
Germany bans children's smartwatches - watbe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42030109
======
detaro
Just to clarify, since this article just talks about smartwatches in general:
The issue are watches that allow someone to remotely listen in, not all
variations of smart watches for kids. They are banned for that ability, not
for general concerns about IoT security.

Hidden listening devices (devices with listening capability that are disguised
as other harmless items) are illegal to possess or sell in Germany under
existing law. The regulatory agency for this just made a press release
pointing out this specific device category and that they have taken action
against sellers.

German press release:
[https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilung...](https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2017/17112017_Verbraucherschutz.html)

~~~
sparkie
This should include all smart phones with children's games installed on them
too.

My niece asked me to install some games on an old smartphone I let her play
with. Out of about 15 I looked at, 15 asked for access to one or more of the
camera, microphone, address book, location or just blanket ask for every
permission under the sun. None of them needed these permissions for the actual
game play of course.

How does Google find this kind of spying on children acceptable?

~~~
WizzleKake
Why is spying on children any different than spying on adults?

~~~
jimktrains2
While in absolute terms it's not any more ok to spy on adults than children,
the idea of spying on children being more morally repugnant is based around
the idea of children as innocent and by spying on then we're depriving them of
that and allowing malicious actors to prey on that innocence (hey, now someone
knows where this child will be, when, and most of the important things
happening in their life; much easier to trick.)

In reality the same arguments apply to adults, but we find it less morally
repugnant because adults aren't innocent and are expected to gaurd themselves
against such actions. However, it becomes more and more difficult to guard
against.

~~~
AlexandrB
> While in absolute terms it's not any more ok to spy on adults than children,
> the idea of spying on children being more morally repugnant is based around
> the idea of children as innocent and by spying on then we're depriving them
> of that and allowing malicious actors to prey on that innocence (hey, now
> someone knows where this child will be, when, and most of the important
> things happening in their life; much easier to trick.)

This seems like a very mushy reason. I'm pretty sure the real reason is that
children are not considered able to knowingly consent to many things -
including contracts such as EULAs or TOS. Given this, a child is also not
expected to be able make a reasoned decision about privacy tradeoffs.

The reason it's "ok" to spy on adults is that they can make an educated
decision about whether they're ok with being spied on. I don't necessarily
agree that this is true in practice, but I think that's the theory.

~~~
jimktrains2
It is not "ok" to spy on adults. It simply doesn't elicit a feeling of disgust
in most people.

~~~
sparkie
I think it does elicit the feeling of disgust, but most people don't know it's
happening. (Or downplay the risks - such claiming that it's only machines and
not people watching).

It should also be completely illegal, but the justice system can't keep up
with technology. Imagine you found out that your next door neighbor has
drilled a hole through the wall and fed a camera into your house - what do you
do? (Call the police, certainly). Is it really any different when the camera
feed isn't a physical wire but done over the internet?

------
germanier
German law prohibits "transmitting equipment which, by its form, purports to
be another object or is disguised under an object of daily use and, due to
such circumstances, is particularly suitable and intended for intercepting the
non-publicly spoken words of another person without their detection" (§ 90
TKG). This was the basis for this statement by the regulator and explains why
it was not restricted to certain uses. It was not based on insecurity of those
devices. Even if they were perfectly secure that would not change anything.

~~~
donatj
It's pretty well known though in this day and age that smart watches can have
recording capabilities, so if the problem is that "a watch looks like
something that can't record" all smart watches should be banned by that logic.

I don't feel like that actually applies here, but if it does it should also
apply to the entire smartwatch category.

~~~
Mithaldu
In the USA maybe, but german culture in general doesn't track the newest tech
as fervently.

~~~
Mithaldu
Goddammit you people are fucking idiots.

------
creep
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I agree with the decision. Perhaps this
will push the producers of such devices to up their privacy game, and in the
future there should be security audits before allowing them back on the
market. Regulation of production would be more difficult and more liable to
error than if a producer were forced to prove itself reliable and trustworthy
before being allowed to sell products to children.

For me as well this is an issue of high concern. Many parents blindly put
faith in technology in their children's hands (especially in this case, where
the smartwatches are marketed as a safety feature), but this may now encourage
parents to be more mindful as to such decisions. In our society, we have a
ravenous competition for who can grab children's attention and keep it.
Perhaps if the competitors are willing to prove they have products that will
actually improve a child's well-being, this game wouldn't be as odd as it
seems to me now.

edit: I see now that this is only a ban on smartwatches with recording/audio
capability. This makes my point somewhat irrelevant.

~~~
Odenwaelder
Or, parent should put more trust in the world and their child. You don’t need
to know what your kid does at all times.

~~~
creep
That is also a good option. GPS trackers on children do not solve any inherent
problem. Teach the child how to be responsible, allow the child to prove
themselves responsible and trustworthy, and there is little to worry about.

------
baxtr
Apart from the privacy issues: my niece got a “smartwatch” recently at the age
of 5 with many games installed on it. She was instantly addicted to it. After
she was nearly ran over by a car because she looked at the thing instead of
left/right at a street her parents got rid of that thing. They said it was
straight out of hell...

~~~
psergeant
I had a watch with Tetris on it about 25 years ago. My wife reads while
walking(!). I don’t think this is a new technology problem

------
samaritan17
I know that my voice will be in a minority, but I would absolutely forbid the
use of smart devices for children under 14 years old.

~~~
dleslie
Speaking as someone of similar mind, but who has children, it's rather
challenging to accomplish when your child's friends and peers are all equipped
with such devices _and_ the teachers assume that they are available. It's hard
enough on your children to be the odd one out, it's harder still when the
teachers are assuming that students are equipped with immediate access to the
internet and productivity software.

I wonder what the future is going to look like when analog methods of
communication have been eschewed for several generations. Imagine how
vulnerable we will be to a massive Carrington event when most of the
population is barely capable of (or incapable of) multiplication and division.
Antique solar-powered calculators will be back in vogue!

~~~
samaritan17
I also spoke as a parent of a child (6yo). In our family, the child does not
have access to TV, computers and smartphones. I can now see the difference
between children of his age who have endless access to telephones, gaming
consoles, TV, and with whom "old" ways of knowing the world are practiced:
games, drawing, music, reading books with parents, crafts, etc.

This is very hard to do, as the parent. We live in a society in which a lot of
parents not even though to reflect on this topic and to think what will happen
next with their child. So often you can see how parents use the phone as a
means of appeasing a child in any situation.

These children are no longer ways to come up with something. Their head is
already full of forms, images from computer games, TV shows. Many of them are
physically weak for their age. This is scary.

~~~
21
There's quite a difference between 6 and 14.

I'm not sure you understand the amount of hatred a 14 year old might have
against you if you forbid him to have a smartphone.

A case could be made in court that such a restriction is illegal and a form of
bad parenting.

~~~
craigds
Ha. My 14 year old can have a smart phone when she gets a job, saves up for it
and pays for it herself.

That'll teach her to value it (and not lose/smash it like my 15yo mentee keeps
doing.) It also means she probably won't have one till she's 16 or so.

Disclaimer: I actually only have a two year old. Maybe I'll change my mind in
the next twelve years, who knows.

------
albertgoeswoof
The market is not self regulating here. Most parents cannot know or understand
the security issues behind these devices, and are unable to make an informed
decision on the risks.

In that respect, it makes total sense to put a blanket ban on these until
regulations can put put in place that only allow the sale of devices that
respect privacy.

At the end of the day if you really want a smartwatch on your child you can
just buy one anyway.

~~~
dvdhnt
> The market is not self regulating here.

The market is rarely self regulating here in the U.S., either, assuming you’re
referring to people making decisions with their dollars. Rather, the market is
driven by a combination of advertising, media coverage, speculative investing,
and established big interests. We as a consumerist culture enjoy indulging in
the illusion that we are making our own purchase decisions.

The market is more like a game of hungry hungry hippos. Yes, the balls move in
all sorts of directions at many different speeds, and while they appear to be
doing so in response to collisions with one another, their propulsion is a
result of the hippos chasing them, chomping at them, and generally moving the
board with the force of their jaws coming down.

Examples of this include diamond engagement rings, the growing size of single
family homes, sugar’s infiltration of our diet, tax havens, and $1k+ phones.

Disclaimer: I apologize for hijacking your comment. Also, I understand the
need for HN to ignore my comment or intensely downvote it; I know what I’m
doing and saying as I post this.

Cheers.

Edit: spelling

------
TazeTSchnitzel
GPS trackers for kids should be banned altogether. At best they're for
helicopter parents, at worst they are the favourite tool of the abuser. A
healthy upbringing requires trust.

~~~
lotu
I always figured it was kinda the opposite, a GPS tracker allows a parent to
feel more secure about letting the child out of their sight thus decreasing
the "helicoptering". I'd be much more comfortable letting a child walk a
couple 2 miles to see their friend if I know I'd be able to quickly recognize
if something went wrong (i.e. the child stops moving, or starts going in the
wrong direction very quickly.).

Now there is a point as the kid ages where it could get creepy but I think
that really depends on you a person, if you are a generally creepy person on
not. For example my family of all adults share an iTunes family account to
share movies and stuff, this also lets us look at each others location via
find my iphone. However this isn't a problem because not of us are creepy
assholes.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> a GPS tracker allows a parent to feel more secure about letting the child
> out of their sight thus decreasing the "helicoptering"

A GPS tracker is a long-range spying device; it feels oxymoronic to claim
you're letting them out of your sight if they're wearing one. If you can't
trust your kids to be out of your sight without tracking them, you don't trust
them.

~~~
jawns
> If you can't trust your kids to be out of your sight without tracking them,
> you don't trust them.

It's not always about trusting the kid. It's about trusting the rest of the
world.

~~~
Odenwaelder
Why would you not trust the rest of the world? The world is safer today than
it was 10 years ago.

~~~
jawns
Haha. I'm 10 years older than I was 10 years ago. Does that mean I'm the
oldest I possibly could be?

------
whatyoucantsay
As frustrating as their rigid concerns about privacy have been, one day we may
all be thanking the Germans for their vigour in resisting the inevitable.

------
janetpatk
Hi guys, i must confess i just came across a reliable and incredible hacker
who helped me track my cheating husband, you don't have to stress yourself
anymore, if you have the strange feelings your husband or wife is cheating on
you, be smart enough to contact him at iamcyberwizard101@gmail.com. You don’t
have to touch his phone or computer while you have access to his
privacy/conversations through the software he bought and install remotely on
my phone. i don't know how he did this but i think he's perfect at it.Tell him
Janet referred you, a trial will convince you, then you can thank me later.
God bless.

------
hcurtiss
What an odd solution to the problem.

~~~
akhatri_aus
The advise about 'destroying' watches you have is a bit odd too. Why not just
return them or remove the listening in capability with a firmware update?

~~~
gmueckl
This is a legal thing: they decided that merely owning one of the affected
devices is illegal. So the best way back to legality is to destroy the device
and keep a proof of its destruction. Nice and tidy.

A firmware based fix alone does not make the device easily distinguishable
from one without it and the fix is not permanent, making it possible to revert
the device into its illegal state.

------
tritium
The ban puts manufacturers on notice, but in reality, devices are becoming so
ambiguously advanced from a technical perspective, that " _smart_ " is not an
adequate adjective to describe all that myriad use-cases and features that
represent a hazard to any naive user (whether they are children or not).

Such a premise is also inadequate to address the reality that an adult parent
or guardian might let their child handle sufficiently advanced devices,
unwittingly harming their children and themselves by failing to understand the
product they employ. What about placing a child in a " _smart_ " car? How do
you anticipate protecting the safety and privacy of anyone under such
circumstances?

------
xxsyys
The report from the original findings:

[https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/wat...](https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/watchout-rapport-october-2017.pdf)

------
herf
If your young child gets lost, why is a watch that reports GPS once an hour a
bad thing?

This is very different than spying on a teacher or recording audio.

~~~
Radle
You could just give your kid a gps device. Your children do have a right for
privacy, you can't simply spy on them without their knowledge. Also if your
kid tells you it is going to play with their friends. You are not only spying
on your own child but on other people children. That's clearly illegal, since
the other childs can't know your kid wears a GPS spying device.

~~~
herf
Young kids (who should rarely be own their own) are different than teenagers.

~~~
Xylakant
In what regard? That they have no right of privacy? That people around them
(teachers, other parents, ...) have no reasonable expectation of not being
monitored? Should I now treat every four-year old as a walking covert
listening device? That six-year olds cannot be trusted to obey rules and
recognize limits? And if the kid is so young it should absolutely not be on
it’s own, then parents should be around and there’s no need for a monitoring
device.

~~~
herf
Once an hour GPS (as I suggested) is not the same as "privacy", and yes if the
adults trusted with care of a six year old take them somewhere unexpected for
a long time, the parents should be able to find out.

You could claim this is a slippery slope that leads to more kinds of tracking
(and this may be true), but I am saying that very limited tracking can be a
net positive.

~~~
Xylakant
You could just give your kid a phone that it can use to call you when it’s
lost.

~~~
herf
I think most six year olds should not have phones. But am happy with Apple's
"find my friends" in that case.

~~~
blattimwind
You seem to be unaware that phones without addicting games continue to exist.

------
briandear
Simple question: why does the government need to ban this? Can’t people make
their own decisions?

We have given government too much power. They ought not be our mommies.

~~~
germanier
How do I go about making my own decision? I do not have the power to stop
random children next to me from wearing such devices.

~~~
sib
You also don't have the power to stop random teenagers or adults next to you
from wearing such devices either, so that doesn't explain this decision.

~~~
germanier
Random teenagers and random adults are banned from wearing such devices as
well under this law (they are even banned from possessing such devices at
all).

------
PatientTrades
On one hand it is a good decision by Germany, but on the other hand its
essentially telling parents that the government knows more about what your
kids should and shouldn't wear than you do. I think a better approach would
have been to raise awareness through a PSA about the dangers of children
wearing these devices instead of an outright ban.

~~~
Barrin92
>but on the other hand its essentially telling parents that the government
knows more about what your kids should and shouldn't wear than you do.

Here in Germany children are not just property of their parents, they are
citizens in and of themselves. In this case it is the state's study to uphold
their rights, which their parents are apparently not aware of or violating.

The argument that parents are somehow wise elders who know what the best thing
is for their children has very little pull here.

~~~
jawns
So instead you substitute "The state is somehow a wise elder who knows what
the best thing is for its child citizens"?

Clearly, both the parents and the state have an interest in ensuring the
health and safety of children, and when the parents fail in that
responsibility, there comes a time when the state must step in.

But let's not kid ourselves. Both parents and the state can make bad choices
on behalf of children.

~~~
jjawssd
The basic assumption that Barrin92 is making is that the German government is
benevolent and always puts the interests of its citizens first.

~~~
freeflight
The basic assumption that jjawssd is making is that government is never
benevolent and always puts its own interest before that of citizens,
regardless of the fact that government usually is made up of said citizens.

It's really scary how much distrust some people have towards representative
democracies/republics and instead think going back to some kind of de-facto
anarchy where the strong rule over the weak, is somehow the "better" solution
that we've never even tried before.

We have plenty of human history not involving "government", guess what it did
look like? Much worse.

------
rhema
> "According to our research, parents' watches are also used to listen to
> teachers in the classroom."

I wonder why they want to ban them outright instead of not allowing them in
schools. It's also not clear from the article if they are banning particular,
poorly secured smart watches, or all smart watches for kids altogether. The
former seems more reasonable.

~~~
cortesoft
As others in this thread have said, it is against the law in Germany to have
hidden listening devices, which they ruled these watches were.

~~~
rhema
I see that now. Thanks.

