A Parent's Guide To Linux Web Filtering

Excellent by ReverendHoss · 2004-07-01 05:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

The easier and more accurate it is for parents to filter content for their own children, based on their own values, the less likely it is for them to scream for the government to do it for them.

Re:Excellent by stienman · 2004-07-01 05:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually I doubt this will make much of a difference at all.

Even if they are always around to protect their kids parents still demand that 'public' places be free of anything that could harm their children. The internet is often seen as a public place. Unless the 'magazine racks' are covered and the 'bars' are closed to anyone under a certian age they will feel that the government should step in an ensure that these steps are taken. This doesn't even touch problems with identity, stalking, etc.

This is not a terrible thing. It is a new responsibility that parents have had to adjust to in the last decade. Any reasonable step that can be enacted with little cost that does not prevent another's right to use the internet should be enacted.

The 'internet' is still in a state of tremendous change. There is no way that a reasonable response can be created that will stand the test of time. Any response now will fall far short of the ideal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though. As we develop new techniques to match the internet's development we'll learn valuable lessens.

It's not much different than spam. Techniques come, are honed, changed, and then go. We all expect (and know) that eventually the tide will turn and spam will be managed effectively. Similarily, we all know and expect that certian regulations will be set in place that will make it difficult for minors to open themselves to crimes of opportunity or exposure to things which the law currently says should be restricted to adults (or to minors only under adult supervision).

This article is good for the tech savvy parent, but it certianly will not affect the majority opinion.

-Adam
Re:Excellent by Safety+Cap · 2004-07-01 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Even if they are always around to protect their kids parents still demand that 'public' places be free of anything that could harm their children.
This is exactly why they will end up with weak offspring that will be killed in the first round of purges.
Pediatricians usually recommend one have furry pets and send one's kids to day care, pre-school so the little tykes actually get sick and build up their immune system. The offspring of the parents who use those "antibacterial" wipes and soaps are the ones who will die in the first wave of plagues.
This brings us to environment. Only by exposing one's kids to life in the real world (of which, Teletubbies and Barney are only a small part), can those kids grow up strong and able to deal with life outside the Master Planned Community, lest they be killed in the waves of immigrations that overrun the MPCs.

--
Yeah, right.
Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't tell you how to raise your children; why do you think you have the right to tell me how to raise mine?

Well, your kids have a few rights, like the right to a decent education, to not be neglected etc. If you're going to provide a decent balanced educational program for your kids, that's fine. The state should satisfy itself that you are doing so in the same way that it satisfies itself that your kids aren't neglected, or that you don't beat your wife - ie. it does nothing unless someone complains.

If you can't provide a decent education (because you don't have the skills or knowledge, or becaus eyou don't have the time) then you'll have to avail yourself of the state facility that is provided for you.
Re:Excellent by orthogonal · 2004-07-01 07:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

What are your values? Free porn for all kids? There are legitimate reasons to agree as a society that kids viewing porn is not a good thing. The government frequently passes laws restricting behavior of children in the interests of protecting them. (mandatory bike helmets, can't buy beer until you're 21, ban Joe Camel ads, etc.)

Well, perhaps there are legitimate reasons to keep kids from porn.

But there are certainly legitimate reasons to insist that parents are responsible to monitor their children's use of the internet and not expect the nanny-State to do it for them.

There's no mechanism for keeping porn form kids that doesn't involve the government judging content and registering that content or its viewers, or both.

And there is a chilling effect on free speech if one has to get government permission before distributing content or fear government prosecution afterwards. The cure is worse than the disease.

Let's recall the various works banned by the U.S. Government for "obscenity"; DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, James Joyce's Ulysses -- and even Voltaire's political/religious satire Candide -- all were banned from the United States by U.S. customs inspectors. And all, of course, are now considered classic works of literary art.

And as I noted previously, there is plenty of stuff on the internet that, while not obscene, probably shouldn't be viewed by children. Will you ban pictures of the Nazi Holocaust in your attempt to make the internet safe for children?

And the whole "for the children" argument is a straw-man, set up by fundamentalists who are using "the children" as an excuse to keep porn from adults by banning porn altogether.

Sorry -- there are many good things in this world that it's not at all good to expect the government to provide.

Health care is a good, and I suspect that many parents would desire free health care for their kids even more than government suppression of porn. Little Johnny will recover from seeing a "beaver shot" a lot more easily than he'll recover from leukemia.

But the same fundamentalist conservatives who swear up and down that it will be positively disastrous for government to get in the universal health care business -- even just for kids --, advocate government telling us what we can and cannot view -- for the benefit of "the children".

The same conservatives who explain that government regulation of business stifles innovation and creates a drag on the economy, want to regulate the 50 billion dollar porn industry out of business -- even though by far the vast majority of porn customers are adults.

The same conservatives who rail against "Big Government" apparently don't think it's too much for government to vet every one of million of web pages?

Please: the same fundamentalists who preach about "personal responsibility" every time they want to cut a welfare program or unemployment benefits, can't ask a middle-class parent able to afford a computer and an internet connection to watch what sites his kids visit?

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:Excellent by the_mad_poster · 2004-07-01 07:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

And as a society, we do have the right to tell you how to raise your children. It is not just the family that raises the children, but the whole village.

Ummmmm. No.

We have the responsibility to protect your children from you, if necessary, the same way we have the responsibility to protect anyone else who needs it. We do not have the right, nor the responsibility, nor, for most of us, the inclination to tell you how to raise your children.

An excellent example of that is the recent decision that government can not, in fact, meddle in the affairs of parents who send their children to juvenile nudist camps. Of course, if they were sending them off to brothels, that would be a different story, and we would be obliged to step in and stop them because it would, in theory, be possible to show that such action is harmful.

The idea that I have either the right or the implied responsibility to assist other people in raising their children without an explicit request to do so is ridiculous.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Excellent by v01d · 2004-07-01 07:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

When a kid is in fifth grade, that is not the time to be questioning authority. Questioning authority at that age is just being disrepectful to your elders.

Respect is earned. If my daughters's teacher is a complete idiot, I will tell them so.

My sister's third grade teacher told the class that red headed children aren't as smart. If you silently accept that from a teacher you are a pathetic excuse for a parent, and are doing a disservice to your child.

Kids need to respect thier teachers.

Teachers need to earn that respect. I have rarely seen a respectable teacher not get the respect they deserve.
Re:Excellent by e9th · 2004-07-01 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think it's trivial. Parenting requires effort. That's the problem.
Re:Excellent by It'sYerMam · 2004-07-01 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

This seems like the most intelligent approach, although not always the most practical. It's not always possible to be around when your kids are at the computer, and it's not always nice to have to be with them when they're googling.
However, the trust element is an important thing for a child to learn. Everyone goes through a stage of learning about breaking trust and both being found out and not being found out. It us up to the parent to both let the child explore and then break the trust, but also then find out and rebuke them.
This way, they find out what it's really like, and they get taught it's bad, as well. If you never let them do something wrong, then as soon as it's out of your hands they'll most likely be doing much worse things than looking up something unsavoury. On the other hand, if you never find out, they never learn that it's bad, and so will continue.
In my opinion, a web filter could be useful for informing parents of inappropriate activity; i.e. they have fulfilled the "release" stage, and this helps them to fulfil the "rebuke" stage.

--
im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.

Why Censor? by Milo+of+Kroton · 2004-07-01 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Really, is only naked women or men. In Mozilla Firebird, I have setted it to "Block images from goat.cx" (not visit!) and if my kids pictures of naked people find, fine. I did as child. I run linux but don't need this.

As friend said "You Americans are so puritanical!"

--
Read journal when you are not understand

Re:Why Censor? by jawtheshark · 2004-07-01 05:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not a parent... So take everything I say with a grain of salt.
I have been on the internet for 10 years. Back then I was 17, which means I was not really a child. However one thing I learned quite quickly is that you have to search for porn/hatespeech/$fill_in_gross_stuff. Yes, I know rotten.com and I have visited it. Stuff there was quite a curiosity the first time I saw it.
Now, 10 years ago there was a child in this house. My sister. She was 12 back then. I did not once see anything questionable on her screen, nor in her browser cache (I used to monitor her stuff as a worried brother, my parents couldn't have done it) This means: if your kids go and visit those sites they have searched for it, or got the link from a friend. In the latter case you can be pretty sure they that they would have gotten the information anyways. I mean: how hard is it to go over to your friends place and ask him/her to show the site that you couldn't visit at home.
So, if I'm ever a parent, I'll just make sure to monitor what my kids do and not block their access. If I catch them doing something I can't condone then it'll just be time for a little chat.

--
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Re:Why Censor? by Milo+of+Kroton · 2004-07-01 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Filters do not work. Already my son knows roughly half my knowledge of computers (he is but 8) and I can get past filters my brother in law had when visited him in North Carolina. I am (or wife) always in room when son uses family computer, so nothing bad is done, and understands proper use of net.

Filters don't work. Parents does.

--
Read journal when you are not understand

Nice one! by Grell · 2004-07-01 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

This could really help push Linux for schools and libraries. (who don't need the extra expense of the "secure" kiosk's their paying for now.)

~G

--
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky

Re:Nice one! by crackshoe · 2004-07-01 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

i've found schools prefer to have the blocking at the isp level, so a kid with a laptop and a wireless card still can't pull up porn (or instant messenger). i've also seen schools block such things as babelfish, which is genuinely useful to 9/10's of the school, but the spanish teachers are too fucking lazy to actually teach, so they just put kinds into the lab where, suprise suprise, they'd use babelfish. and most librarians i know ( and i know several at public and university libraries) are about as anti-censorship as possible, outside of the few computers in a designated kids zone. the only reason any real library i know of has added general filtering is to get govn't funding.

--
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
Re:Nice one! by DrEldarion · 2004-07-01 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, there's a better reason for them to block babelfish - it can be used to get around the filters. Page blocked? Just translate it through babelfish - hot hot proxy action.

Refreshing by Mr.+Spontaneous · 2004-07-01 05:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its nice to see that Linux is really emerging as a Windows alternative for the whole family.
Also, it should give the kids a nice challenge to get around the blockers... ;-)

If at first you don't friccasse, fry fry a hen

--
Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.

Here's an Idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 05:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here's an idea. Keep kids off the Internet period until they're old enough to handle it, i.e. approximately 16 or so depending on the child. I didn't go on-line until I was 17 in 1994, and I'm thankful for it. All the crap I was exposed to on-line since then could, and probably would, significantly emotionally and mentally damage a child unprepared for the world.

I shudder when I think of my 12 to 15 year-old cousins going on-line and all the stuff they're most likely being exposed to, even with their parents having NetNanny and such installed.

Re:Here's an Idea... by Zorilla · 2004-07-01 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

All the ASCII porn on gopher really screwed me up back in 1994.

It's much easier to not use the Internet when it's as inaccessible as it was ten years ago. I think the only access in 1994 we had was when my oldest brother used his college account which dialed into a remote unix terminal, which you then connected to the internet from. Downloading was a pain. For instance, ftp went from the remote server to the unix terminal's home directory. That was pretty fast (probably T1), but you had to download again from the home directory over the terminal connection to the local machine. That was at 14.4kbps.

Even then, it was followed by buggy TCP/IP tools and a crappy, unstable version of 16-bit Netscape if you were in Windows 3.1.

Long story short, I bet you didn't use the Internet until 1994 because your parents said you weren't old enough - but rather because it wasn't feasible to use it until then. That and parents saying, "there's porn on the internet?" Assuming they knew what the Internet was at the time.

--

It would be cool if it didn't suck.

Re:Still missing the point... by underpar · 2004-07-01 05:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's nice tou know that you can turn your back for a minute, though. That's why I have a fenced in back yard. I know the kid can open the gate, and I know I still have to watch him.

Actually, it doesn't. by Fooby · 2004-07-01 05:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article only tells how to install iptables, squid, and Dan's Guardian. It doesn't tell how to customize it to your own tastes or values. Here, in full, is all the article says about customizing the filter:

While Dan's Guardian provides an excellent filter all by itself, you may want to exercise further control over the Web filtering by editing the other files in the /etc/dansguardian directory that contain external blacklists. Blacklists from squidGuard and URLBlacklist work perfectly with Dan's Guardian. Each file contains a brief explanation for its contents to make configuration easier.

So what we have is a case of relying on "Dan's" ideas of good and bad, rather than a commercial company's. Not a huge improvement on the face of it if parents are just going to install an open-source tool rather than a commercial one. Better yet would be to educate the kids and monitor their behavior rather than trusting some blanket censorship tool, open-source or not.

Re:Censorware by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not personally objecting. I'm pointing out that several Slashdot editors spent years railing against "censorware" and "memetic warfare".

But what they were complaining about were filter programs with basically the same functions as this one.

Perhaps it means that the Slashdot crew are starting to understand that parents have legitimate concerns about the internet browsing of young children. (i.e., age 10-12 years)

But it may just be that they prefer this software because of the idea that open source software is automatically good, regardless of what the software actually does or does not do.

I don't know that this will work ... by petabyte · 2004-07-01 05:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Frankly, you're not going to beat sitting down with your kids and talking to them about where to go on the net and where not to. I mean this software helps but isn't that hard to get around. All the kid really has to do is boot the system with knoppix or root the box. Some people might laugh at that notion but think of what you would do at this age. Most linux people have that sort of "I want to do this just because I can" mentality. If that gene has passed on, you'll need a little more than iptables. :)

When I was 10, my dad had a net-nanny type program on the machine allegedly to protect my younger brother. It timed internet access and cut you off after a certain period. So I opened up regedit and ripped the program out manually. Sure, the system was barely functional, the network connection didn't work at all and the machine needed to be reinstalled - but that nanny software never came back.

It's all pretty subjective. by Gordonjcp · 2004-07-01 05:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

I grew up in a farming community. Around farms. Farms with stupid people and dangerous machinery on them. Trust me, I saw far more horrible things than rotten.com nearly every week.

I honestly don't see what the problem is. Although my world view has changed somewhat over the years, I don't *think* I react that differently to things now as to how I reacted when I was, say, 12 years old.

Bayesian Filters Applied to Web Content by nullspace · 2004-07-01 05:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Has anyone applied a Bayesian filter to web content? This would be an interesting way to give the filter a set of initial conditions from which it could derive an ever-increasing better filtration of content based off the parent's initial criteria.

If there is a pre-existing application, I would interested to know.

hosts file by blindbat · 2004-07-01 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Or you could put things in your hosts file that you want to block access to. Much simpler, but I'm not sure you things would go with that whole black list there ;)

look at the typical people demanding filters... by SuperBanana · 2004-07-01 06:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

The easier and more accurate it is for parents to filter content for their own children, based on their own values, the less likely it is for them to scream for the government to do it for them.

Considering that the people usually screaming the loudest for government to "protect" their children are usually the dimmest bulb in the marquee sign (not to mention the laziest, unable to supervise their children they supposedly care about so much; we have a few on our street who demand "GO SLOW! We love our children!" signs from the town instead of teaching their kids not to run into the road), I don't see how filtering for linux (which by its nature requires a certain persuasion towards intelligence by its very nature) is going to help. You're not very likely to find linux running in in a trailer park, folks.

It also doesn't solve the problem of filtering in libraries and schools, which is what all the christian/right-wing nutjobs (personified in the Simpsons as Mrs. Flanders- "Oh! Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!") scream about anyway.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Let the kids setup the filter by bl8n8r · 2004-07-01 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I've done in the past is setup linux boxes for people with all outgoing access closed - with a script, the user entered the address they want to connect to (disney.com). The script then logs this, and allows outgoing access to the sight. This way, there isn't a lot of pre-setup stuff to do. With everyone understanding the usage is logged, it keeps them honest. Mom and dad can checkout the log with a web browser. Submitting content took some work to get figured out.... Not a perfect system, just a little different.

--
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org

Re:Why Censor by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I really have to disagree here. I'm 18, so it wasn't long ago that I had a child's immature mind. I remember I saw, indeed looked for, porn before I was even a teenager. I remember seeing Stile Project's most deformed genitalia list. Am I some screwed up sicko now? No. I'm a good student, 1600 on the SAT, over a full ride to college, blah blah blah. Images do not make a person. The most effect I'd say seeing that stuff has had on me is that it made me a tougher person. Hell, I'd say overall, the control over my mind I gained from being exposed to stuff like that was actually a beneficial experience. It's all in how a person deals with stuff like that. An unintelligent sick person might get ideas from graphic images, but such people are already screwed up. Parents probably need to pay more attention to the family environment they're creating and the examples they're setting than to pictures their kids run into on the web.

The truth is, as a little kid you don't really run into that much graphic content unless you want to. I seriously doubt bumping into a rare image of a woman in the procreative act while searching for whatever it is little kids search for is going to cause some serious damage. At most it will create an awkward situation with the parents. I think that's the root of this supposed problem. Parents don't like to deal with serious issues when it comes to their children. Their children are never going to have sex. Their children are never going to encounter death. Their children are never going to grow up. This is the real problem. It's parents unwillingness to deal with their children entering the real world. I'm not saying it's an easy thing to deal with, but it's something you have to deal with, not just blame the internet.

-ShadeOfBlue

Re:Well.... by Flying+Purple+Wombat · 2004-07-01 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Errr....no. He's not mature enough, yet. My 14 year-old son is learning C++, with the goal of doing some graphics and games programming. I don't want him looking a porn, or emailing/IM'ing/chatting (text or video) with dirty old men claiming to be 14 year old girls.

I would like to get the PC in his room on our house LAN, so I am currently looking at available filtering tools. The stuff in the article looks interesting. I want to be able to block inapproriate sites from "accidentally" appearing on his browser, but I don't want to completely block net access. Currently, the PCs in my kids' bedrooms are not on the LAN, and they can only access the 'net from the "public" machines in the living room and dining room. (You know you're a geek when you have 8 PCs in your house, but only 4 people live there.)

I do agree, however, that kids will look for a way to bypass filters. They do it at school. At home, it took my 10 year-old daughter about 3 seconds to enter a fake birthdate so she could register at a site that said "you must be over 13 years of age or your parents must register for you."

--
If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.

Helicopter parents by FerretFrottage · 2004-07-01 06:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

My wife (OMG, ./er who is married) calls these parents "Helicopter Parents" because they just hover over their kids, but as soon as there is an incident with regards to the child and the school and/or teacher, they immediately fly on in assuming that they (the school/teacher) are the cause of the "accident". It's sad when my wife is surprised that the parent(s) supports the teacher's or school's position. She actually got offered $5k by a parent to pass her child so that they could get the kid out of the house (this was in the affluent Plano west high school). She turned it down which is probably why she's a teacher and I'm not...I'd take the $5k and still fail the dumba$$

--
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."

Re:I think configuring it yourself is better by LetterJ · 2004-07-01 06:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's part of why I've got a computer sitting at home today churning through sites trying to train a Bayesian engine to detect inappropriate stuff. Once it's done, putting it in between the proxy's lookup and handing over of the page will allow learning and building a bigger list. The first engine will be used to build a filter intended for children under 13. Future engines will analyze for different criteria. I intend to charge for the list subscriptions, but will likely make the generating software open source and will gladly share the criteria/databases.

I'm currently using self-classified content/sites from DMOZ.org. If a site has voluntarily added itself to the Adult section on DMOZ, they've already indicated that they are not appropriate for children. This also means that when I get to the filter for older children (initial target fo the lists is schools), I can explicitly allow those sites categorized as educational rather than outright porn and get different lists. Since DMOZ is human reviewed and sites are categorized by experts, that's the data set I'm using to train my filter.

It does OK right now, but I'm looking for better methods for training it to approach that 99.9% effective rate that I'm currently getting with POPFile on my spam.

--

The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things

Re:Why filter? by HeyLaughingBoy · 2004-07-01 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can't personally understand why parents want to filter the internet for their children

Well, I am a parent and the reasons are not always what you'd think. First, note that my 3 year-old doesn't do any more with our computers than type his name and those of his friends (hey, it makes him happy :-) Even so, his mother and I have already agreed that when he needs a computer, it will be in plain sight so we can occasionally glance over at what he's doing. I personally don't think filtering is worth the effort.

That said, children vary in their responses to different things. I tried watching Miyazaki's Spirited Away with him. Yeah, I read the "scary for kids" warning, but I figured I'd gauge his response to it. He was terrified. By what you ask? The scene where the child's parents turn into pigs. He's not afraid of pigs, he thinks they're funny. But he was terrified that his mother and I might turn into pigs like in the movie. Make sense? No, but he's three years old!

In real life, we already have issues with him being influenced by kids whose parents (if you can call them that) apparently have wildly different ideas about childrearing than we. So he already knows a few words he we don't want him using and has made a few statements that would be pretty nerve-wracking if he actually knew what they meant. We can handle stuff like this because it's out front. If he were learning this stuff online it would be much more difficult to figure out the source and decide how to handle it.

Most parents' response to the net is similar to how they view books or movies: I don't want my son watching "Saving Private Ryan" for quite a while because I know how many nightmares he'll have. But if he happens to see the occasional bare tit on TV, no big deal. He'll just giggle and forget about it.

The fundamental issue is that of not exposing a child to material that he's not yet ready for. And this decision should rest solely with the parent. Our job's hard enough as it is; for those who want to use it, filtering is just one more tool.

Access Denied... by wodelltech · 2004-07-01 08:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been using DansGaurdian for a year or so now (what's good for my kids is good for me, I figure...) Anyway, it blocked access to these very comments (see below). Irony.

ACCESS HAS BEEN DENIED -

Access to the page:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/01/ 15 48255&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=153&tid=95&tid=99&th reshold=2 ... has been denied for the following reason:

Weighted phrase limit exceeded.

--
Your monitor is staring at you.

Another perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 09:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Most of the posters seem to be parents here, so I'll give another perspective - the childs. I'm nearly 17, and I've had fairly unrestricted access to the internet for, hmm, probably about 5 years and used it a little before then. I've read and seen things on the internet that could be grouped into pretty much every category conceivable, and guess what? It hasn't done me any harm at all. In fact, I'd agree with the people who say it prepares you for the real world that little bit more. I don't have urges to rip my ass cheeks apart, drive around in a bangbus, or hate black people. My parents set a few (fairly unrestrictive) rules about my internet usage, and as long as I behave in a reasonably acceptable way in general, they won't have any reason to look at internet usage or anything else.

Slashdot Mirror

A Parent's Guide To Linux Web Filtering

34 of 529 comments (clear)