In March 2009 Canada’s national newspaper，The Globe and Mail，reported that high school students in British Columbia，upon learning that their principal had jammed their cell phone connections while at school，boycotted classes in order to impress upon the administration its illegality under Sections 4 and 9 of Canada’s Radiocommunication Act.Said Amber Wright，a Grade 12 student：“We did our research on the internet... breaking the law is not a good way to send a message” （Moneo）. The principal argued that he was “looking for a solution to a problem”-that of excess use of digital technologies，including iPods and phones，in the classroom，and concerns by teachers over texting and potential cheating on tests. Wright，who has had a cell phone since she was 14，retorted，“It’s our right to have them.”Are these young people entitled，spoiled，or within their legal rights to possess a mobile phone on their body at all times，with the caveat that they understand and respect the appropriate etiquette while on school property？Reader responses to the article highlighted the generational divide，with posters either condemning or commending the students for their pluckiness in identifying an illegal activity and taking action. This incident highlights how unassuming and axiomatic mobile phones have become for middle-class young people in North America in their everyday lives. The U.S. Pew Internet and American Life Project study entitled reports that about one in four teenagers owns a smartphone，three-quarters a mobile phone，with texting as the dominant mode of communications amongst friends and other people （Lenhart）. Tracy Kennedy，Aaron Smith，Amy Tracy Wells，and Barry Wellman，in examining mobile phones and Internet in the U.S. household，describe their use as “family technologies，” citing an increased use by married families with children compared to couples without children or single-person households. Connected lives epitomize the family today：“89% of married-with-children households own multiple cell phones，and nearly half（47%） own three or more mobile devices. Children in these households are somewhat less likely to own a cell phone than they are to go online：57% of these children （aged 7-17） have their own cell phone” （29）.The integration of mobiles into youth’s everyday lives has been studied across a variety of global youth cultures，with much of the research sharing similar findings in terms of affordability of services determining distinct uses （Shepherd & Shade）. A particular focus is on how the mobile phone is used by young people for establishing and maintaining connections within peer circles and their family （Ling；Stald）. The mobile phone enables constant connectedness via texting and chatting，and has become an intrinsic facet in youth’s everyday lives：its functionality fuses with identity formation and friendship safeguarding.The convergence of social media applications into the mobile phone is a potentially lucrative market，especially for the hearts and pocketbooks of youth，who have （unjustifiably or not） been rejoiced by some media pundits as pioneering content creators，activists and digital denizens （Tapscott）.As Lev Manovitch cautions，however，basic questions surrounding the political economy of the consumer electronics industry and social media corporations （entrenched as they are in larger structures of media power and concentration） with their inherent goal of revenue accrual through various marketing schemes and third-party advertising need to be critically addressed before we can blithely celebrate young people’s ostensible agency and autonomy in using such technologies （321）.

“Peace of Mind”：The Children’s Mobile Phone Safety Industry

Just as the last few years have witnessed a palpable gendering of the mobile phone though design and the adoption of various accoutrements that feminize the phone （Shade “Feminizing”），the mobile phone through its augmentation via technological modes of surveillance has now become a device to allow for remote parental control and monitoring （Richtel）. In many instances promotional discourse on mobile phone safety is gendered，while in the case of social network sites，it is indeed young girls who are those most cited as in need of safe spaces free from cyber-bullying and （male） sexual predators. As Sherry Turkle describes it，mobile phones can cushion transitional mobilities of children；parents and children are both literally “on tap” and the child is “tethered，” without “the experience of being alone with only him or herself to count on” （127）.

If the digitally “tethered child” is unique to the millennium North American family，it is also because hyper-vigilant parents are coddled （or exploited！） through an array of new products and services that both monitor and discipline