Securing the kids: Geofencing and child wearables

Abstract

This article provides a critical analysis of the child wearable Jiobit, a locational tracking device that is designed to allow parents to monitor how children move through space. Emphasizing the device’s incorporation of geofencing features, which allow users to program ‘fences’ on a paired smartphone application and receive notifications when a Jiobit wearer enters and leaves the ‘fenced’ areas, I demonstrate how the operations of this device are part of a cultural politics that values the tracking of children through a variety of technological and infrastructural processes. Through an artifactual analysis of the device itself and its smartphone application, as well as an examination of the company’s promotional language, I demonstrate how the logic of ‘securitization’ is used to encourage parents to delegate some of the work of monitoring children to this device. This artifactual analysis is paired with a discursive analysis of the company’s policy documents, which readily acknowledge Jiobit’s inability to serve as a fully reliable security system, while also detailing the ways in which the extraction of data is stored indefinitely and, in some cases, disclosed to third parties. Through this case study of Jiobit, I argue for critical studies of wearable technologies to attend to the ways in which their producers promise ‘security’ and the ways in which ‘security’ acts as an alibi for continuous data collection.

Locative disconnection: The use of location-based technologies to make disconnection easier, enforceable and exclusive

“…The term geofencing notes the demarcation of a geographic area with a virtual boundary to enable the monitoring of activity entering or exiting the area in question (Reclus and Drouard, 2009). Geofences are largely used by platforms and the geolocation industry to analyse connections more precisely, for example, to track data assets (Barreneche and Wilken, 2015), child users (Gilmore, 2020), and localize advertisements or other commercial messages to users’ phones (Vy and Shin, 2019). Gilmore (2020) contends geofences contribute towards a logic of ‘securitization’ which conveys children as securable assets and justifies the undermining of their privacy and freedom of movement in the service of promoting child safety.…”

“…Geofences are largely used by platforms and the geolocation industry to analyse connections more precisely, for example, to track data assets (Barreneche and Wilken, 2015), child users (Gilmore, 2020), and localize advertisements or other commercial messages to users’ phones (Vy and Shin, 2019). Gilmore (2020) contends geofences contribute towards a logic of ‘securitization’ which conveys children as securable assets and justifies the undermining of their privacy and freedom of movement in the service of promoting child safety. By examining the web of connections that increasingly digitize our physical world, locative media studies have unearthed qualitative dimensions of our Internet connections and unpacked the various political, cultural and socio-economic implications of locative-sensitive experiences.…”

“…Studies that have analysed the relationship between location-based technologies and disconnection tend to focus on functionalities that block, impede or disconnect non-human network activity. Location-based functionalities such as geoblocking prohibit media content or network activity from working in specific locations, and, so far, studies have been limited to the analysis of video streaming services (see Lobato and Meese, 2016) and the management of assets (Gilmore, 2020). Lobato (2016: 10) defines geoblocking as ‘a spatially-aware filtering technology that uses [Internet Protocol] IP address databases to determine a user’s location’.…”

Smart technology in the classroom: a systematic review.Prospects for algorithmic accountability

“…school. This possibility is also explored by Gilmore et al, where parents have used devices to monitor children within geo-technological fences [34]. Another possibility of using this GPS technology is explored in the article by Freeman et al, where the classroom is sensor tagged so visually impaired children achieve more independence with wearing smart watches [30].…”

Predicting Covid-19: wearable technology and the politics of solutionism

“…In my ongoing research on the ways in which wearable technologies gain legitimacy and exercise authority at the level of the everyday (Gilmore 2016(Gilmore , 2017(Gilmore , 2019(Gilmore , 2020, I have repeatedly stressed how the promoters of wearable technologies reproduce imaginaries about the transformation of everyday life via what some have called 'datafication' (Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier 2014), or the conversion of habit and routine into (largely quantified) data sets to be analyzed, standardized, and used to model and even predict populational behaviour. Imaginaries describe how values and meanings are formed socially, discursively, and culturally (Taylor 2004, Balsamo 2011, Markham 2021).…”