ANY TIME politicians want to justify an unpopular policy these days they invoke child safety: anti-terrorism laws, the ID card, speed cameras, GPS tracking, Internet censorship. Terri Dowty also wants to protect children in this high-tech era, but in a different way: "Children are the crash-test dummies for so much new technology, particularly where databases are concerned," she says.
A former musician and teacher, Dowty was always interested in civil rights. As she got older, that interest took over her life. She got interested in children's rights through her work teaching, and also through home-schooling her own children. "Principally," she explains, "I wanted them to have the freedom to keep their enthusiasm for learning alive." It seems to have worked out: her older son is reading law at Oxford, having argued his way in without formal qualifications.
The experience changed how she thought about interacting with children. "You can't be authoritarian when you're with kids 24 hours a day," she says. "You can actually treat children as human beings."
Or you could – before so many high-tech systems came in that seem designed to treat children completely impersonally. Dowty's prime example is biometric systems for school registration: they take away, she says, the daily bit of contact when the teacher looks directly at each child and acknowledges their presence.
"There is this idea," she says, "that children don't really exist as human beings of the moment – they're just the adults of the future." It is that attitude that have made children a testbed: the fingerprint systems in today's school libraries are only one example.
"The whole of the transformational government agenda was tried out on teenagers first," says Dowty, "through the Connexions scheme." Now just a careers service, Connexions' original design included allowing local education authorities to use information from schools and others to build a database including every teenager in their areas. The idea was to be able to assess every teenager's life – "every area," says Dowty, "down to their sexuality and what friends they had."
She adds, "The idea was to bring services together for that young person with a broker in the middle. That's exactly what transformational government is about." Later, the Connexions idea was expanded into the "Every Child Matters" programme and rolled out to all children. "It's the whole egovernment plan," she says. "It's in the name of child protection – but actually it's a testbed for what's being envisaged for all of us. The government just brought out the Think Family paper, and they're talking about extending the assessment tool they're going to use for children – developed from the teen one – to identify adults within the child's family who need services and doing whole-family assessments. They have this obsession with carrying out holistic assessments instead of just telling people what's available."
The consequences for privacy are obvious. But, says Dowty, the privacy we're struggling to hold onto children have already lost. "There are so many devices and cameras on them now that nobody turns a blind eye to them. They are watched in a way that we weren't watched when we were children. Parents and teachers know when not to watch – but now we intervene and monitor them all the time, and also form records of very trivial misheaviour." Cameras can't decide not to see, and, she says, quite trivial offences are becoming criminalised. Should throwing food in a school cafeteria be recorded for life? "I think every child needs the right to reinvent themselves when they reach adulthood."
There are, to be sure, good uses of technology for protecting children, though she wouldn't include tracking their mobile phones as one of them. But, says Dowty, "We are confusing child protection, where the child is at risk of harm or neglect with the general needing of services of some kind."
She would like to see, for example, messaging services for children thought to be at risk, and better teaching of IT as an exciting subject. "With the amount we're wasting at the moment, we could easily buy every child broadband and online access – that would be a splendid use of technology and money." µ
Aware or not, when normal people see a child, they are looking at Innocence-in-Progress [but on the planets Pedos & Cathos as well as the hormonally-challenged, they see gratification]. And the innate morality within most is given voice/elicited from those who are still in “touch”, for the moment, for when that innocence is replaced with indulgence, like screaming for “Santa” [which is a zero-sum fantasy invented by “industry” and now imbibed by brainless-fashionites of the wishy-washy-greeny-looney, spend, spend, spend, variety], and toys and refusing to “behave”, they miraculously turn into brats. Funnily enough, you won’t see most parents behaving either and if so, what are people asking children to imitate? “Maturity”, bellowed the “grown-ups”, “for we can copulate, corrupt & rationalise and they cannot” – yet.

So another divide is created because of hypocrisy and ignorance. This is what a child really is as relayed by the tooth fairy during his [sans beard] last visit. A human being dies and his [masculine for brevity duckie] soul recollects & reflects. He is offered an array of parent-could-be’s within the constraints [or full expression] of his past deeds [for those financially numbed, what he had banked during his last life with the old man]. Once he had courageously decided to accept the challenge to be reborn in order that he may evolve higher, all his past is erased [except that it is recorded by his true mother], the 5 components of his soul divide and one-half goes to the prospective mother and the other half to the father. The institution of marriage has its reasons for if the parents-to-be play “hookie” during this period, imagine the genetic fallout [bearing in mind that genetics rely on 3 factors, and not just the physiologic one that quackery keeps on its mantle].

So the infant is miraculous;y kept for months when normally any foreign intrusion will be warded off by the antibodies [or angels in reality] and “pops out” [not when a female is “modernised” for then old Caesar is recalled] at the right time. From conception till full mental independence, the duty of a child is to his parents to the point of complete self-damage and this is not an option. If so, shouldn’t parents either behave or not have a child? We were all childrebn once, so what is the point about harping on children? It is the reflection of Innocence-In-Progress for all those who have “sight”, to see. Innocence, another word for Gravity/Carbon, was what was created after The Big Bang and without Innocence/Gravity, humans will take flight onto, say, the planet Pedos or Cathos [hmm, which is more delicious] and at this point, the fairy disappeared. The brute…..
The biggest factor in any child's life is the ability of it's parent(s) to give them a good, safe and supportive life.
If this woman wants to do someting about improving childhood, forget about messing around with technology - start with this