Abstract: Geotracking applications have gained massive popularity over the past couple of years. Currently, the popular application Life360 has surpassed 50 million monthly active users globally. This paper argues that companies behind applications like Life360 are pushing for a shift in the values that are relevant to parental care. Companies do this by attempting to change the definition of certain values. For example, Life360 equates “safety” with “knowledge” and “transparency”, pushing the message that children can only be safe when the parents are informed about their children’s whereabouts. This is not without risk. Societies accepting the change in values that these applications promote would be detrimental to child development. The utilisation of Life360’s surveillance tools has proven negative effects on children, but more importantly, its value shift normalises surveillance in both family environments and national and global contexts, which plays into the hands of companies partaking in forms of surveillance capitalism, and governments wishing to exert control over their citizens.

​

Introduction

​

Life360, one of the biggest location tracking application marketed towards families, promises up-to-date information of the whereabouts of all your family members, and with that, peace of mind. A report on digital location tracking by Auxier et al. (2020) researched how many parents use digital location tracking in their parenting. Their research shows that “[o]ne third of parents in a representative U.S. sample report using digital software to track their children’s (aged 5-11 years) location” (Auxier et al., 2020 quoted in Burnell et al., 2023). As early as 2010, Tonya Rooney argued that an increase in the employment of surveillance tools in parenting is a result of the changing market of surveillance technologies in which the parent is a newly discovered consumer, in contrast to law enforcement and security companies. Rooney notes how this change is significant because it increases the chance of a child finding themselves under surveillance in the locations that they visit daily. She adds to this that surveillance in this context is no longer seen as a tool of discipline and control, but that it is perceived to be a form of care (Rooney, 2010, p. 345). Rooney is not defending the position that these tools are forms of care, she is merely describing a shift in the public opinion of these surveillance tools. After all, this shift in perspective is crucial, as it normalises surveillance and changes societal attitudes towards privacy and monitoring.

 

This article primarily analyses the discrepancy between the values that Life360 puts forward in their marketing material and those that the application truly promotes with its services. By referring to certain values in their marketing material, Life360 tries to equate said values with their practices. In doing so, the original meaning of the value erodes and gets replaced by the values that lie within the products they offer. For example, Life360 equates “safety” with “knowledge” and “transparency”, pushing the message that children can only be safe when the parents are informed about their children’s whereabouts. The central argument is that companies, like Life360, are pushing for a value shift in parenting, not to further the child’s benefits, but rather because the collection of user data serves as the raw material for generating profit in accordance with the workings of surveillance capitalism (see Zuboff, 2019). This value shift constitutes a dangerous development for children, as this constant surveillance affects children’s autonomy, their ability to trust and their ability to solve the problems they encounter in life. Additionally, it causes children to grow up with the idea that surveillance is normal, which paves the way for possible extremer versions of government surveillance.

​

Helicopter Parenting Allegations

The term ‘helicopter parenting’ refers to a style of parenting in which the parent is overbearing, ‘hovering’ above the child at all times, much like a helicopter. Hasinoff (2017) notes that “[a]lthough so-called “helicopter parenting” is widely criticized, digital surveillance tools used for child safety do not seem to face the same level of scrutiny” (Hasinoff, 2017, p. 502). However, since 2017, there has been an increase of criticism of these practices, and Life360 has faced numerous accusations that their application contributes to helicopter parenting. In the blogpost titled “Tips for Family Tracking Without Becoming a Helicopter Parent” published on March 30, 2024, Life360 addresses these allegations and stresses that these practises do not align with their company values and that it is the parents’ responsibility to use their application in a responsible manner. The company notes that “[d]espite industry messaging, using beacons doesn’t mean giving up your freedom; instead, it promotes independence” (Life360, 2024e). Life360’s rhetoric in this statement is a prime example of how the values that a company puts forward in their marketing materials do not necessarily align with the behaviour that their products encourage.

​

In their response to these allegations, Life360 acknowledges that helicopter parenting has several negative impacts on both children and parents. For children, it can lower self-confidence and self-esteem, increase anxiety and depression, hinder coping and problem-solving skills, create dependency on parents, and lead to social difficulties. For parents, helicopter parenting can increase stress and anxiety, strain the parent-child relationship, blur personal identity, and cause financial strain due to over-investment in their child’s pursuits (Life360, 2024e). In the blogpost, Life360 gives advice as to how to prevent helicopter parenting. However, as I will show in this article, this advice is completely at odds with the design of Life360’s application.

​

For example, the blogpost recommends also relying on calling and texting when communicating about whereabouts: “Instead of relying solely on the app, encourage regular communication through calls or messages to share updates about one’s day, fostering a culture of openness” (Life360, 2024e). This is completely in opposition to the value of efficiency and convenience that is heavily present in their marketing material. There, Life360 proudly exclaims how their application makes parents’ lives easier by eliminating the need to text and call (Life360 Inc., 2021b). Additionally, Life360 recommends to not use geotracking constantly: “Agree on specific situations when location sharing is expected (e.g., during trips, after school, or late at night) and when it’s unnecessary” (Life360, 2024e). Again, we find this advice to be completely in contrast with what the application is designed to do. The goal of Life360 is to be able to display your family members’ locations at any given moment.

​

There is no reason for families to use Life360 if their goal is to only use location sharing in specific scenarios. Most standard messaging applications have the functionality of sharing your location, either live for a set amount of time, or merely your current location. Simpson (2014) refers to a statement from Life360 that notes that their intention is not for parents to sneakily monitor their children. To this, Simpson responds that “[w]hile there is an acknowledgement within this statement that the aim is not to track one’s children, this does not remove the reality that this is precisely what occurs” (Simpson, 2014, p. 276). He states that inherent to the application’s programming and urging for the parents to make sure their children are safe is present, and that the application’s ‘solution’ for the problem of not being able to verify this at all times is geotracking. There is a clear discrepancy between Life360 telling parents not to constantly monitor their children and their application, which is designed to do just that.

 

Next, the blog refers to its earlier statement that helicopter parenting leads to stress and anxiety for the parent, and notes that increased anxiety is, indeed, not desirable for parents. Life360’s advice is for parents to simply refrain from practises like helicopter parenting as it will alleviate their anxiety. Besides the fact that refraining from these practises is not as simple as Life360 makes it sound, this parental fear is crucial to Life360’s business model and the reason why parents are convinced to download the application. Life360 exacerbates parental anxiety by naming the different forms of danger their application could protect children from to create demand. If parents truly took Life360’s advice to heart and refrained from spending excessive energy and time worrying about their child, instead trusting in their upbringing to adequately prepare them to resolve any issues that may arise, the application would likely have a significantly smaller user base.

 

Life360 addresses privacy concerns within the family by saying: “Frame the use of location sharing as a tool for independence, allowing family members to go about their day with the assurance that help is available if needed” (Life360, 2024e). Critics argue, however, that this response has an inherent tension. After all, privacy is about allowing one to define themselves in relation to others by setting their own boundaries (Dowty, 2008, p. 397). To this, Oostveen et al. (2014) add that location tracking applications try to obscure, by statements such as the one above, the limits they put on child development by saying that monitoring will actually foster independence (Oostveen et al., 2014, p. 568). Clark (2013) observed great parental involvement and independence to be a simple contradiction as well, noting that children that grew up with access to their parents via a mobile phone very regularly contacted their parents for help and support instead of taking care of issues that arose themselves (Clark, 2013, p. 205).
 

In this response to the allegations, Life360 takes no responsibility for the fact that their application is made to encourage practises like helicopter parenting, and how their marketing material tries to conceal this. The technology is marketed as a neutral or even a positive tool, whereas the potential issues lie completely within the parents’ (ir)responsible use of said technology. However, this instrumentalist view on technology has already been widely contested, as seeing technology as a mere tool ignores the complex ways in which technology shapes, and is shaped by society, and the values that are embedded in technology. An extensive overview of this debate can be found in the book The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts (Kroes and Verbeek, 2014). Indeed, Clark discovered parents were increasingly involved in their children’s lives and leaned towards helicopter parenting because of the technology that makes it possible (Clark, 2013, p. 205). Clark found that helicopter parenting was not necessarily something that parents developed on their own. Instead, parents noticed that they had a difficult time not to engage in hovering activities because technology gave them the opportunity to do so (Clark, 2013, p. 41).

 

The negative effects that the blog refers to when addressing the problems of helicopter parenting are, in this case, not to be attributed to parenting styles. By creating a digital panopticon, parents use the application as a disciplinary mechanism under the guise of care (Hasinoff, 2017, p. 504). This means that, like the workings of the panopticon, through constant tracking and monitoring of family members’ location and activities, Life360 induces a state of conscious visibility, wherein individuals are aware of being observed and internalise the norms of surveillance. This visibility, reminiscent of Bentham’s panopticon, causes family members to adapt their behaviour to align with the perceived expectations. By making surveillance an integral aspect of familial relationships and framing the behaviour as a form of care, Life360 reinforces the normalisation of surveillance in everyday life.
 

Underlying Values

The response by Life360 to the helicopter parenting allegations shows a clear tension between the values that the company communicates in their marketing and the values that are present in their application. The latter values are more silent and can only be identified when we look at the effects these functionalities have on users and how the application steers their behaviour. This chapter focuses on the three main values that are at
the heart of the problem: safety, privacy and autonomy, and shows how Life360 changes the meaning of these values.

​

Safety

There are two ways that Life360 uses safety in the promotion of their application. First, as alluded to in the previous chapter, they play into the elevated perception of unsafety that parents have. This perception does not match with the reality of decreasing crime levels. The disparity between parents' perception of safety and the declining rates of violent crimes has been a longstanding issue. Oostveen et al. (2014) note that abduction, murder or road accidents are seen as the main concerns to parents when thinking about the dangers their children could face. Though there has been a 34% decline in traffic accidents between 1994 and 2007 (Oostveen et al., 2014, p. 581), the fear is still heavily present in the marketing of Life360’s features that focus on road safety. We see here that Life360 plays into the perceived fear of parents by offering a solution to a problem that does not really exist, at least not in the way that Life360 makes it seem.

 

Then, with their proposed solution, Life360 starts shifting the meaning of safety. Hasinoff (2017) notes that knowing a child's location does not provide any information about the child's condition or safety. Life360 merely offers location data, which does not indicate whether a child is in danger or not (Hasinoff, 2017, pp. 498-501), but rather relies on the parent’s interpretation of the possible dangers in that place. Simpson (2014) notes something similar, stating that “[t]o some extent such outcomes based on a safer family are illusory for clearly such an app cannot actually protect a person beyond enabling the parent, for example, notifying law enforcement agencies if the child is not able to be located or is observed to be in danger” (Simpson, 2014, p. 276). Equating knowledge of whereabouts with knowledge of well-being is a simplification similar to the assumption that the family is inherently safe while unknown spaces signify danger, which Life360 emphasizes in its perception of the family as a safe space. This view ignores the dangers that children can face at home. Thus, the idea that having access to a child's location information is the same as ensuring their safety is illusory. It would be more accurate to say that the values Life360 advocates for are knowledge or transparency. Marx and Steeves (2010), Oostveen et al. (2014), Shade (2011), Simpson (2014), and Hasinoff (2017) have all noted that companies like Life360 exaggerate risks and that they offer a solution to a problem that is merely an illusion.

 

This shift of the meaning of safety is not without risks. First, the misguided sense of safety can mislead parents about their child's well-being. The child might be at a location that makes the parent believe they are well. If they had relied on texting or calling, a different judgement might have been made. Second, although parental anxiety might be temporarily alleviated by the illusion of being able to confirm the wellbeing of the child, it returns even more intensely when the application is unavailable or removed for any reason. User reviews have shown that parents became obsessed with knowing their child’s location after the introduction of Life360 (Garg et al., 2023). While a few parents might have had this specific anxiety before, many did not. However, now that the possibility exists, some parents have become reliant on it. Third, Simpson (2014) notes that this shift has serious consequences concerning the expectations of how children respond to dangerous situations. These applications propagate relying on a panic button instead of promoting resilience and independence to deal with dangerous situations a child might find themselves in. “Resort to the panic button does not promote a safer childhood, but it promotes a dependent, even dangerous childhood” (Simpson, 2014, p. 277). To sum up, it becomes clear that the safety of children is not the application’s main value, despite what they promise. What the application does, is exacerbate parental fears and create a dependency on their product, they wrongly equate knowledge with safety, and promote relying on panic buttons instead of supporting the development of independent children.
 

Privacy

Perhaps the clearest dissonance between Life360’s words and actions can be seen in the misuse of the value privacy. The discussion concerning privacy takes place at two different levels: within the family, and between the consumer and company. Where parental values argue that children need privacy both to develop and for their general well-being, Life360 argues that, instead, more privacy for children compromises their security. In addition, Life360’s (mis)use of their customers’ personal information does not align with the value of privacy either.

 

When discussing the role of privacy in the family, Life360's perspective suggests that privacy and security are in opposition. While they acknowledge the importance of privacy, they do not consider it more important than safety (Hasinoff, 2017, p. 502). Life360 shares their thoughts on children and privacy in the blog “What is The Deal With Privacy for Kids?”. This post takes a more value-laden approach to the topic of privacy in relation to children. The post is written by Dr. Vanessa Lapointe, who has joined Life360 as a Family Expert in March 2019. Lapointe states that she thinks that children nowadays have more privacy than she had, because her social life played out in her parent’s living room and on the kitchen landline. In contrast to this, children nowadays have taken their social lives online, where parents have much less access to who they are talking to and about what. From this she concludes; “I wonder if the fervour around privacy for kids these days has gone a little too far” (Life360, 2023c).

 

Lapointe even takes this a step further and suggests that the growing emphasis on children's privacy is in conflict with parental involvement and guidance essential for ensuring a child’s safety. However, this perceived  tension between privacy and safety has already been contested. Daniel Solove, a well-known legal scholar who focuses on the relation between privacy and information technology, argues that the idea that privacy and security are mutually exclusive is a fallacy. According to Solove, the perceived tension implies that matters of privacy and security are all-or-nothing situations. He notes that “[s]acrificing privacy doesn’t automatically make us more secure. Not all security measures are invasive of privacy. Moreover, no correlation has been established between the effectiveness of a security measure and a corresponding decrease in liberty. In other words, the most effective security measures need not be the most detrimental to liberty” (Solove, 2011, p. 34). The idea that giving children privacy makes them less safe is following the same faulty logic that Solove describes. This shift moves the meaning of the value from something that is a protective right for all individuals to a threat to one’s safety.

 

Just like with the value of safety, this new definition where privacy is the enemy of safety is not without its negative effects. Not only does Life360 advocate for openness and transparency, the way that the application’s features are designed also encourage a specific way of obtaining information. Burnell et al. (2023) distinguishes between different approaches parents can use to obtain information about their children. They differentiate between child disclosure and parental solicitation (Stattin and Kerr, 2000 quoted in Burnell et al., 2023). Child disclosure refers to situations where the child voluntarily provides information, whereas parental solicitation involves parents actively seeking out information about their child. The report by Burnell et al. focuses on problematic behaviours in adolescents, such as drug and alcohol use, and other forms of defiant behaviour. According to the researchers, child disclosure leads to a decrease in these types of problems, whereas parental solicitation exacerbates them. Extending this to the case study of communication concerning whereabouts, Life360 exemplifies parental solicitation. In this context, child disclosure would involve the child independently texting or calling about their plans, whereas Life360 allows for parents to actively seek out information about their child without the child having a say in the matter. Privacy is incredibly important for a child development. By changing the meaning of privacy to unnecessary negligence and exposure to danger, Life360 actively disrupts the development of all children being subjected to their application and hinders their growth into autonomous adults.

 

Autonomy

Life360 claims on their about page that, contrary to what critics argue, their application gives children more autonomy, not less (Life360, n.d.). The development of autonomy is dependent on freedom, the ability to judge risks, and trust. Freedom lies at the very basis of learning about risk assessment and trust: “Surveillance and technology scholars assume that children need their own free and unsupervised spaces (Steeves & Jones, 2010) that allow for heightened mobility (Fotel & Thomsen, 2004) and spontaneous interactions with others to develop independence and autonomy (Livingstone, 2002). Close monitoring, on the other hand, hinders resilience (Livingstone, 2009) and discourages pro-social behavior (Kerr et al., 1999)” (Marciano, 2022, p. 43). The key element in this statement is “their own free and unsupervised spaces”. Life360 does not allow for these, as location tracking is aimed to always be on. After all, as the previous chapter made clear; privacy is seen as the opposite of safety. Simpson (2014) notes that if a child was walking home and chose to take a different route than usual, going through a neighbourhood that the parent would not deem safe for whatever reason, parents would be using the functionalities of the application to ensure that their child would change their route by calling them (Simpson, 2014, p. 276). The awareness of being monitored can lead to a constrained behaviour pattern, where children avoid certain activities or social interactions for fear of parental judgement or worries. This constant oversight may hinder the development of critical decision-making skills and self-reliance, as children are less likely to experience situations that require independent problem-solving.

 

Freedom is the very basis that is necessary to allow children to learn about risk. Oostveen et al. (2014) note how childhood experts doubt that children will properly understand the concept of risk if society is too overbearing, which takes away the opportunity to experience risk and understand how to properly use risk to grow but at the same time to not underestimate its effects. Risk is needed for children to develop an understanding of the world and shielding children from risk keeps them from developing this understanding. Gill (2007) notes that we must move from a philosophy of protection to adopt a philosophy of resilience (Gill, 2007 in Oostveen et al., 2014, p. 586). In the end, while the intention behind geotracking is often protective, it can inadvertently stifle the natural growth of personal freedom and responsibility in young individuals. In comparing their childhood with that of their children, one parent notes that “[c]hildren need freedom to make mistakes/do things their parents don’t know about—it fosters independence. Regular checking would hamper this. I travelled all around Europe as a 20 year old before internet existed and it was really good for my independence—I know my kids won’t have this but I’d like to preserve of it what I can” (Mavoa, Coglan and Nansen, 2023, p. 54).

 

Second, while using Life360, children lack the opportunity to develop a notion of trust. In examining the concept of 'trust', initially, Rooney (2010) contemplates how children have no choice but to place their trust in others, relying on their good intentions, whether it be parents, caregivers, friends, or even strangers, for various forms of care and protection (Rooney, 2010, p. 346). This extends to considering how children are entrusted with responsibilities, empowering them to take charge and expand their skills. Trusting children not only benefits them but also fosters trustworthiness, as we become more trustworthy when entrusted by others. Through this mutual trust, we cultivate an understanding and appreciation of the value of trust. Therefore, when discussing trust, especially concerning children, Rooney (2010) argues that it is vital to acknowledge confidence in the individual being trusted, emphasising their benefit over that of the one extending trust (Rooney, 2010, p. 346).

 

In their wish to limit danger, Life360 also limits freedom and trust, ultimately stifling the development of autonomy. While it is natural to recognise life's inherent risks, the prevalent use of surveillance technologies, particularly on children, seems geared toward creating a risk-free environment, prioritising risk avoidance. However, an excessive reliance on such methods can impede children's ability to navigate a balanced relationship between trust and risk effectively (Rooney, 2010, p. 349). The growing prevalence of surveillance technologies also alters children's experience of trust, limiting their autonomy in trusting others and shaping their understanding of society, crucial for their self-development. This raises the question: if we only trust children or others in their vicinity due to the presence of surveillance technologies, can we genuinely claim to trust them? (Rooney, 2010, p. 353). Life360 denies what researchers say is beneficial for the development of autonomy in children. Instead, they argue that their application promotes autonomy when in reality, the effects of their product actively hinder this.

 

To conclude, Life360 changes the meaning of the three fundamental values of parental care. They do this by equating safety with transparency, implying that knowing about a child’s whereabouts means knowing whether they are safe or not. This equation implies that the familiar spaces are safe, and the unfamiliar spaces are danger. This implication potentially constrains children’s behavioural patterns, taking away their freedom, which is necessary for their development of autonomy. Because Life360 equates safety with transparency, privacy is seen as a threat, despite it being a vital prerequisite for child development. Life360 ignores that freedom and trust are vital elements in the development of autonomy and states that their application actually promotes independence instead.

 

Value Shift

With their application, Life360 is contributing to a greater value shift, as described by Gabriels (2016), who states that the values of what it means to be a good parent are changing. Of course, a value shift is not inherently problematic. In a scenario in which new values would improve aspects of childhood and parenting, there would be no real objection. However, the previous chapters showed that these new values seriously threaten child development. The motivations for applications like Life360 are not grounded in empirically proven positive effects on families. Instead, the true motivation of a company operating within the structures of surveillance capitalism is the increased collection of data, which generates greater profit for companies like Life360. Life360 is transforming the notion of care into a notion of control, without changing its name.

 

Parents are increasingly under the impression that they must employ surveillance in their parenting in order to be a good parent, who is involved enough with their children. Gabriels notes that we must pay good attention to these rising feelings of parents, as the effects of this helicopter parenting influence both children and parents negatively (Gabriels, 2016, p. 180). Simpson also argues that using Life360 is being equated with being a good parent (Simpson, 2014, p. 275). He notes that marketing strategies exploit not only the fear for a child's well-being but also the fear of social consequences if one does not use the application. Parents worry about being judged if something happens to their child and they did not use the application to prevent it. Simpson identifies this response as a form of victim blaming (Simpson, 2014, p. 279).

 

This social pressure is problematic in itself, but it becomes even more concerning if this new set of values permeates our legal system. Our legal system is based on the societal values we uphold. When these values change, laws eventually become outdated, prompting calls for legal reforms. If this shift in values results in merely social consequences, the problem, while significant, is less severe. In such a scenario, the worst-case outcome might be that parents are judged by other parents or feel pressured to incorporate surveillance into their parenting. However, if these forms of care become embedded in legal frameworks the repercussions could be far more serious. Parents who choose not to use surveillance in their parental care due to the recognised negative effects might face legal accusations of child negligence. This shift in values presents a slippery slope, where the drive for profit could lead to severe, long-term consequences for parents and children in the future. These potential legal ramifications are more severe than the immediate social pressures and could fundamentally alter the landscape of parental responsibility and child welfare.

 

The shifting of values as encouraged by Life360 is merely a symptom of the bigger issue that contemporary society is facing: the datafication of the human person and the commodification of personal data are both inherent crucial parts to the economic system of surveillance capitalism, as popularised by Shoshanna Zuboff in her 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The book explores how companies exploit personal data for profit, creating a new form of capitalism. Zuboff argues that this practice undermines individual autonomy, democracy, and privacy, fundamentally reshaping society and power dynamics. We can see the role of surveillance capitalism in society as a parallel to the role of Life360 in the family. Both surveillance capitalism and Life360 push for the undermining of autonomy, privacy and democracy.

 

In the family, the concept of democracy needs a minor translation as it does not translate as directly to the family sphere like privacy and autonomy do, but with parents’ newfound knowledge and surveillance, power relations within the family shift. Simpson (2014) notes how the family meetings Life360 urges parents to have in order to set ground rules, “has the appearance of a kind of democratic decision-making process” but that in reality, there is a power imbalance between the parents and children (Simpson, 2014, p. 279). Indeed, in the research done by Mavoa, Coglan and Nansen (2023), the vast majority of parents admitted that even if they did explain the benefits of geotracking to the child, many of them do not give them a real choice in whether they would consent to tracking or not (Mavao, Coglan and Nansen, 2023, p. 57). This power imbalance is in the nature of the parent-child relationship. Parents tell children what to do, and often, children have no real way of objecting or even forming their own opinion on the matter.

 

Both society and the family find themselves reshaped due to the introduction of surveillance capitalism and Life360. Marx and Steeves (2010) worry that if surveillance marketers succeed, children's lives will be increasingly influenced by numerous surveillance tools targeting them and being used by them. Marx and Steeves raise the question of whether deeper concepts of childhood—seen as a blend of innocence and savviness, protection and exploration, nurture and autonomy—will be shaped by wider discussions about the interplay between fear, risk, and resilience, alongside the role of surveillance in parenting and governance (Marx and Steeves, 2010, p. 225).

 

The normalisation of surveillance does not only pertain to the realm of the family. It will also shape how children view government surveillance. This is illustrated by an article in the Washington Post about surveillance technologies in family lives: “Roberts said that if she is going to use technology to keep her family safe, it is reasonable for the government to do the same to protect the nation. “I don’t care if somebody in the government listens to my phone calls,” she said. “I don’t mind being tracked. And our children will care even less, because they’re growing up with all this, always connected. It’s just who we are” (Fisher and Timberg, 2013, p. 5).

 

Conclusion

The emergence of surveillance technologies like Life360 has ignited debates surrounding a shift in parental values, and societal norms. Through an exploration of Life360's practices and their implications, it becomes evident that the normalisation of surveillance within families poses significant risks to values of privacy, autonomy, and democracy. This article has delved into the interplay between commercial interests, parental fears, and societal pressures, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of the issue. It assessed the question of whether the values of geotracking applications like Life360 are compatible with the values of parental care and concluded that not only do the values of parental care not align with those of Life360, the practises of Life360 actively halt and harm the development of the child as well as the well-being of both children and parents.

 

Life360 is pushing for a value shift in the realm of parental care by exploiting parental anxieties, framing surveillance as care and positioning opting out as neglectful parenting. This narrative not only perpetuates power imbalances within families but also contributes to the normalisation of surveillance in wider society. The commercialisation of personal data under surveillance capitalism further exacerbates these issues, reshaping societal values and undermining individual autonomy. Moreover, the potential legal ramifications of this value shift raise concerns about the erosion of privacy rights and the entrenchment of surveillance within legal frameworks. New laws based on this the set of values applications like Life360 advocate for, may penalise parents who choose not to surveil their children, further perpetuating power imbalances and limiting individual freedoms.

 

In confronting these challenges, it is essential to reassess parental values, legal frameworks, and societal norms to safeguard privacy and autonomy. This requires a nuanced understanding of the motivations driving surveillance technologies and a commitment to upholding fundamental rights and values. Understanding the inner workings of surveillance capitalism has proven to be challenging, as companies refuse to be truly transparent and often operate in regulatory grey areas. Additionally, fostering open dialogue and critical reflection on the implications of surveillance within families and society at large is crucial in navigating the complexities of this issue. Ultimately, addressing the dangers posed by the normalisation of surveillance requires collective action and effort in order to prioritise individual rights and freedoms over commercial interests. By challenging prevailing narratives and advocating for greater transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations, we can work towards a future where privacy and autonomy are upheld as fundamental principles in both familial and societal contexts.​​