Harlan Coben’s editorial article “The Undercover Parent” (March 16,2008) suggests that putting spyware on your child’s computer is a good idea. Throughout the article Coben supports his thesis by first telling a short story, then listing different counterarguments throughout his paragraphs. Coben says that “Most parents won’t even consider it.” I agree with most of his points, but also disagree with a few. Here is my response. I agree with Coben on how we have to be wary on what kids do online. He uses great examples of what’s not safe online, and what you have to watch out for. When he talks about how overprotective parents nowadays fight battles for their kids when it comes to situations like fighting on the playground, or not being put
Alfie Kohn in an excerpt from his book, “The One-Sided War against Children”, explores the topic of helicopter parenting. In which through Kohn uses ethos in order to convey his overall message, that helicopter parenting is not necessarily a bad thing for children. As there is no substantial facts that otherwise prove that helicopter parenting is damaging to children. In which Kohn uses his vast information about other articles and sources on the same topic. For example, when Kohn lists some of them, “...‘How to Land Your Kid in Therapy’...
Should parents have the right to put spyware on their children computers. Harlan Coben the author of “ Undercover Parent ” published by the New York Times on March 16, 2008 highlights the fact that it's scary to put spyware on your your children computers, Most parents won't even consider it. From my point of view with Cobens argument because most parents don't know what they're really do on the internet. Coben speaks about how some people will say that it's better just to use parental blocks that denies access to inappropriate sites.
“I don’t call it spying; I call it parenting “this is said by many protecting parents from all over the world. There’s been many debates about this problem, many parents having to spy on their child’s smart phone or social media. First, the parent’s job is to help the child’s development in life, not spy on it. Lori Day has great examples in “Brutally Honest”, an psychologist and mother considers spying “an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust this is said on lines 22-24.
Stalking Is Different Than Monitoring In “The Undercover Parent”, by Harlan Coben he argues that parents have a right to monitor their children, by putting spyware on their computers or other devices, making it possible to see what they spend their time doing and to whom they spend their time talking. Though, the way that most teens see it, if a parent is allowing their child onto social media, then they should trust them enough to the point where they shouldn’t have to monitor everything they’re doing. While online, people can definitely change.
In Harlan Coben’s article “The Undercover Parent” (2008), the author claims that parents should protect their children by getting spyware on their devices to protect them from the dangers of the Internet. Coben supports his claim by first providing an illustration of what most people think when they hear the word “spyware” and then giving an example of why you should get spyware to protect your child. The author’s purpose is to persuade parents of teenagers so that they get spyware to protect their children because he first thought it was bad, but then he saw the good of it. Coben writes in an informational and conversational tone for parents to understand him in order to protect their children against the dangers of the internet.
In an effort to persuade her audience that there are benefits to early exposure to technology, Eliana Dockterman builds her argument in her article, “The Digital Parent Trap”. Dockterman begins building her credibility with reputable sources, using logos appeal by statistics, and successfully employing opposing views to counter argue to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of her argument. By citing reputable sources such as school principals and an anthropologist from University of California at Irvine, Dockterman effective use of ethos strengthens the credibility of her article. Arguing that early exposure to technology is beneficial, it is only logical that Dockterman include a quote from “Shawn Jackson, principal of Spencer Tech”.
The overreliance on technology to raise young children depicts a dopy indolence for those biologically closest to us. Without appropriate guidance, children become cheaters, criminals, and unsuccessful. This pathway of life should never impose upon a child, but these unfortunate conditions frequently occur in broken families. Able grown-ups with custody of kids are responsible for raising their children properly so they do not end up in substandard places. Parents who properly guide their sons and daughters gain the crucial human quality of responsibility for childrearing.
In another opposing article titled “Big Teacher Is Watching” by Lisa Black a Chicago Tribune publisher is talking about how the students should think twice on what they do on the schools issued computers because it's not their property it's the schools. Schools feel it’s important to able to see what students are doing on their computer at all time even at home because the school feels it’s the best way they can protect students (Black 1). Schools feel this a strong thing to use because if students do use the school issued computer to do other things than school work they can find out what those students are doing and have proof that they aren't doing their work or find things out that a student might be hiding and they can help them out with
The opinion piece ‘Gently Does It’ written by Cheryl Critchley, asserts the dire effect ‘smacking’ young children has on their development and potentially aggressive future. ‘Smacking’ often elicits a vehement debate, with parents saying it is their right and decision whether “to smack or not smack”, with others suggesting it proposes an unclear and burred line regarding domestic abuse. Critchley’s article was posted on the 10th of August 2013 in the Sunday Herald. This choice of platform is concurrent with an older target audience, particularly parents who or may not be partaking in the ‘harmful’ act of ‘chastisement.’ A maternal tone is adopted by Critchley throughout the entirety of her piece, whilst showing growing concern for the probable
This is different than in the Veldt because, in the Veldt, nothing really makes the parents question if all the technology they have in their house is good or bad, but in the end, a psychologist tells them and by then it is too late to do the right
The Undercover Parent, Argumentative Essay In Harlan Cobens article “The Undercover Parent”(2008) he gives many examples that can help you decide if parents should use spyware on their child or not. I agree with coben, because I feel if you know what your child's doing you can keep them from making the wrong choices. One of my examples to support my position is the article when coben says “you shouldn't monitor to find if your daughter's friend has a crush on kevin next door.
“Scary. But a good idea. Most parents won’t even consider it,” Harlan Coben states about spyware. In his opinion article, “The Undercover Parent”, Harlan Coben, author and columnist, expresses to his audience that they should monitor their kids and pro using spyware, but with the condition of making children aware it’s there.
The current study is the effects of exposure to technology on young children. As we become increasingly more reliant and absorbed in technology, it is no surprise that today’s children have become avid users as well (Hatch, 2011). Children at the age of three or four already have tablets, smart phones, and others; they could easily attain technologies and would even demand for one. As it makes easier for us, technology has both positive and negative impacts especially on young children. It comes with great opportunities but these opportunities likewise come with great risk
Multiple parents have sued public libraries for allowing their children to access pornography on the internet due to inadequate filters. In fact, many parents are quick to believe that libraries “have an ethical duty to protect their children” (Wyatt). However, it is not part of a librarian’s job to monitor children in libraries, and filters in place cause parents to believe that their children are safe under false pretenses. Officially, a public court maintained that “unsupervised use of computers is not a creation of danger” (Wyatt). Many students have access to unsupervised computers and can reach improperly filtered information, even though the parents believe that their children are protected from this.
Task 2 2B Digital technology ¬– a health threat? We live in a rapidly changing, highly technological world, where the present day digital technology affects several parts of our lives. At work, people use digital technology to communicate, gather information and solve problems relevant to their place of work. A growing number of people also use digital technology at home, to keep in touch with friends and family, check bank balances, play interactive games, participate in online forums and interact with others on social media websites and mobile apps, such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.