Total Pageviews

Friday, March 25, 2011

Privacy and Parenting

My daughter rolls her eyes every time I ask to speak with the parent of the friend with whom she is making plans. She has a similar reaction when I ask her to call me from the land-line of the home she is visiting so I can make sure she is where she is supposed to be. Naturally, this falls into my “trust but verify” philosophy and even though she’s only in Junior High, my intention is to get her used to my parenting style for her upcoming high school years.

Now that I am embarking on being the parent of a teenager, I feel as though I’ve earned the right of passage to use the phrase, “Back in my day.” Back in my day, my parents’ greatest challenge (from my vantage point of-course) was my tying up the home telephone while talking to my best friend for hours at a time. Things were pretty transparent back then and the worst breach of privacy was my mom reading a handwritten note that I inadvertently left in the pocket of my jeans that made it to the laundry. If we weren’t careful with these secret notes they even got intercepted by teachers from time to time !

Today we have to contend with cell phones that are used to rack up enormous amounts of text-messages back and forth. Kids can delete their texts thereby erasing any evidence of malfeasance. Their Facebook in-boxes contain their inner-most thoughts and even the most attentive parents can be completely ignorant to the teenage underworld because technology provides the venue to be secretive.

Having cops as parents mean my children are subject to searches at any time. It is not unlike me to randomly say, “Hand over your phone” and inspect a sampling of text messages when the urge strikes me. My daughter thinks this is a privacy breach but I disagree. I tell her that I pay for her phone and the bill for her unlimited texting capabilities so I have full access to the content. If she were to pay for her own services, I might capitulate to her privacy argument. By the time she is able to pay her own way, I surmise that she’ll be in her late 20’s and my vested interest in her communication will have waned.

As I wrote in a previous column, my daughter doesn’t have a Facebook page--- yet. She will be getting one in a few months when she turns 13. However, I will ensure that she has “friended” me so I can see her news feed. I do vow to practice restraint from posting anything that would embarrass her on her wall but I will be voyeuristic in my pursuits. Furthermore, I will insist on her password in the event I want to check her in-box. Once again, I apply the same logic. I pay for the computer and the internet therefore I own the content.

There are some parents who believe kids should be given the same privacy rights as adults. As a police officer, I have come to the conclusion over the years that this philosophy is good in theory but not in practice. The parents who claim to “respect privacy” are usually the last ones to know why the police are knocking at their door. Worse yet, they might not see a serious problem involving drugs or bullying that their child is having before it is too late.

There is a fine line between being an informed parent and giving your children space. I try very hard to balance it so they can make and learn from their own mistakes in judgment while simultaneously protecting them from harm. As parents, it is our responsibility to be intrusive in our child’s lives --- even if it they deem it unfair. Remember, you are their parent - not their friend.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Scolded by a Citizen

Mary lives on Aurora’s east side. I’ve never met her but she left me a long voice mail telling me she was disappointed by my last column about officers and self-initiated activity.

If you recall, a suburban Police Chief mandated that his officers make two traffic stops during their shifts. My position was that it is a shame that police management has to resort to forcing officers to do the work they should already be doing.

But my position is not what upset Mary. She felt my tone was sarcastic and said it had a “biting edge”. I was very bothered by her assessment because it wasn’t my intent to sound sarcastic. In fact, I usually apply my gift of sarcasm quite purposefully and this was not one of those times! Her comments made me wonder if I’d missed the mark completely, so I called her to get some more insight on what upset her.

Mary was a bit shocked that I called her back and even apologized for leaving the scolding voice-mail. I assured her that she need not apologize for her own interpretation of my words. Because I am not a writer by trade, I often wonder if my message is being conveyed in the most appropriate way and I rely on the feedback I receive (both good and bad) to generate discussion. Mary did not shy away from respectful dissension. She said it was unsettling for her to hear me talk about targeting criminal activity through traffic stops and took exception to this excerpt:

“Some feel that the premise of the contact is to find something wrong and I readily admit that it is. I’ve never heard of a police officer pulling someone over to tell them that they are doing a really good job driving their car. Make no mistake--- these contacts are to find illegal activity.”

Looking at my words from another vantage point, I can see how the tone might have been perceived as sarcastic. I regret that. I was simply trying to make a no-nonsense point that we find stolen property, guns, persons wanted on warrants, etc. through traffic enforcement. I assumed that most law abiding citizens were comfortable with this method because they know it results in busting criminals.

My assumption was wrong. I’m sure there are more “Mary’s” out there who felt the same way but weren’t compelled to pick up the phone and tell me about it. Mary feels that targeting people through traffic stops is the wrong way to go about finding criminal activity. She is more in favor of police officers engaging citizens by building relationships with them. She described the walking beat cop and said, “the officer should be a friend rather than looking for a crime.” Mary didn’t appear to be soft on crime, however. Her theory is that in building these relationships, officers are alerted to crime.

Mary is exactly right. What she is describing is the Community Policing philosophy that has been proven in both theory and practice that developing partnerships with the community benefits both the citizens and the police. Citizens who take responsibility for their neighborhoods and work with the police see dramatic improvements. In taking the time to get to know each other, trust develops and communication ensues. Crime reduction through innovation and problem-solving is a natural consequence.

However, that is just one component to fighting crime. I must say unapologetically that one of the reasons crime has dropped to an all time low in Aurora is because our officers are aggressively pursuing gang members and criminals who commit violent crimes. We have to be relentless in our pursuit against those who exist to terrorize our community.

Building relationships is invaluable. So is aggressive police work. Even more important are Aurorans like Mary who are vested in this city and care enough to suggest that we can have both.