this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
237 points (99.6% liked)
cybersecurity
5889 readers
29 users here now
An umbrella community for all things cybersecurity / infosec. News, research, questions, are all welcome!
Community Rules
- Be kind
- Limit promotional activities
- Non-cybersecurity posts should be redirected to other communities within infosec.pub.
Enjoy!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A formal, legal right to privacy is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Kids will gain the formal right to privacy at some point in their lives, and they will review their childhood experiences through the lens of a competent, adult mind. When they come across memories of being secretly spied upon, a healthy kid should feel that they were victimized.
An unhealthy (former) kid will deem such invasions of privacy as normal, acceptable behavior and is very likely to go on to victimize others. Perhaps their own kids; perhaps other people. Perhaps they will simply support anti-privacy issues like this one when they come up.
The general case is that non-consensual recording is a crime. Denying the kid the personal agency to prosecute the offender is just another way in which the kid is victimized.
Friend, you are the one that brought a legal argument to the discussion. You're being disingenuous by saying it's now irrelevant when I asked for specific evidence supporting your claims.
I don't know what a formal right is.
A "healthy kid" can also understand the need for parental guidance, particularly before teen years.
There is no general case. We're discussing minors. Kids are not being victimized by being raised by competent, privacy minded parents. They don't need the privacy in their digital communications while they are a minor. They need it when they are an adult, and my kids will know the value of that privacy better than you understand it.
Take care.