Should Parents Have Right to Eavesdrop?

[Azyael]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141862,00.html

But privacy advocates fear legal eavesdropping may eventually lead to parents running roughshod over their children's rights.

"What's so magic about turning 18? All of a sudden you get rights. All of a sudden you're a full human being. What about when you're 17, 16-and-a-half? What about children who are emancipated?" wonders attorney Michael Tario (search).

I find this highly interesting, when one remembers that parents can be held financially liable for their children while they are under 18 years of age.

[kestra]

God, this makes me sound like such an adult, and makes me feel old, but.....
Kids, teens, whatever, need to earn rights and priveledges.
If their actions warrent such an action of eavesdropping, then so be it.

[Aristotle]

Before you are 18, you have no privacy rights.

[Malacasta]

The ruling reinforced Washington's strict privacy act, which says that consent from both parties is required to listen in on telephone conversations — even if you suspect your child is involved in a crime or is in danger.

Before you are 18, you have no privacy rights.

Aristotle, was your comment a statement of law or of opinion? If it was law, then I don’t understand the ruling from the article in question. If it was opinion then could you make your case?

It seems to me that if I had an 18-year-old relative who was behaving in a way that made me suspect something was going terribly wrong in their life, then I would be just as likely to intervene with that person as I would a 17-year-old or a 60-year-old, regardless of their privacy rights. If I were to read their diaries, eavesdrop on their phone conversations or burst in on them while they were showering or masturbating, I’d do so knowing that I might very well be destroying their trust in me for years to come.

A person under 18 might have no legal right to privacy, but I am confident that they would react the same way to the person who breached that privacy as a person over 18 would.

[Pyrosama]

"What's so magic about turning 18? All of a sudden you get rights. All of a sudden you're a full human being. What about when you're 17, 16-and-a-half? What about children who are emancipated?" wonders attorney Michael Tario

This is brilliant coming from an attorney. We all know that the magic age of 18 means that parents are no longer legally responsible for the dumbass actions of their children. He needs to be responsible for my A.D.D. borderline O.D.D. son and report back to me in a week. He'll quit bitching about children's rights to privacy then.

[Grantref]

The age of legal majority is arbitrary bullshit nonsense that wouldn't last a second if not for the fact that there's no alternative that works.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Malacasta
Aristotle, was your comment a statement of law or of opinion? If it was law, then I don’t understand the ruling from the article in question. If it was opinion then could you make your case?

It is my opinion and the reasons are self evident.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Before you are 18, you have no privacy rights.

I definitely think this is a good position, as long as it's qualified as referring to parental involvement. When it becomes more troubling is when other groups, such as police, school admistrators, coaches, scout leaders, and the like violate a child's sense of privacy. I suppose there are times when it may be appropriate for others to ignore a child's privacy, but I'm not sure that they should be able to do so without some parental involvemnt, and if memory serves, at least in the case of law enforcement, I believe the parents do have to permit it.

[Gadiantor]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
I definitely think this is a good position, as long as it's qualified as referring to parental involvement. When it becomes more troubling is when other groups, such as police, school admistrators, coaches, scout leaders, and the like violate a child's sense of privacy. I suppose there are times when it may be appropriate for others to ignore a child's privacy, but I'm not sure that they should be able to do so without some parental involvemnt, and if memory serves, at least in the case of law enforcement, I believe the parents do have to permit it.

Parents can, and should IMO, be held accountable for the actions of their children. For this reason alone parents have not only the right, but the responsibility, to know what their kids are doing IMO. If a kid is under the age of 18 and not emancipated they should have no privacy rights where their parents are concerned. Any other entity (school, police, et al) should need parental concent to violate the privacy of a child. All of this is my opinion as a parent (just so there is no confusion ).

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
I definitely think this is a good position, as long as it's qualified as referring to parental involvement.

Right. That is what I meant. I should have been more clear about that.