Every year on Data Privacy Day, we’re greeted with countless arguments about the absolute merits of data privacy (protections good, invasions bad), but we rarely see a faithful, factual accounting for the biggest data privacy conundrum facing billions of people every single day: Should parents invade the data privacy of their children and digitally track their activity in order to provide them with a little more safety?  

On Data Privacy Day this year, we decided to investigate the issue ourselves, and we found that, for the majority of parents we asked, the answer was a simple “Yes.”  

But there’s some nuance here, as parents revealed that their invasions of data privacy against their children typically happened when their children began to face new threats, whether online or in the real world. If a kid is old enough to enter a URL into a web browser, then they’re old enough to have that web browsing activity tracked, our parents revealed, and the same goes for opening a social media account, watching YouTube, and potentially just moving about the neighborhood, which could be tracked through GPS locations.  

Privacy invasions, then, are reactionary, and not planned. They are a response to a changing, frightening world that every parent has faced before, but that only parents today can push back against through the use of modern, digital tracking. 

Our survey

To learn more about what parents believe, earlier this month we asked our newsletter subscribers to fill in a short, anonymous survey about the monitoring they do of their kids.

We asked parents if they monitored their children's location (GPS), web browsing, computer games, YouTube activity, social media posts, email, or WhatsApp or other message apps; the ages they started and stopped the monitoring; whether they told their children they were being monitored or not; and the age they thought children should be allowed to start using social media.

As with any online survey, you should understand the potential biases of the population involved: The respondents were a self-selecting group of individuals who care enough about technology, security, and privacy to have subscribed to a newsletter about it, and to respond to a survey about parental attitudes to electronic monitoring.

899 parents filled in the survey, and most of them had children aged nine years old or older.

Ages of respondents' children
Responses to the question "How old is your child? If you have more than one child, please choose ONE, and answer all the questions in this survey about that child."

Digital tracking is the norm

The survey suggests that using some form of electronic monitoring to keep tabs on children is the norm.

84% of our respondents admitted to some form of electronic monitoring of their children, 70% used at least one form of monitoring they had told their child about, and 36% used at least one form of monitoring they had not told their child about.

Parents who monitor tend to use more than one kind of monitoring, whether they tell their children or not. 54% of parents use at least two forms of monitoring with their child's knowledge, and 24% of parents use at least two forms of monitoring without their child's knowledge.

The number of activities monitored by parents who answered the question "Indicate which of your child's activities you have monitored electronically, and whether or not you told your child about it."

As you would expect, the number of parents monitoring multiple activities declines as the number of activities increases—more parents monitor one activity than two, more monitor two than three, and so on. There is one exception though. About 7% of the parents we surveyed monitored all seven of the different activites we asked about without their child's knowledge.

What parents monitor

There is surprisingly little variation in the amount of parents monitoring each activity we asked about, with every individual activity being monitored by between about 30% and 40% of parents. The most common thing for parents to monitor electronically was their child's physical location (GPS), and the least common thing to monitor was messaging apps. This may reflect where parents see the most potential harm, or it may simply reflect how easy some kinds of monitoring are compared to others. Of the activities we surveyed parents about, GPS is probably the easiest thing to monitor, and messaging apps the hardest.

Almost a quarter of the parents surveyed said they monitored their children's web browsing without telling them.

Types of activity monitored by parents
The percentage of parents monitoring each of the activies they were asked about in the question "Indicate which of your child's activities you have monitored electronically, and whether or not you told your child about it."

When monitoring starts

As you might expect, the age at which parents start different types of electronic monitoring tends to reflect the ages at which children gain some level of independence in different areas of their lives.

Some parents start using electronic monitoring when their children are 3-5 years old, and others wait until their children are in their late teens, but the most common time to start electronic monitoring is when children are between 9 and 11, although it skews a little younger for computer games, and a little older for social media.

Children's ages when electronic monitoring starts
Responses to the question "At what age did you START each of the following types of electronic monitoring? If you have not started yet but expect to, tell us when you intend to start."

When monitoring ends

While there is lots of variation in the age when monitoring starts, there isn't in when it stops. Parents, it seems, are very unlikely to stop monitoring their children before their eighteenth birthday.

Children's ages when electronic monitoring stops
Responses to the question "At what age did you STOP each of the following types of electronic monitoring? If you have not stopped yet, tell us when you intend to stop."

Social media

Our respondents were also aksed when they thought children should be allowed to open Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube accounts.

Most of the popular social media platforms have a minimum age limit of 13 years, but only about 30% of our respondents thought that children were old enough to open a social media account at that age or younger. While more parents thought 15-17 was a better age, the biggest cohort by far—between about 40 and 50% of all the parents surveyed, depending on the platform—thought the minimum age should be 18 or older.

YouTube, which is popular with kids and has very different functionality than the other platforms in our list, skewed a little younger. And TikTok, the newest platform and perhaps the least well understood by parents, attracted the most caution, with more than 50% of parents putting saying children should be 18 years or older to open an account.

Responses to the question "At what age do you think children should be allowed to have have their own social media accounts?"


For our survey respondents, using electronic monitoring to keep tabs on their children is normal, and monitoring children without their knowledge is common. Parents that monitor their children tend to employ more than one method, and the most common age for each form of monitoring to start is—very roughly—the point where we might expect children to be given some independence in that area.

Most of the parents we surveyed think that children should be at least 15 before they open social media accounts, with 18+ the prefered age for about half of all parents. This puts social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter on a par with common minimum ages for things like sexual intercourse, driving, smoking, and drinking: Potantially dangerous activities reserved for children on the cusp of adulthood.

In short, our survey suggests that when it comes to privacy in the family, parents are conservative (in the "small c", apolitical sense of the word) in their attitudes. Our survey says nothing about parents' concern for children's privacy in general, but it suggests that providing children with a space in which to be private from their parents plays a distant second fiddle to the responsibility parents feel for keeping them safe.