Dont Touch My Phone With the growth of mobile technology it becomes much easier for parents to intervene in their

childrens lives because the technology is mobile, always connected, and relatively cheap. After analyzing the presented case, we believe that the action of parents when deciding to use tracking features in their childrens cell phones is justified. However, it is imperative to develop boundaries as to when this action is ethical and when it is unethical. We believe that, provided that parents utilize the cell phone tracking features as a means of providing protection to their children and as long as the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child is upheld, the implementation of cell phone tracking tools into their childs phone is ethical. To justify our stance on this issue, we will use the following three ethical lenses: Ends Based, Rules Based, and Cares Based Reasoning.

Lets begin with Ends Based Reasoning which is the ethical construct that weighs whether the ends justify the means. The ends in this case refers to the safety of the child and the means taken to achieve that safety is through the installation of tracking technology into a childs cell phone. In order to justify the ethicality of tracking a childs cell phone we will by utilizing the UNs Declaration of the Rights of the Child as a parental framework. Two key points that are presented in this document are: the child will be immersed in an atmosphere of security and will be in the care and under the responsibility of their parents whenever possible as well as the child will receive prompt protection and relief in times of disaster. It is the parents duty to protect their children in any way possible, until they are fit to protect themselves which the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child associates with 18 years of age. We believe that mobile tracking technology is a solution for parents in creating an atmosphere of security around their children. The case provides an example of this when it suggests that parents can use tracking apps to make sure that their children are not writing about drug or alcohol use, involved in sexual relationships, or otherwise engaged in behavior the parents find objectionable. In cases like these, simply asking if a child is exposed to any of these activities proves to be largely ineffective and prevents parents from maximizing their childs safety. However, by monitoring a childs engagement with these activities through cell phone tracking, such as by monitoring the places they visit and who they communicate with, it is possible to ensure the long-term safety of the child. In cases where a child is lost or abducted, through the use of mobile tracking, it becomes more likely that a child will be provided the prompt protection that they are entitled to. However, as the child reaches 18 years of age and exits the social contract that was established between him/her and the parent, the parent can no longer outweigh the childs privacy with the justification that it is in the best interest of their long-term safety because they are no longer as responsible for them after they leave the home and no longer rely exclusively on the parent for support. It is at this point that it is no longer ethical for parents to track their childs cell phone. Take for example the case of Aubrey Ireland who was a 21 year old senior at the University of Cincinnati who filed a restraining order against her parents after they installed monitoring software on her laptop and cellphone, allowing them to see her every keystroke and phone number dialed or received. Both the university and the courts sided with Aubrey and deemed that Aubreys parents actions were unethical. A similar scenario applies to the situation presented in the case where a man uses an app to catch his wife cheating. When two people agree to be in a relationship together there is an expectation of honesty and fidelity between the two people. These obligations are

spoken in a marriage union and unspoken in a dating relationship and are part of a social contract between the two individuals. Each party has a right to be treated with this level of respect and consideration. The right of one person to be protected from harm is valued above another persons right to have privacy. An individual that cheats has the potential to cause (emotional) harm onto the other. Therefore, the mans actions were justified. T he right of emotional safety trumps the right to the privacy of the cheater. Despite age, other factors like mental conditions and parent dependency are also factors that should be considered when determining whether tracking a person is in their best interest. For example, a child with a mental disability or with a history of being a troublemaker may need to be tracked for a longer time than a child under the age of 18 that has proven to be responsible. It is here that the parent must weigh if the child has proven himself to be responsible and then assign a corresponding level of freedom. Under this guiding framework, we believe the ends do justify the means and cell phone tracking is ethical.

Moving on to the Rules Based Reasoning which follows Kants categorical imperative and assess whether our conclusion is ethical by applying it in all cases.. If our position and framework were applied universally, parents would simply be presented with another option to keep their children safe. The key benefit to this option would be that it provides a way to offer more prompt protection and relief in times of disaster.

Finally, applying Cared Based Reasoning which follows the idea of do to others what you would like them to do to you, we believe our position is still justified. In the first situation presented in the case, which dealt with the man discovering that his wife was cheating on him, the use of tracking software was ethical because the underlying assumption behind the show is that when two people agree to be in a relationship together there is an expectation of honesty and fidelity between the two people; each party has a right to be treated with this level of respect and consideration. A woman would want to and should be able to know if her man cheated and vice versa. .In addition, in cases where an individual is not able to be safe individually, it should be extended out to them.

For these reasons, YES.