Today in Family Surveillance:
- The University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health published "Safety or surveillance: Tracking of young adults" on June 15, 2026 (Volume 49, Issue 4). The poll is a national sample of parents of 18 to 25 year olds, with the 52% tracking rate and the 54% opt-out rate as the two central findings.[1]
- 52% of parents report tracking their young adult child's location using a cell phone or similar device. Tracking is more common among parents of 18-20 year olds than 21-25, and more common for daughters than sons. 71% of tracking parents say the feature is always on. 29% use the tracking only in certain situations. The feature is a default-on configuration at the family plan level on both Apple and Android, and the always-on rate reflects the default.[1]
- 96% of tracking parents say their child is aware of the tracking. Only 54% gave their child the option to opt out. The 42-percentage-point gap between "aware" and "given the option to opt out" is the shareable privacy hook in the poll. Parents of 21-25 year olds are more likely to have given the opt-out option (61%) than parents of 18-20 year olds (47%). Awareness is not consent.[1]
- 23% of tracking parents say the tracking sometimes makes them more anxious than reassured. 95% say it helps them worry less. The two statistics together describe a feedback loop: the tracker reaches for the data, the data does not always reassure, the tracker reaches for the data again. The anxiety feedback loop is the public-health framing of the cycle.[1]
- 48% of parents say their young adult child tracks their location in return. In 90% of those cases, the parent is also tracking the child. The mutual-tracking statistic is the second shareable hook. The data is the data, the data is the data, the data is the data.[1]
- Watch in the next 7 days: the first state-level bill or state AG guidance document specifically addressing parent-as-surveillance-operator (the family-privacy category the 26 state deepfake laws and the 2026 consumer-privacy laws do not yet cover), the first peer-reviewed academic paper using the Mott Poll as a primary source for the family-privacy angle, the first consumer-tech response (Apple, Google, Life360) on the opt-out default in family plan settings, and the first 2026 children's-online-safety bill to explicitly include the parent-as-tracker case in its scope.
The Headline Number: 52% of Parents Track. 54% of Trackers Gave Their Child the Option to Opt Out.
The University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health published "Safety or surveillance: Tracking of young adults" on June 15, 2026, in Volume 49, Issue 4 of the National Poll series.[1] The poll sampled a national sample of parents of 18 to 25 year olds. The two central findings are the 52% rate and the 54% opt-out rate. The first is the share of parents who have turned on the feature. The second is the share of those parents who have asked their child for permission. The 42-percentage-point gap between the two is the privacy story the cycle adds to the surveillance conversation.
The 52% rate is higher than the public conversation usually assumes. The closest public analog is a 2022 Pew Research Center estimate of approximately 40% of parents using parental monitoring features, with the figure trending upward year over year. The Mott Poll 52% number is the 2026 measurement of a feature that has been building for half a decade. The features are the same features: Apple Find My's location-sharing, Google Family Link's location reporting, Life360's family circles, the cellular carrier family plans. The 71% always-on rate among trackers is the feature default reflected in the consumer behavior.
The 54% opt-out rate is the more interesting number. The fact that 96% of trackers say their child is aware of the tracking, but only 54% gave the child the option to opt out, is the difference between transparency and consent. Awareness is the parent telling the child. Consent is the parent asking the child. The Mott Poll measures both. The gap is 42 percentage points. The gap is the shareable privacy hook in the cycle.
Who Tracks, and Why
The Mott Poll breaks the 52% rate down by age and gender. Tracking is more common among parents of 18-20 year olds than 21-25. Tracking is more common for daughters than sons. The 18-20 finding is consistent with the parental-monitoring peak being in the college-transition window, when the child is geographically farther from the parent and the parent's data need is highest. The daughter-vs-son finding is consistent with the same parental-anxiety asymmetry that shows up in the broader teen-safety conversation: parents of daughters report more anxiety about physical safety, and the tracking feature is a partial response to that anxiety.
The reasons parents give for tracking are the reasons you would expect.[1] Peace of mind: 68%. In case of an emergency: 64%. To know whether it is a good time to call: 21%. To stay up to date on what the child is doing: 17%. To make sure the child is in places they approve of: 9%. No particular reason: 11%. The 68% and 64% numbers are the dominant motivations, and the dominant motivations are not safety in the narrow sense. The dominant motivations are a more diffuse anxiety-relief function that the data can serve but does not solve.
The "when do you check more often" breakdown is the second data point worth noting. Parents say they check their child's location more often if the child is out late at night (44%), in an unfamiliar place (39%), using a rideshare or taxi (25%), or out with someone they don't know (23%). The four conditions are the four conditions of the canonical parental-anxiety scene. The feature was designed to be used in the four conditions. The always-on rate (71%) is higher than the four-conditions rate. The always-on rate is the residual-anxiety use case, not the four-conditions use case. The feature is on when there is no specific reason to turn it on.
The Anxiety Feedback Loop: 95% Say It Helps Them Worry Less. 23% Say It Sometimes Makes Them More Anxious Than Reassured.
The Mott Poll's most under-noticed finding is the pair of statistics on the anxiety question. 95% of parents who track say the tracking helps them worry less. 23% of parents who track say the tracking sometimes makes them more anxious than reassured.[1] The two statistics are not in conflict. The two statistics describe a feedback loop.
The loop has a shape. Step one: the parent checks the location. Step two: the location either reassures the parent (the child is in a known place) or does not (the child is in an unfamiliar place, or the child is out late, or the child is with someone the parent does not know). Step three: if the location reassures, the parent has a data point. If the location does not reassure, the parent has a worry. Step four: the parent checks again. The loop is a positive-feedback loop for the parent who is already anxious, and a neutral loop for the parent who is not. The Mott Poll measurement of 23% in the "more anxious" category is the share of parents for whom the loop is a positive feedback loop.
The loop is the public-health framing of the cycle. The same dynamic shows up in the broader surveillance conversation in two adjacent places. The first adjacent place is the stalkerware-detection literature, where the stalkerware is a feature that was originally designed as a consumer feature, and the consumer use of the feature drifts into the stalkerware use of the feature over time. The second adjacent place is the police department ALPR-cancellation beat, where the police use of the ALPR data creates a similar feedback loop on the public-safety side. The Mott Poll measurement is the family-privacy measurement of the same shape of loop. The shape is the same because the underlying technology is the same.
The Mutual-Tracking Statistic: 48% of Parents Say Their Young Adult Child Tracks Their Location. In 90% of Those Cases, the Parent Is Also Tracking the Child.
The Mott Poll's other under-noticed finding is the mutual-tracking rate. 48% of parents say their young adult child tracks their location. In 90% of those cases, the parent is also tracking the young adult child.[1] The two numbers together describe a family-system in which the data flows in both directions, the data flows in both directions as a default configuration of the family plan, and the data flows in both directions as a default the family plan does not require the family to opt into.
The mutual-tracking finding is the one that flips the surveillance-conversation framing. The conventional framing puts the parent in the role of the watcher and the child in the role of the watched. The Mott Poll measurement is that the data flows in both directions, and the data flows in both directions for almost half of the parent-child pairs in the 18-25 demographic. The watcher-watched frame is a parental-control frame. The mutual-data frame is a family-system frame. The family-system frame is the frame the consumer-tech companies are using when they pitch the family plan as a "peace of mind" product. The family-system frame is the frame the public-health researchers are using when they study the family-privacy angle.
The 90% statistic is the second shareable hook. In 90% of the cases where the child tracks the parent, the parent is also tracking the child. The two are not independent. The two are correlated. The data flows in both directions because the data is set up to flow in both directions. The family plan is a mutual-data configuration by default. The default is the feature. The feature is the family plan. The consumer-tech product is the answer to the parental-anxiety question, and the consumer-tech product is also the question the Mott Poll is asking the public to think about.
Where the Family-Privacy Angle Fits in the Broader Surveillance Conversation
The 2026 surveillance conversation has been dominated by three actor categories: federal agencies (NSA, FBI, ICE, CBP), state and local law enforcement (police departments, sheriffs, ALPR operators), and corporate data brokers (the location-data supply chain that feeds the federal-agency and law-enforcement buyers). The family-privacy category has been the under-noticed fourth actor. The Mott Poll measurement of 52% of parents tracking their young adult children is the first major 2026 measurement of the family-privacy category at scale.
The four actor categories share three structural features. First, the data flows from the watched to the watcher. Second, the data is collected on a default-on basis. Third, the watched party is rarely the one who configured the feature. The features are the same features at scale, and the structural shape of the data collection is the same across the four categories. The Mott Poll measurement is the family-privacy case in the same shape.
The state-level legislative response to the first three categories has been significant. 26 state deepfake laws since 2024. Multiple state consumer-privacy laws (the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, the Colorado Privacy Act, the Utah Consumer Privacy Act, the Iowa Privacy Act, the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act, the Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act, the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act, the Tennessee Information Protection Act, the Florida Digital Bill of Rights). The state-level legislative response to the fourth category (the family-privacy case) is not yet on the public record. The Mott Poll measurement is the data point that the state-level legislative response is going to have to address.
What It Means for You Today
Three groups are affected, and the consequences diverge.
If you are a parent of an 18-25 year old. The Mott Poll measurement of 52% of parents tracking their young adult children is the 2026 measurement of a feature that has been building for half a decade. If you track, the question the poll is asking is the opt-out question: did you ask your child whether they wanted to be tracked, and did you give them the option to say no. The 54% opt-out rate is the share of tracking parents who asked. The 46% who did not ask is the share of tracking parents whose children are being tracked without a consent conversation. The conversation to have is short. The conversation is: "I have the location feature turned on, I would like to leave it turned on, do you want it turned off." The conversation is the consent. The conversation is what the 54% did. The conversation is what the 46% did not do.
If you are a young adult (18-25) whose parent is tracking your location. The Mott Poll measurement of 96% awareness is the share of tracking pairs in which the child knows the parent is tracking. The 54% opt-out rate is the share of tracking pairs in which the child was given the option to opt out. If you are in the 46%, you are being tracked, you know it, and you were not given the option to opt out. The Apple, Google, and Life360 family-plan features all have a "stop sharing my location" toggle. The toggle is in the same settings menu as the location feature itself. The toggle is one switch. The toggle is yours to flip. The Mott Poll is not asking you to flip the toggle. The Mott Poll is asking you to know you have it.
If you are a state legislator, AG, or member of Congress working on children-and-teens legislation. The 2026 legislative response to the deepfake crisis, the AI chatbot crisis, and the kids-online-safety crisis has been to focus on the platforms (the Section 230 reform proposals, the Kids Online Safety Act, the state-level kids-online-safety laws). The Mott Poll measurement is the data point that the family-privacy category needs to be added to the legislative scope. The legislative scope today is: what the platforms do to children. The legislative scope tomorrow needs to be: what parents do to young adults, and what young adults can do about it. The Mott Poll measurement is the data that tells the legislator where the legislative gap is.
The Bottom Line
The University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health published "Safety or surveillance: Tracking of young adults" on June 15, 2026, in Volume 49, Issue 4 of the National Poll series, with the 52% tracking rate, the 71% always-on rate, the 96% awareness rate, the 54% opt-out rate, the 23% more-anxious rate, and the 48% mutual-tracking rate as the six central measurements.[1] The poll puts a public-health framing on the same location-tracking technology the federal agents, police departments, and corporate data brokers are using, and the public-health framing makes the family-privacy case the same kind of surveillance case the state legislatures have been responding to for the past two years.
The 42-percentage-point gap between the 96% awareness rate and the 54% opt-out rate is the shareable privacy hook in the cycle. Awareness is not consent. The gap is the share of tracking parents who told their child they were tracking them but did not ask the child whether they wanted to be tracked. The conversation to have is short. The conversation is the consent. The conversation is the institutional response the Mott Poll is asking the public to think about.
Watch for three things over the next 30 days. First, the first peer-reviewed academic paper using the Mott Poll as a primary source for the family-privacy angle. The Mott Poll measurements are the kind of national-sample primary-source data that the family-privacy academic literature has been waiting for. Second, the first state-level bill or state AG guidance document specifically addressing parent-as-surveillance-operator. The 2026 state legislative session calendar has not yet put a family-privacy bill on the agenda in any state. The Mott Poll is the data point that will put the bill on the agenda. Third, the first consumer-tech response (Apple, Google, Life360) on the opt-out default in family plan settings. The default is the feature. The default is the question the Mott Poll is asking. The default is the question the consumer-tech companies are going to have to answer.