Mark wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:10 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

As I wrote elsewhere . . .

Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
should mind their own business.

Don't have kids, eh?
------------------
Not unless you're willing to be limited by requirements that you
treat them honorably and humanely, no.
Steve

JerryL wrote:

When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
didn't care.
-----------------
So what you did was to simply ensure that you would never REALLY know
what was happening in his life, and you still don't. He undoubtedly
used the knowledge of your spying as a means to disinform you.

Charming what people think are the results of their actions.
Steve

Mark wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:15 -0500, "JerryL" wrote:

snip
But back to the original deal. If I think something is going on with my
kids
that isn't right and listening in on a phone call will let me know for
sure -
I'm going to do it. Period.

If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be
using
the phone.

If you were a parent who gave a ****, you'd do things differently. Phone
trust has nothing to do with anything.


When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
didn't care. As long as I was responsible for him, I did what I thought was
right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he
would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the
State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are
welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are
sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and
worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine,
I'll do it my way.

Bottom line, that's what it comes down to. Well put!
----------------
That's because you're an idiot and don't grasp the secondary effect
she had, to never actually be able to know what was really going on,
to teach her son how to lie better and keep secrets, and how to
disinform when he believed she was listening in. But much worse, to
make her son realize that she was on her OWN side, and not on his,
and that he couldn't really count on her for anything.

Our kids could count on us not dishonoring them or trying to control
them by dishonor, and thus they told us everything.
Steve

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark wrote:

Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some of
the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both legally
and financially.

BINGO.

And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's
behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit.

The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.

Sorry if that offends you bleeding heart liberals in the audience.
------------------------------------
The problem with your kind of ignorance is that the EFFECT that you
THINK that it has, it doesn't.

As soon as you try to be controlling your child will remove their
trust from you and you will know MUCH less than you THINK you know
from then on, you will NEVER be able to trust them, because they
will never trust you or even LIKE you, everything they do after
that is merely PLAY-ACTING!! If you don't understand that this
is true, then either your kids are actually even more congenitally
simple-minded than YOU are, or you've made yourself blind, deaf,
and dumb! There is NO effective way to control anyone with their
own mind and control of their own body, you simply can't control
them every second and have a life of your own! They know this.

In addition to that you destroy any actual use they might have had
for you by making yourself obnoxious, and you have taught them that
they can't count on anyone like you.
Steve

Tom wrote:

JerryL stated so wisely:

When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether
on the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends.
Had I not done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would
have gotten into at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained
about his privacy but I didn't care. As long as I was responsible for
him, I did what I thought was right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys
of his own and he admits that he would have gotten into trouble had I
not monitored his actions. If ever the State thinks they can do a
better job than I can as a parent, they are welcome to take care of my
kids, stay up with them all night when they are sick, walk them to
school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and worry about
them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine, I'll
do it my way.

AMEN!!!

--
Tom
-----------------
Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove
their own.
Steve

wrote:

I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove the
phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is
an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll
be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe!
----------------------------
You simply don't grasp this deeply enough.

Here's what parental responsibility ACTUALLY means! Actually: The
parent deserves everything their child decides to inflict upon them!!
And why?

Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
you DESERVE ALL the results!!

Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
Steve

MashedTaters wrote:

In misc.kids wrote:
Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law

SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.

Wow. That's rather across the board.

One special case comes to mind. What if the teenager is emotionally
handicapped?

I know of a fetal alcohol syndrom girl. Her adopted mother occassionally
listened to her phone conversations.

The girl had no mainstream friends. She did have a number of friends
she met at special functions (Special Olympics, a special bowling
league). These friends were spread throughout the city or region
and weren't "in the flesh" except during the events. So the phone was
critical to this girl's social life. That's how she stayed in touch
with friends.

By picking up the phone one day, the mom found out a 30'ish man was
calling her daughter regularly. The man was asking her daughter about
condoms, where they were going to meet, etc.

So I guess that conversation couldn't be used to convict a guy of
statutory rape or child molestation.

That's ... not believable. There must be some clause that's
not being mentioned.
---------------------
Yeah. The "you're merely ignorant" clause.

Without a warrant, contents of phone calls are protected even from
heresay about them as being "fruit of the poisoned tree" because
they have the "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Steve

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:

Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law

SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
-------------------
Not in a majority of US states.
Steve

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla"
wrote:

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
-------------------
There is less expectation of privacy in the workplace.
And the employer pays for the setting.
You would STILL need a warrant to make a conversation court-admissible.
Steve

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?


Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
employment.

And a minor child has no rights to begin with.
---------------------------
Entirely wrong.


I don't see the difference.
------------------
Nor can someone as ignorant as you be expected to.
Steve