WWW & Parental Controls - time for a different approach?? 5

[guestgulkan]

I have just spent a week evaluating various Parental Control software
( cybersitter, cyberpatrol, netnanny et a..) and in my opinion they all fail.
I think these controls are a case of bolting the stable door after the horses have long gone.

Going forward, more radical approaches are required.
But what??

 

[polymath5]

The last thing we need are 'radical' changes or regulations. I've not seen many 'regulations' that weren't politically motiviated and written to pander to whatever the polits thought would get them the most votes.

The net is international. So if you are going to try to regulate it, forget it. They've tried outlawing things like prostitution practically forever. We've seen how effective that is. Same with drugs, booze, etc. But yet, people want to run around making more and more laws that have little impact on their use, just make more people criminals. (In case you wonder, I don't smoke, gamble, do drugs) But I don't have problems with someone who does.

I'm for dumping anyone who hurts kids into the meat grinder. But if you want to limit what your kids see on the net, monitor what your kids do on the net.

Don't freak out if they see something they shouldn't. The bigger the deal parents make about something, the more likely that kids are going to want to see what it is.

When we showed our daughter how to use the internet we explained about chat rooms and some of the pop ups she might see. We spent time with her and watched what she did.

I don't think most things have as as big an effect on kids as parents freaking out about them do. =============
Mens et Manus
=============

 

[Chopstik]

I tend to agree with Polymath5. While my son is not yet old enough to really cruise the 'net, he is old enough to play his Disney games on his computer and just get engaged as to what technology is about.

When he reaches the age where he can truly go online and search and find things for himself, do I protect him by various forms of parental controls or allow him to learn, under my direct supervision, what is there and what is acceptable? I would hope that he will learn, with me, what is acceptable or not. I do that for him now when it comes to television and books (which he enjoys being read to him and then reciting back to himself as he is too young to yet read) - I will sit with him and watch what he watches to be sure that I do not find it something I do not want him to watch. I find that (in the US, anyway) PBS Kids is a great thing for children to watch. When we return to China, most of it is censored by the government (for better or worse), so it tends to be less of an issue. For television, that is. China and its attempted control of the internet may well be another issue for another thread.

I guess the essence of my argument here, however, is that the only sure form of parental control is parents watching over what their children are doing. Leaving it up to some other program which these days and with the younger generations consistently being more computer/net savvy than preceding generations is still a risky proposition (as in they probably can decipher how to get around it faster than it takes most adults to figure out how to set it up). The best approach (radical?) is still the simplest one, the parents themselves.

Just my thoughts... Everything is absolute. Everything else is relative.

 

[Walterk01]

I've tried to ban my kids from rough sites and didn't succeed. There friends show them sites that you would never guess was a bad site. I finally got it under wraps when I showed them the history list and a had a heart to heart.

It is in the parents hands only. Everything in the world is not for kids including the ability to free roam the internet.

 

[KimberTech]

If you absolutely cannot personally monitor what the kids are doing, then use a proxy server.
They can be set to ONLY access a certain list of sites, which means that any requested access can be "checked out" by a responsible parent before being added to the list.

I much prefer and agree that there is no better way than to be beside them, that way they may not be as well protected from seeing something maybe they shouldn't, but they will have the opportunity to be EDUCATED about things they will see when they get out into this ugly world.#-)

Cheers! Kimber

The more I learn,I realize how much more there is to know!

 

[Provogeek]

Those web content filtering programs are a waist of time and money. They just don't do a very good job and nothing is being locked, or they do to good of a job so you can't get any ware on the net. Most of the companies I have set them up for usually disabled them after only a couple of months and have just the bare minimum enabled for legal purposes. In the home, it's all up to the parent, can't expect someone else to raise our kids for us AND do it the way we want. Too many parents go this route, and raise children that spill hot coffee in their lap and then instead of taking responsibility for their own clumsiness, they blame it on the store they bought it from (a real law suite in the US). The US is raising a generation of children that do not take responsibility for their own actions, because we don't take responsibility for our own children.

Parental involvement in all aspects of our children’s lives is needed if you want to raise them with your values and beliefs. No matter how much technology advances, it will never replace the parent sitting behind or next to a child when they read, watch TV, play a vide game, or cruise the net.

Kimber's idea is similar to the one I employ my self. This doesn't work for the normal end user parent though. It just isn't that hard for a geek to take that old notebook, load some proxy app on it and administer it through w web browser. Being a computer professional, I am able to build personal PC’s for each of my two boys. Neither one of them have Internet access, nor network access for that matter. It may be easier to just have everything hooked up, but I find it easier to know what they are doing if a hub has to be plugged in every time they want to play a networked game. If anyone want to cruse the net, you have to use mom and dads computer, and mom and dad make you login. I like to use system policies to keep my boys from going any ware they please. But that by no means gives me the comfort to just let them have access to the net with out any supervision. Rules, you have got to have rules, and I am not talking about computer system policies. You tell me were you want to go, and if I am not already familiar with the web site, I am standing right there waiting to see what comes up. If you forget to ask, you then need to find something else to do because you broke the rule (and be happy that’s the only consequence for breaking that rule).

To sum up this long winded post; know what your kids are doing by being there. Don’t depend on any kind of technology to be the parent in your absence. And always remember to teach your children your idea of good behavior by example, not by instruction.
Brent Schmidt CNE,Network +
Senior Network Engineer
Keep IT Simple

http://www.kiscc.com

 

[mattKnight]

Provogeek

>To sum up this long winded post; know what your kids are doing by being there. Don’t depend on any kind of technology to be the parent in your absence. And always remember to teach your children your idea of good behavior by example, not by instruction

Exactly my feelings, but better expressed Take Care

Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

 

[lionelhill]

In any case, people need to learn how to make moral decisions. If all their moral decisions are forced on them by some piece of software they needn't even be aware of, how are they going to learn anything?

It's good to learn that it's OK to say "No" to something, even if at the time it might not be very comfortable having someone, a parent, tell you that the answer is "No".

And of course people's moral standards vary hugely. No automated guard is going to reflect exactly the moral standpoint of a particular family.

 

[guestgulkan]

One thing I cannot fathom, is that when any form of censorship is proposed for the WWW, there is a great outcry.
This comes not from the people who would be most affected from any censorship (bad site merchants, whackos, weirdos, and other types peddling their crap), but from 'normal' people.

There is censorship on the cinema/fil industry, a legal age for the buying of cigarettes, censorship on TV etc.. all of which are enforced.
Why should the

http://WWW be

any exception????

If the

http://WWW gets

away with it, it will only be a mattter of time before the newspapers, TV, and the rest warmup their lawyers, because (they would argue) if it's OK for the

http://WWW then

it should be OK for other media forms.

 

[CajunCenturion]

The censorship debate has been going on for a long time, and will probably continue to do so.

I would first caution you not to confuse censorship with a rating system.

With respect to age requirements, there is also a minimum drinking age, a miniumu age for a driver's licence and such rules are in place not for the purposes of censorship, but rather for the safety of the individuals involved, and in the case of drinking, the safety of the general public. Again, these are not content censorship rules, but rather are behavior safety rules.

Another issue of censorship with respect to the web, given its international flavor, is who has the oversight authority? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[polymath5]

Print media is limited by whatever local half wits determine to be 'community standards'. Since the web is international, what community?

My point is basically I abore censorship unless something like national security, personal security/danger are at risk.

What some net surfer in an uptight self rightous berg somewhere might consider offensive, is OK somewhere else. Do we really think our kids are not going to see this stuff? Just look at commercials. In a lot of places in Europe you'll see topless advertisements, not in the US.

Did I want my daughter to see some of the stuff she has? Hell NO. But if she isn't made to feel bad about having seen it (she didn't do something wrong), and I or my wife don't freak-out about it, there's much less chance of her sneaking back to see it.

I also don't want to have her too restricted. When I was in college, the girls that went the wildest were the ones that were so sheltered that they exploded when they had the chance. Sorry for going a bit off topic, but censorship discussions really set me off. =============
Mens et Manus
=============

 

[c0i0nes]

I did a search on this thread for the word " trust " - and well, this is the first occurrence.

The essence of my view is that your children may be exposed to all things in their young life, but will they be corrupted if you bring them up in a responsible way?

If you censor, will they not try to peek around the edges of your protective envelope?

Come off it, if you try to get to any site that shows more than "teasers", you have to give credit card numbers. If your kids have credit card numbers to access these sites, theirs, yours or someone else's - you have failed as parents already.

From the age of 6 or 7 most children begin to be aware that there is another side to life exists than the kindergarten that they have already become adept at coping with.

Sex, crime, relationships, family problems, and manipulating people, are part of their world, and if you censor them, without explanation, they will accept, and circumvent your limits. That is, if they are at least half as intelligent and charming as you see them as their parents.

I urge you to accept that they will become as bored as you are by exposure to the grosser aspects of commercial life. By not pressuring them to accept your own morality, they will reach their own moral values, which although maybe not the same as yours, will at least be comfortable to them. Problems therefore become a subject for discussion rather than disagreement.

Trust them, they will respect you for allowing them to make their own judgements.

 

[Chopstik]

Lots of good posts here, particularly with regard to "trust" and censorship/oversight. c0i0nes has a good point - if you don't trust your kids to make the right choices, they are most likely to fulfill that fear. They most certainly know how their parents feel about them, it seems to be intuitive, and will work hard to fulfill whatever image the parents have for them. My son, while too young to understand many things, has learned that when he does something he should not do, their will be negative consequences and then is left to make the choice for himself. More often than not, once he understands those consequences, he will make the more responsible choice. But it is his choice, and I (try!) to trust him enough to do that. In return, he develops respect not only for me but himself as well and will hopefully have a strong enough self-image to continue to make the right choices. The final words from his post say it most clearly - Trust them, they will respect you for allowing them to make their own judgements.

Regarding censorship/oversight, as CajunCenturion pointed out, it is international and there is almost no way to create a single set of rules for the net due to social, economic, cultural, political, gender, etc. issues. This does not mean that it is not being tried in different ways every day. In my earlier post, I alluded to the fact that China is working very hard to create the Great (Cyber) Wall, and even this is not totally effective. What does help those efforts is the self-censorship practised by many users in China. Many users, and the owners of the cyber-cafes, try to ensure that they do not go to "unhealthy" sites. However, the main problem is knowing what is considered "unhealthy". While many of us would probably agree with the government that child "bad site" or facist/nazi sites should be considered "unhealthy", we would likely still want access to news sites to know what is going on in the world. Yet this is not an easy possibility in China (or many other nations, for that matter). Perhaps the single greatest example is the self-censorship practised by sites allowed to operate in China, most notably Yahoo!, which follows a set of guidelines put out by the government.

Essentially, the government works hard to filter out "unhealthy" sites, much the same as the parental control software sold here in the US. But the final arbiter is not the software itself, but the authority figure in charge of monitoring the software/"children". I think the premise is the same as c0i0nes, however, you cannot shelter the children, you are better off educating and trusting them to know the difference between what they should or should not do and then let them go.

I hope this has not been too off-topic (after reviewing this post, I think I may have drifted a bit - my apologies). Everything is absolute. Everything else is relative.

 

[lionelhill]

Seems grossly unfair though that a newspaper publisher can be hauled over the coals if someone says something blatantly and provocatively abusive in the readers' letters section, yet an internet service provider can justify being found in posession of thousands of dodgy images and abusive texts on the grounds that someone else put it there and the ISP had no control over the use of their own computer equipment, honest, guv!

Cyberspace cannot exist completely outside the law, surely?

The real problem is that a huge amount of the internet's profitability is provided by its anonymity and "bad site"-content. And no one wants to knock profitability too much.

 

[petermeachem]

I can teach my children not to go looking for unsuitable web sites and they behave very well in general. What is far worse is "bad site" email. This is just dumped in your inbox and some is really gross. I really don't want my 10 year old daughter to receive unsolicited adverts for bestiality web sites. I haven't found a decent way to stop this stuff yet.

Peter Meachem

A fascinating read, explains a lot.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

 

[polymath5]

Whose Law? What city, county, state, country? Cyberspace is difficult if not impossible to police just because of its nature. Brick and mortar publishers have a location you can come to. What are you going to do about a website in Pongo-Bongo? Hell they can't stop people from spreading virus content, which nobody wants. How are you going to stop something a Lot of people DO want.

But even with that, stupid community standards let something be OK in one area, and not in another.

If something is profitable, it kind of indicates a lot of people want it. I agree that things that hurt people against their will, or involve children is flat out wrong. Anything that hurts kids is evil. As I said in the first reply of this thread, dump pedophiles into the meat grinder or

I agree with Peter that the bigger problem is spam "bad site mail" sent to everyone in the known universe. In our office we use MessageLabs Anti-Spam. It's been very effective in catching most of the beastiality stuff. But it does miss the occasional one. It's funny, the one person in the office who gets it is a very straightlaced mild lady. She was too embarrased to even show me that it got through. She told one of the younger women, who told me.

I remember when my daughter first saw some of these emails. For one particular SM thing that appeared, I'm afraid I was a little dishonest. She asked if it was real. I said, "I don't think so, they can fake that stuff. Remember Jurrasic Park? Those dinos weren't real and didn't eat people."

It's a tough haul, but I think that this stuff is something we're going to have to live with until the spam blockers get better. Don't forget, these utitlities are still immature, they will get better over time.

I would much prefer to let these utilities do the work to having some politician start wildly creating laws. Just look at some of the recent technology laws passed or being considered. If anything should scare you, that should!!

=============
Mens et Manus
=============

 

[cian]

I also think some new (maybe not radical) approaches should be required. NOT with reference to software, software can not replace parental supervision and guidance.
But with reference to actually combatting some of the filth on the net, parental guidance should protect your kids but it won't stamp out the scum.
I think they need to put in place a watchdog with authority with a very severe bite who can wipe out some of this filth. IMHO.


É
::

http://www.endamcg.com

 

[lionelhill]

It is exactly the stuff that Petermeachem described that I find most troublesome. And it does hurt children, because they get it in their e-mail. The people who send it would probably not regard themselves as pedophiles, yet they are having a directly bad effect on thousands of minors.

I think what I'm saying is "surely it must be OK to make it illegal for someone to send an eight-year old a picture of a tied-up naked human being raped with a dead hamster?" That may be someone's idea of acceptable, and may not be illegal where they come from, but it ought to be here! Censorship sounds petty-minded, but there is a point to it.

If we can't use legal means without being branded censors, I don't actually know what we can do.... I'm fairly sure that if the incentive were high enough (like, ISP gets all equipment impounded and lands up in jail) then a technological solution to the world-wideness of the web could be developed.

But I'm probably wrong (and narrow minded)

 

[cian]

"But I'm probably wrong (and narrow minded)"

I think you are neither, I totally agree with you!
It requires something like that to combat the problem. I also think that it's LONG overdue. There's a number of really good initiatives on the web but they have no authority, can't take any actions! IPS/hosts need to be at the front line tackling these problems, or be made to face the consequences.


É
::

http://www.endamcg.com

 

[polymath5]

So you are going to make a small business owner responsible if someone sends an email through their server? In some ways that's like punishing the auto manufacturer if I use their product to intentionally run someone over.

The problem is the source not the carrier.

If you are worried about what your kids are going to see, supervise them. Your guidance in developing morals and ethics is going to have more impact than anything they see in their email or on the web.

When I was growing up, I saw a lot of horror movies, murder mysteries, "bad things", etc. But having learned that this stuff isn't real or reality, from education and guidance from my parents it hasn't hurt me.

As I said before, kids aren't as traumatized by this stuff as adults seem to be. Kids in supportive environments are amazingly resistant to many things they see. Unless something happens that reinforces it in their minds.

From a technology standpoint, the ability to get the chaff from the wheat isn't to the point where you aren't cutting out a lot of wheat. It will be.

John Dvorak put out an interesting thing. Charge for email over a certain amount per month. Spammers depend on huge mailing that is free. If you made it not free for more than 1000 or 2000 messages a month. That would have an impact on spammers. But, only if they originated in countries that charged.

=============
Mens et Manus
=============