Some see this as a necessary security measure, while others warn it could be a step too far – breaching privacy, reducing independence, and even introducing new risks.
In Luxembourg, the number of reported missing minors has risen notably in recent years. According to police data, there were 347 cases in 2018, increasing to 512 cases in 2021. These figures encompass various scenarios, including runaways and parental abductions. Specifically, between 2011 and 2017, an average of approximately 20 children per year were taken abroad from Luxembourg by a separated parent without permission.
Luxembourg has seen cases of child abductions that have raised concerns about safety and security. In one instance, authorities issued an urgent alert after a child was taken by a parent, leading to a swift recovery within a day. Another alarming event involved a hostage situation at a childcare centre, in the year 2000, where numerous children and staff were held captive for over a day before being released. These incidents have prompted increased vigilance and the implementation of rapid-response measures to protect children and ensure swift action in emergencies.
Amber Alerts were launched by the Luxembourgish Police in 2018, and are emergency notifications issued to rapidly locate and recover abducted children, relying on public awareness and cooperation.
Luxembourg is known for its safety and strong data protection laws, this debate is particularly relevant. Are we introducing a false sense of security, or is this simply an evolution of parental vigilance in a digital world?
Jonathan Adams, the Lower School Principal at the International School of Luxembourg (ISL), acknowledges that the use of tracking devices like AirTags by parents reflects a broader issue of rising anxiety rather than just a simple privacy or safety debate. While the school enforces a strict no-smartphone policy to reduce distractions and promote independence, Adams recognises that many parents feel uneasy about not being able to monitor their children throughout the day.
“Yes, our children are being monitored. Yes, it’s a whole new world they are growing up in, different from what we experienced. But I think it’s a reasonable compromise for a school like ours to say, ‘If this is what some parents need for peace of mind, let’s go for it’.”
Instead of outright banning AirTags, ISL takes a more balanced approach, seeing them as a compromise that provides reassurance to parents without significantly disrupting the school environment. “A lot of parents give their kids phones because they want to be able to keep track of them”, he added.
However, the real concern lies not in the devices themselves but in the increasing levels of parental anxiety. “Nobody with anxiety loses their anxiety because somebody tells them to”, said Adams. Addressing the root causes of worry and anxiety is more effective than simply banning technology.
“It’s kind of Black Mirror meets parenting”, said Adams. He suggests that constant surveillance can paradoxically increase parental fears rather than alleviate them.
Instead of prohibiting AirTags, ISL focuses on strengthening community ties and promoting independence, helping parents navigate their concerns in a supportive environment. Some parents, particularly those whose children ride the bus, feel more comfortable knowing their child’s location. “For us, the phones are a bigger risk than an AirTag”, said Adams.
An anonymous, long-term international educator, feels that the unintended policy of allowing mobile phones during the school day has consequences. During her many years as an educator, she observed that some parents exploited this access to contact their children at any moment, even during class, creating disruptions and, in her view, a subtle form of surveillance. “I found that to be disruptive and a kind of sneaky way to do surveillance”, she stated.
This practice may be concerning and questions how much further parental monitoring has escalated with the rise of child-tracking devices, which could intensify control and diminish students’ sense of independence. “My biggest concern is that schools have worked hard to set themselves up as secure places and that unless there are concerns about bullying or other serious issues in the school itself, then surveillance by parents should be minimised”, she added.
Another teacher, who also wishes to remain anonymous, shared: “I don’t know a single parent who doesn’t track their child through an app, I do it as well, just in case of an emergency, but I always make sure they know I’m tracking them.” For some, tracking is less about surveillance and more about ensuring peace of mind in an unpredictable world. While they understand concerns about privacy, when used responsibly, such tools can offer a sense of security without compromising trust between parents and children.
Zeba Clarke, Principal of St George’s International School, has witnessed this trend firsthand. With a background in safeguarding and digital technology, she has dealt with tracking devices being used in different contexts – from high-risk cities like São Paulo, where kidnapping fears justified their use, to Luxembourg, where they serve a different purpose.
“In São Paulo, some of our families feared abduction and ransom demands. But we quickly discovered how easy it was to track an AirTag”, said Clarke. To demonstrate the vulnerability of these devices, the school’s highly trained security guards followed a group of children on a field trip, using only AirTags.
“We shared that with the parents, and they realised they were making their children more vulnerable, not less”, said Clarke.
In Luxembourg, where violent crime is rare, the concerns are different.
“Here, AirTags are used by some parents for disorganised children – parents tracking backpacks, book bags, or even shoes. But I still think it’s not a good idea”, said Clarke.
Some parents believe that tracking children through technology is unnecessary and even harmful. They argue that constant surveillance can undermine a child’s sense of independence, personal responsibility, and trust in their environment. In a safe community, they see excessive monitoring as an overreach that fosters anxiety rather than security.
Pierre-Yves Lanneau Saint Léger, a parent of two children at the Gasperich School, believes that children should not grow up thinking constant surveillance is normal. “I don’t want my kids to grow up thinking it is normal to be tracked 24/7. Luxembourg is one of the safest countries on earth, trust is better than constant monitoring, and if the kids need assistance, a good old Nokia is more reliable than gadgets”, said Lanneau Saint Léger.
Instead, some parents advocate for open communication, responsible decision-making, and traditional methods of staying in touch – such as phone calls or pre-arranged check-ins – rather than relying on GPS tracking or surveillance apps.
From a legal standpoint, tracking children using AirTags or other Bluetooth-enabled devices raises significant concerns. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enforced in Luxembourg and across the EU, has strict rules on data privacy. While parents may argue that they are simply tracking their own child, the issue is more complex when these devices affect a group setting, such as a school or field trip.
In Luxembourg, some school policies explicitly prohibit WhatsApp groups between teachers and students to maintain professional boundaries and protect student privacy. Schools encourage the use of official platforms and email for teacher-student interactions, ensuring that all communication remains transparent and in line with educational guidelines.
When parents track their children, the applicability of the GDPR depends on whether the data processing is strictly personal or extends beyond household activities. If tracking data is shared with third parties or used in a wider context, GDPR regulations are likely to apply. Even when GDPR does not apply, privacy concerns and the potential impact on a child’s autonomy and trust remain important ethical considerations.
Ultimately, while the GDPR may not explicitly regulate parental use of tracking devices for private purposes, it is essential to reflect on the broader ethical implications. Ensuring that such practices respect a child’s rights and promote a relationship built on trust and independence is crucial. Source found here.
The Luxembourg Ministry of Education, Children, and Youth clarified that it has received no reports regarding tracking devices in schools. After Easter, a general ban on internet-connected devices will take effect in primary schools, but non-connected tracking devices will be exempt.
“Our ministry has not received any reports from schools regarding the use of tracking devices. We have neither information nor complaints involving such devices. After the Easter holidays, a general ban will come into effect in primary schools for all devices that have internet connectivity. Devices that operate without an internet connection, such as tracking devices which are solely intended for location tracking, are exempt from this ban. The decision as to whether a child should carry such a device remains at the discretion of the parents. The ministry does not consider itself in a position to evaluate or comment on such personal decisions.”
While the Ministry remains neutral, the issue raises broader questions about the necessity of tracking devices in one of the world’s safest countries.
The conversation about AirTags in children’s belongings is not just limited to parents and educators. Children themselves have strong opinions on the matter. Two sisters, Melina and Marie Emily, both students, have valid and thoughtful opinions on parental tracking.
Melina, 12 years old, expressed her concerns about the impact of constant surveillance. “Personally, although I understand why some parents do it for safety, I think it’s not okay. It’s an invasion of privacy. While it can be helpful if your phone gets stolen, on the other hand, it also stops a child’s flow of independence from growing. It gives them a false sense of security, making them believe their parents will always be there tracking them. This issue has several layers, and there are a lot of different ways to see it, but I disagree,” said Melina.
Marie Emily, 9 years old, echoed similar sentiments. “If you give someone a phone without a tracking device, it shows trust. But if you add a tracker, it’s like saying, ‘I’m giving you this, but I still don’t fully trust you.’ It’s not fair, and it’s an invasion of privacy”, she explained.
Both students agreed that tracking devices, when disguised as tools for preventing lost belongings, actually reflect parental anxiety and a lack of trust. “It’s a refusal to let children grow up”, Melina added.
“I feel that it is a bit hypocritical, while anxiety is understandable, parents need to overcome it if they truly want their children to develop independence,” concluded Marie Emily.
Katerina and her husband, parents of two wonderful girls, feel strongly about the consequences of the subject on their children. “My husband and I had very lengthy discussions. We’re still not completely convinced, but for now, we’ve decided not to use tracking devices on our children”, said Katerina.
Katerina acknowledged the temptation of using available technology to ensure safety but emphasized their strong stance against surveillance. “We are sceptical about the concept of surveillance in society. This is something we criticize, and we felt we needed to remain true to our principles, even when it comes to our children”, she added.
Instead of relying on trackers, the couple prefer to focus on traditional safety measures, raising awareness, and trusting that they are making the best decision for their children’s development. “We just hope we won’t live to regret it, but surveillance and monitoring are so present in our lives already, we don’t want to apply it to our kids. It would feel like a betrayal”, the couple concluded.
The debate around tracking devices ultimately boils down to one question: how much freedom should children have?
Several educators believe that Luxembourg’s schools already provide a secure environment. “We have high staff-to-student ratios, strict ID policies, and well-monitored spaces. We are not in the US, where school shootings are a concern. Luxembourg is incredibly safe”, said Clarke.
Instead of relying on tracking technology, she suggests a different approach: teaching children to navigate the world responsibly.
“We need to equip children with critical thinking skills so they can assess risk, make good decisions, and develop independence. If they grow up knowing that Mum or Dad will always find me, they may not learn to look out for themselves”, said Clarke.
Given Luxembourg’s safety, strong educational systems, and child-focused policies, is there a real need for AirTags in children’s shoes? Or are we creating an unnecessary culture of fear?
