2] Thus, parents must constantly monitor the digital activities of their children and see whether they

have been maximizing the technology at their disposal in terms of researching for their homework, connecting with

good friends and relatives, and many more.

Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.

For

Point:

A 2005 study by the London School of Economics found that “while 57 per cent of the over-nines had seen porn

online, only 16 per cent of parents knew.” [1] That number is almost certain to have increased. In addition sexting has

also become prevalent as a UK research says “over a third (38%) [of] under 18’s have received an offensive or

distressing sexual image via text or email.” [2] This is dangerous because this digital reality extends to the real world.

[3] W.L. Marshall says that early exposure to pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other

children and may shape their sexual attitudes negatively, manifesting as insensitivity towards women and

undervaluing monogamy. Only with monitoring can parents prevent this from happening by constantly regulating the

digital use of their children in such a way that it does not constrict their digital freedom.

Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.

For

Point:

Parents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the

necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital

skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it is there is a need to raise digital awareness among most

parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and

their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are

able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved

as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging

norms of good behavior online.

This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.

Against

Point:

Children have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of

privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept

of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents

regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege,

not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful

interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and

reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so

too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships

because they initiate individuality and independence. [1]

[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759

(2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.P.764

[2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013.

[3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully

revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.

Counterpoint:

The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable

that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated

lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing

his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-

Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues,

“children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their

physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy

to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child.

[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759

(2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

[2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times . 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May

2013.

Monitoring is lazy parenting.

Against

Point:

The proposition substitutes the good, old-fashioned way of teaching children how to be responsible, with invasions of

their privacy, so violating an inherent right [1]. Such parenting is called remote-control parenting. Parents who monitor

their children’s digital behavior feel that they satisfactorily fulfil their parental role when in fact they are being lazy and

uninvolved in the growth of their child. Children, especially the youngest, are “dependent upon their parents and

require an intense and intimate relationship with their parents to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.” This is

called a psychological attachment theory. Responsible parents would instead spend more time with their children

teaching them about information management, when to and when not to disclose information, and interaction

management, when to and when not to interact with others. [2] Moreover, it may seem quite reasonable to resort to a

middle ground wherein a child is monitored and at the same time counselled. However, this results to more

unfavorable consequences such as the possibility of the child circumventing the digital monitoring system [3].

[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully

revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.

[2] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759

(2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

[3] “You Can Track Your Kids. But Should You?” New York Times . 27 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.

Counterpoint:

Opposition claims that monitoring is ‘laziness’. Admittedly, monitoring makes digital parenting more efficient and

comprehensive. But, such technology makes parenting practical, not ‘lazy’. As it is, many people blame technology

for their own shortcomings. [1] Thus, parents need to know that monitoring will not do all the work for them. It is not

lazy to monitor your children, it is clearly essential that children are monitored when involved in activities such as

sports. The internet is a dangerous environment just as the sports field is and should have similar adult supervision.

[1] Bradley, Tony. “Blaming Technology for Human Error: Trying To Fix Social Problems With Technical Tools.”

About. About. 30 Mar 2005.

Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.

Against

Point:

Monitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly

be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.[1] By contrast content filtering,

contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing

information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to

social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. [2]

Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when

children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be

mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental

controls are lifted.

[1] Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010

[2] Burt, David. “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d. PDF File. Web. May 2013.

Counterpoint:

While it is practical to use these parental controls, it is not always realistic to set such limited parameters to the digital

freedom of children. Children need to understand that they have the capacity to breach their parents’ trust. [1] This

not only allows a child to understand the double-edged framework of the Web, but to experience taking an initiative to

actually obey parents in surfing only safe sites. Selectively restricting a child’s digital freedom does not help in this

case. Thus, monitoring is the only way for children to experience digital freedom in such a way that they too are both

closely guided and free to do as they wish. Moreover, this is also self-contradictory because opposition claimed that

children are capable of circumvention which children would be much more likely to do when blocked from accessing

websites than simply monitored.

[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759

(2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.

Against

Point:

If children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose

trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in

forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore,

children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to

understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same

manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to

educate their children how to be responsible beforehand.

[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759

(2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

Counterpoint:

It is true that trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Admittedly, the act of monitoring may initially stimulate feelings of

distrust which are particularly destructive in relationships. But nonetheless, trust is earned, not granted. The only

proactive way to gauge how much trust and responsibility to give a child in the digital world is monitoring. By

monitoring a child, parents come to assess the initial capability of the child in digital responsibility and ultimately the

level of trust and the level of responsibility he or she deserves and to be assigned subsequently. Ideally, the initial

level of monitoring and follow-through should be maximum in order to make clear to the child that he is being guided.

Only when a child proves himself and grows in digital maturity can monitoring and follow-through be gradually

minimized and finally lifted. [1]