Have you ever thought of putting spyware on your child’s computer? In the article ‘‘Undercover Parent’’, Harlan Coben discusses how most parents won’t even consider putting spyware on their child’s computer. From my point of view parents should put spyware on their child’s computer. Some parents will say that it’s better to use parental blocks that deny access to risky sites. For example, if your child looked up porn, your child would not have access to that website.…
Bad things can happen to them such as being kidnapped. The first reason Coben introduces spyware is so parents can monitor what their teen is doing. A second reason Coben suggest spyware is because one of his friends found out that his straight “A” college bound daughter was doing by using spyware. In my opinion parents shouldn’t consider spyware. I don’t agree with Coben suggesting to parents to consider…
In his essay “Undercover Parent,” Harlan Coben supports the idea of using spyware on teenager’s electronics by parents. Using this spyware you have the ability to “log every keystroke your child makes” (2) and invading their private space. While this idea is valid because most parents who do this are loving and only want to protect their children from harm, by placing this spyware on a teen’s electronics you are not only evading their privacy but also their trust. This is because more than likely parents are doing this behind the child’s back, which could ultimately lead to distrust and resentment due to the lack of trust in the teen to be able to make their own decisions. However, spyware on computers would, in fact, help to prevent situations…
In Harlan Coben’s article “The Undercover Parent” (2008), he argues that parents should use spyware to protect their children. He says that there is a line on how it should be used, but not using it would be negligence. Coben believes monitoring a child through spyware is a good way to protect them from harm. After reading Coben’s article, I have found that I disagree with his opinion. In the article, as coben writes while referring to a child, he states clearly “Shouldn’t he learn now that the Internet is not a haven of privacy?”…
In this article “The UnderCover Parent” Harlan Coben claims,that parents should put spyware on their kids computers, and phones etc, that kids couldn’t be trusted on the internet for the reasons that kids could be on websites they shouldn’t be on . Do you think parents should put spyware on their kids technology devices ? I disagree with Harlan for the reason that, Harlan is saying that children shouldn’t be trusted on the internet , I disagree because if you have a bond with your child (son/daughter) they wouldn’t abuse the internet and if they have a problem they should be able to come to you as a parent for advice . Another reason why I disagree with Harlan is because if you are spying on your kids you’re investing in their privacy…
Coben states that parents should be open to the idea of spyware and talk to their children about it, but they…
I have witnessed unkind things happen and have had things said to me over the internet that push me towards agreeing that parents should monitor their children, but I also know that I would like to have privacy just as most people do, which leads me to disagree. Coben’s arguments lack reliability and evidence in places where it is needed, such as when he gives examples of things people have said and when he claims to have done a great deal of research, causing his arguments to be weak. If I were going off his words alone, I would not be very convinced with Coben’s argument because of his absence of logos. I would see things in a new perspective, perhaps, since he gave reasonable examples that have a chance of happening, but I would not be persuaded to put spyware on my child’s…
For example, he says that it can be used to “monitor your child’s behavior on the internet so that the parent may correct any unruly conduct. Spyware can also literally record every keystroke made while the program is running.” Coben also explained that responsible parents use spyware strictly to “protect their children from the dangers of the internet.” He states that “when used the right way spyware is a good idea because a watchful eye can help a person make better choices.” For instance Coben himself told the story of what happened to his friend.…
For one reason why I do think it’s a good idea is because there are many predators out there behind computers and fake profiles and acting like someone else. That’s where spyware comes good in handy because you can monitor and look at your kids messages. There are many reasons…
Harlan Coben the author explains in this article named, “The Undercover Parents.” Explains how parents should monitor their kids. I agree with Harlan Coben that parents should monitor their kids for many reasons. Coben also explains how the internet is dangerous for teenagers, because they might share information about their parents or about their life. That might affect them in the future for sharing information.…
However, kids must start learning that the “Internet is not a haven of privacy” (Coben 1). So, everything on posted can already be seen are all and maybe even seen by future employers, teachers, or dates. As a result, kids have to be extremely careful about what they post and parents should always be updated and aware of what their child is doing on the Internet. Another argument might be that it is illegal to listen to another person’s conversation, which is true, but only applies to people older than eighteen. Furthermore, it is important to remember that this isn’t the government listens, but that child’s own loving and caring parents, “Loving parents are doing the surveillance here, not faceless bureaucrats” (Coben 1).…
I believe that when parents use spyware it is a huge invasion of privacy. You are seeing your child's inner thoughts and what they are saying to others. I think parents can monitor their children by putting web page blockers on their computers they should also talk to them about the dangers of the internet. Parents should ask questions when their child goes out or they should pick them up and drop them off to confirm what their child said is true. I agree with coben because parents should make sure they aren't being bullied, they not being the bully, or they aren't doing things they aren't supposed to.…
Another site of legal violence is within mass incarceration. William Stunz addresses the violence of the system as focusing on the process over the outcome. He focuses on how the law was put into place to create the desired outcomes, rather than looking at the results to create the law. This focus on the process means there is no inquiry to whether material outcomes of the process are actually just and as such it appears that the system does not want to fix the problem, but rather just emphasize an existing problem. This is a systemic violence because the way the way the law is interpreted causes the focus on procedure rather than the outcomes (Gopnik 2012).…
The article “Should Parents Snoop on Their Kids Online?” says, in paragraph one, that kids are getting increasingly more access to technology nowadays. This means more exposure to the internet, as well as the dangers that sprout from it. Subsequently, according to “The Undercover Parent”, there are many dangerous people and websites on the internet. Harlan Coben states, “We’ve all read about the young boy unknowingly conversing with a pedophile or the girl who was cyber bullied to the point where she committed suicide. Would a watchful eye have helped?”…
Huemer argues that a few different arguments that drug war advocates advance are false. One of the arguments Huemer targets is the Harm to Users argument. For this question, lay out the harm to users argument in premise-conclusion form and explain why drug war advocates who like this argument think that each premise is true. After doing this, identify which premise Huemer uses the Howard case to undermine (i.e. identify which premise the Howard case is supposed to show is false). Then, explain the Howard case (i.e. who Howard is, what he does, etc.) and why Huemer thinks the Howard case shows that the premise in the Harm to Users argument is false.…