Dave C. wrote:

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message
...
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.



Actually, a minor child does have some rights. It is illegal to eavesdrop
on phone conversations, and there is no exception for age of the people
talking on the phone. Minor children do NOT have the right to talk on the
phone, however. So as I've stated several times, if you don't want to OBEY
THE LAW and let your child's phone conversations be private, then forbid
your children from using the phone. -Dave
-------------------
Actually a majority of states punish ANY attempt to deprive a child
of the right to call police or emergency services, and if you try
you can be imprisoned!
Steve

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500, 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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47.

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property, just as an employer has the right to monitor
employees' emails, phone calls, and even keystrokes. Minor children
should have no expectation of privacy.
-----------------
Legally wrong.


What's next?
---------------
The improved observance of the Rights of Children.
Steve

dragonlady wrote:

In article , "Dave C."
wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave



When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
--------------------------
People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their
children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things
in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully
altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be
****ed BY their kids.
Steve

Curtis CCR wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Dave C."

wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for
the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication
taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to
use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy
while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the
child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you
don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her,
then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled
it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone
calls
at my discretion.

You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.

The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.

Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
discretion.
--------------------
And as soon as you reveal to her that you violated HERS, HER discretion
will forever exclude you from her life. Sort of like: You get just
one look, and never ever again. Fool me once, **** on you, you don't
GET twice!! People who **** with their kids have a death-wish.
Steve

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:41:25 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it.

Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does
not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when
you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email
can be monitored by my remployer at any time.
--------------------
They provide the equipment solely for you to perform their business,
not yours.


It's a basic right the
employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.
------------
True. But the relationship is inherent, like using their printer.


If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all.

If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
required.
-----------------------------
When you let anyone use your telephone, you surrender your control
of it and have no right to invade their privacy. When you provide a
phone ONLY for THEM to perform YOUR business purposes, the burden is
quite different.

When you try to bar your child from using a phone in their residence
for their own private purposes, you're asking for them to do hateful
things to you which you will fully deserve.


Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period.

I guess you feel the same way about the GPS tracking device I have
installed in the car that my teenaged son drives?
-------------------------------
Creative vandalism. Somebody sure must have wanted that GPS, Pop!
Steve

R. Steve Walz stated so wisely:

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

Ignorance?

I have raised children to adulthood. I agree with most all this man had
to say. I merely used 'Amen' to state that.

If you've raised children and had the misfortune to have your child
misdirected by the child of parent(s) that do not raise them properly,
you would agree as well.

I gave trust first and when proven wrong, I reacted to the situation and
did what had to be done. As long as they are in MY house...Screw my
childrens rights! I have the right to raise children that don't cause me
any more problem than life has to offer. Raise your children correctly
now or visit them in prison later.

Bottom line...I raise my children so that you don't need the police to
protect you and if everyone did, this world would be a much better place
to live!

--
Tom

"That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest."
-Henry Thoreau

Tom wrote:

R. Steve Walz stated so wisely:

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

Ignorance?

I have raised children to adulthood. I agree with most all this man had
to say. I merely used 'Amen' to state that.
-------------------------
Proving yet again that the ignorant are too ignorant to even KNOW
they're ignorant, you piece of Xtian crap.


If you've raised children and had the misfortune to have your child
misdirected by the child of parent(s) that do not raise them properly,
you would agree as well.
-----------------------------------------
You're the only kind of human **** who do that.


did what had to be done. As long as they are in MY house...Screw my
childrens rights!
------------------
Your recklessness screws their lives, and yours.


I have the right to raise children that don't cause me
any more problem than life has to offer.
--------------------
You got nuthin'. You have the right to do right, not to do wrong.


Raise your children correctly
now or visit them in prison later.
------------------------
My kids aren't in prison, but lots of kids from **** like you are.


Bottom line...I raise my children so that you don't need the police to
protect you and if everyone did, this world would be a much better place
to live!
Tom
---------------------
You imagine the exact opposite to what is true.
YOU and the **** in your head causes child criminality.

Your attitude is what causes children to become mass-murderers.
You just don't grasp that because of your ignorant pride.
Steve

wrote in message
ups.com...
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!


The Child Protective Services are highly corrupt. They don't know a thing
about raising kids properly. Most of the case workers don't even have kids
and are most likely to lie on you in a heartbeat! Tread carefully. Case
workers should not have absolute immunity, and neither should judges and
prosecutors!

DeWayne

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
wrote:



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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Spoken by a true non-parent. You are so full of **** you must
have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still
have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or
your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to
rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation
marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old.
What a dumb ass. Read a book dumb****.

Jeff


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004

Jeff wrote:

Spoken by a true non-parent.

Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.

--
Mike Rosenberg
http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius