A new mobile phone service for kids, Bipper, has just been released in Norway, and one of the features, the possibility of localising your kid, is raising some debate. According to Bipper’s founder Silje Vallestad, this is only an extra feature that you can turn off, but it still raises important questions.

After reading Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother I went in search of more ways in which kids today are under surveillance. Schools are major culprits. My daughter was horrified when I told her the many ways in which teachers can see what she’s up to through It’s Learning, the LMS that all kids in Bergen use. This video about the use of technology in a US school is chilling in the normality of the assitant principal showing the reporter how he can see each student’s screen, and how the webcam is often on. This year, a Philadelphia high school accused a student of having drugs – in his bedroom – based on webcam images snapped in his home on his school-issued laptop. And yes, even in Norway, schools run outrageous spyware on student laptops.

I already wrote about this on the blog (and posted a comment to the Origo discussion of Blipper) but it’s such an important issue. And seriously, isn’t this constant surveillance in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children?

13. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

16. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

Or has our society changed so much since the convention was written that we now think surveillance is just fine?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

7 thoughts on “surveillance of kids – again

  1. Protego Security

    jill/txt » surveillance of kids – again http://bit.ly/dwXMTq

  2. William Patrick Wend

    Jill, a lot of people here in the states are also very concerned about this kind of surveillance of children. Unfortunately, those in favor will often pull out the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?! or IF IT WAS YOUR KID YOU’D WANT THEM FOUND cards to defuse any debate. Any number of police procedural shows (CSI, the horribly sensationalist Law & Order SVU, etc) also push tracking systems (many that don’t even really exist in real life…which also leads to juries demanding more evidence than can really be presented).

    I strongly agree with you that it is a matter of human rights. Children should not be subjected to constant supervision and nannying. Governments who do that want a group of citizens incapable of making poor choices (heaven forbid!!!!) or doing things outside of the pre-established box they decide.

  3. Barbara Barbosa Neves

    I couldn’t agree more! And the “human rights of children” point is spot on. Thanks for articulating it so clearly.

    A propos, the recent online harassment of a 11 years-old girl by 4chan members (http://gawker.com/5589103/how-the-internet-beat-up-an-11+year+old-girl?skyline=true&s=i) seemed to feed more the “surveillance” argument, than education and a balanced parental guidance.

  4. Nathan Clark

    surveillance ~= prison: http://bit.ly/aiw98z routine surveillance of children: http://bit.ly/advqRW @bldgblog @jilltxt

  5. raven1962

    Bipper has just been released in Norway. The possibility of localising your kid is raising some debate. http://jilltxt.net/?p=2488

  6. Trond K. Pettersen

    jill/txt – surveillance of kids – again http://bit.ly/cZQM7a

  7. Ida Aalens links

    surveillance of kids – again http://bit.ly/aVjzKg

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.