Slashdot Mirror
Ethically Monitoring Your Kid's Net Access
"She will be using a Mac, so I s'pose Apple's KidSafe is an option, but I'm not really keen on the concept - seems a little too limiting - kinda like going to the library and only having access to the encyclopedias. Any ideas?"
Jamie wanted to add a few comments:
Yes, KidSafe is a whitelist. Basically you'd be allowing access only to a carefully chosen, tiny fraction of the web. It's exactly like going to the library and only being able to look at the reference section.
If that's what you want and that's all your child is ready for, I can't see any problem with this. It's honest because everybody knows what they're getting. When they want out of the sandbox, they'll let you know.
Here are my suggested rules of the road for kids on the internet, basically a 21st century version of "don't take candy from strangers." What do I have wrong, or what did I forget?
For parents:
* Put the family computer in a family room.
* Be prepared for freaky questions about things seen online -- and let kids know they can ask about anything they see.
* Be prepared in case you learn they are looking at things they shouldn't. Not that this will necessarily happen. But if it does, your gut reaction may not be appropriate -- consider what you'll say.
* Along with that annoying "what'd you do in school today?", try the equally annoying "what'd you find on the internet today?"
* If you use spyware to keep track of what your kids are viewing, let them know. If you don't, let them know you trust them! This is a trust step like the first time they ride a bike past the driveway, or spend overnight at a friend's house. It's your judgement when they're ready.
For kids:
* When you chat online, you don't know who's on the other end. Even if you've talked with them for a year, you still don't know!
* A rule: never type your last name or your city. (First name and state are OK.) Or, make up a fake name, that can be "who you are" online!
* A very important safety rule: meeting online strangers may be allowed (but mom or dad will be coming along). If kids promise to ask, parents promise to talk it over.
* When you're looking for something, use the Google search engine. (Among its other benefits, it's the most kid-friendly.) Always start your search with at least three words. Any fewer, and you're probably just wasting your time. Parents can help you learn how to pick three good words.
Put your computer in the living room, or within eye/earshot of it. That way everyone who is in the living room will be potentially looking over her shoulder, a great incentive to not visit anything that would draw attention to her.
No, the original poster has hit the nail square on the head. Keeping a record of where the child surfed is far better than simply signing up with some CyberPatrol. First of all you get to decide what is appropriate or not for your own children (instead of relying on someone else). Besides, squid at leats gives the child the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't block web sites (unless you tell it to) it merely logs where you have been without blocking off potentially useful parts of the web. It allows you and your child to decide together what is appropriate and what is not.
Parents should know where there children are surfing. The Internet is a fabulous tool, but it is far from benign. If you think that everything out there on the Internet is suitable for 11 year olds, then I pray you never have children.
Reminds me of a story - (Not so OT.)
When Ghandi was alive, a mother came to see him, child in tow.
"Please tell my child not to eat sugar" the woman said.
Ghandi told the woman to come back in two weeks. Two weeks later, the woman brought her child again. Ghandi looks at the kid and says: "Don't eat sugar."
The woman is stunned. "That's it? I had to go for two weeks just for that?"
"You see," says Ghandi, "Two weeks ago, *I* ate sugar."
Sure, it's just a story and the attribution is probably wrong, but I think it says something worth considering.
I think that kids in general would be more effective at monitoring their parents' surfing habits than the opposite. Are you prepared to have your kids see everything that *you* look at on the web?
And all this talk about having your kids talk openly about what they look at on the web; Are you prepared to talk openly with them about every site or newsgroup you browse? If not, the kid will know that you are being one-sided and insincere. (Kids can *smell* insincerity, just as well as you can...)
IANAP -
Cheers,
Jim
MMDC.NET
-- My Weblog.
"although I suggest having her check "male" as her sex -- you are less likely to have teenage boys messaging her"
;)
It's not the teenage boys that you have to worry about, it's the 40 year old guys who say they are teenage boys.
I'm not against (legal) porn at all. I don't think that if a kid runs across porn on the Internet that it will somehow scar them for life. I also don't think that viewing porn will turn them into some sex-crazed pervert.
I believe those that are scarred or turned into perverts where either predisposed to this in the first place and that if it weren't the Internet it would be some other stimuli that triggered it, or come from an environment so violent and horrible that they where doomed from the start. The same thing holds true with video games not turning kids into homicidal axe wielding maniacs.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that such online activities should be encouraged, in fact they should be strictly forbidden.
However, I see the biggest threat on the Internet is chat rooms and REAL people. The problem there is that it would be very hard to prevent the kids from finding somewhere to chat. With the proliferation of IRC, web based chat, java based chat, not to mention all of the proprietary formats out there, it is almost impossible to either filter or quickly monitor their activities via a log of some sort.
Supervision is the only true answer, and in the real world in a lot of cases this just isn't an option. Unfortunate but true.
The bottom line is that your 11 year old daughter is MUCH safer doing anything she wants on the Internet than going to a mall or the movies by herself or even with friends.
If kids want porn, they'll get it, Internet or not. Trust me, I know!
load "linux",8,1
For the unaware, Cliff was refering to John Stuart Mill, an 18th-century British philosopher who wrote of "the tyranny of the masses," or "the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling." Mill was noting that logic and reason were being subverted by emotional arguments that appealed to the masses. It's a elitist perspective, but IMHO it's a very valid observation.
This is exactly what's happening here -- as the Salon piece very elegantly expresses, there is no evidence that porn is harmful or that censorship is helpful. In fact, it seems to me only reasonable to think the opposite. I may be biased -- but I'm a 17-year-old who's seen plenty of porn (please don't take that the wrong way), but I'm not some psychotic, violent madman or a pedophiliac. In fact, I'm first in my high school class (finishing my Junior year within the week), I'm looking at top-teir colleges, and I spent my Tuesday night last week being a productive member of my community by lobbying against an issue before the local township council (I won't get into the details of that, but as long as I'm bragging, I think I'll note that I've also finally hit the karma cap =). To see people claim that I should have all kinds of mental problems is, to be, downright offensive. This categorization is wrong, but the majority of people believe it, and that is reflected by our society.
But I think that a lot of the Slashdot crowd sees the argument put forth in the Salon article -- that censorship does not protect children, but instead leaves them unable to cope with the realities of the outside world. (There's a very enlightened judge who ruled recently that children "cannot be raised in a bubble" -- see the ruling for more.) That's why I'm such a fan of peacefire's advocacy.
But I digress. The point is, Mill's quote is the perfect embodiment of the phenomenon we're seeing here -- that is, the popular view that children must be "protected." Unfortunately, as long as the masses remain uneducated, we're fighting a losing battle. I don't know what can be done to counteract this, but I sure it hope somebody else can come up with something, and soon -- before people like me are no longer able to access these things, and are no longer able to realize this common fallacy.
Once again, Kudos to Cliff for showing once again that occasionally the slashdot editors do make very insightful commentaries in and of themselves (especially Jamie, who's written many great anti-censorship articles). Hopefully we've enlightened another person or two today.
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
you said only an awareness of what she surfs.
as a parent of two, let me fill you in on a little secret: the only way you're going to know what your kids are up to is to spend time with them. in other words, get off your lazy ass and spend time with them. especially if you only have her 2 days a week. sheesh.
How exactly would you explain www.goatse.cx to your eleven year old daughter? I don't have kids, but the thought of having to try and explain that phenomena to another *adult* scares me.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Monitor all the traffic with a proxy server- including your own surfing, and go over the logs together. The best way you can teach is to set a good example.
Many kids will accidentally go to someplace like whitehouse.com and get the suprise of their life- as long as they understand that is something they should not be looking at- that should be fine, lesson learned, and they know not to go there again. Eventually the kid will see something you find morally troubling- and so will you. Take the time to explain what you think is wrong about things like that. The child needs to know why she shouldn't be browsing something, more than just "bad place- stay away!"
To say that a child at the age of 11 has a right to view everything on the internet as a statement against censorship is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I mean there are way worse things to worry about than whether or not you are censoring stuff off of the internet. I mean...why not just allow your daughter to go to an X-rated movie at the age of 11...I mean if you didn't allow it you would be censoring her right? Right?!
I'm still working on a clever footer.
We in the industry have this thing we like to call "a chair." When two are placed side by side in front of a computer, you generally have all the hardware you need to monitor computer usage.
sig fault
OK, one simple question, have you also blocked all access to MPAA movies, RIAA music videos, any commercial television station, all magazines and newspapers? If not then you are being brainwashed every day into believing that women are sex objects despite your marvelous blocking software. Face facts you obviously did not receive the rounded, sanity based eduscation on life from your parents that most people here see as the only way of dealing with this issue.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
-
Now that eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote, it is obvious that
they must be allowed the freedom to form their
political views on the basis of uncensored speech
before they turn eighteen, so that their minds
are not a blank when they first exercise the
franchise. And since an eighteen-year-old's right
to vote is a right personal to him rather than a
right to be exercised on his behalf by his
parents, the right of parents to enlist the aid
of the state to shield their children from ideas
of which the parents disapprove cannot be plenary
either. People are unlikely to become well-
functioning, independent-minded adults and
responsible citizens if they are raised in an
intellectual bubble.
and a truly precious lineThat's a good, realistic argument from a sitting judge.
Since I've never been buggered, nor have I ever pumped iron, I don't know which wastes more time, but they are two activities which aren't really productive in the material sense. There are some people who enjoy looking at such things, and there are people who hate them. But, largely, one may assume that both activities are done because the people who perform them enjoy doing so.
In the end, the objective reason why goatse.cx is worse than Schwarzenegger is because social convention says it's so. What i would tell my own daughter would be something like "it's a man with some kind of mental disease, and the people who put that picture online did it because they thought it would be a good joke. You know what 14 year old boys are like..." (she probably does know)
The fact that you need to have such a degree of control over your children is a chilling and horrible thought.
Have you ever considered the consequences of seeking complete control of another humam being? A parent's role should be that of a shepard, not a guard dog. If you teach your child to think for himself (or herself) and use common sense, you'll end up with a free-thinking and mature young man or woman.
A controlling, domineering parent will result in nothing but a angry and rebellious child or someone incapable of dealing with life and society in general.
If you feel that you need to surreptitiously spy on your child, I pity you.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Make sure she doesn't browse at -1. That alone will keep her clear of much racist humour, incorrect claims to "Frist Prost", and that unfortunate fellow whom we all wish would stop bending over.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Just Talk To Your Kid.
I laid out the ground rules with my 10 year old daughter. The usual, pretty much Jamie's list above.
Then one day I get an email from some site saying that they couldn't comply with *my* request to authorize my daughters account for something or other unless via snailmail.
She'd forged an email from me (not hard... it's a family PC running 'doze) and tried to say "I forgot my password. Please authorize....". Luckily the site required snailmail confirmation in that situation.
Needless to say, there was a discussion about responsibility and lying... I let her know that it would be some time before I could trust her fully online again, and oh, yes... she was grounded from the computer for a week, and after that, she was not allowed online for a month without me or my wife literally looking over her shoulder...
Still better than filtering...
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.