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 e9th · 2004-07-01 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, that sounds good, but I'm pessimistic. The same parents who bitch about our educational system but who won't sit down with their kids and discuss what Johnny learned in school today will continue to scream and scream loudly.
"Why should I protect my children. That's what I pay taxes for!"
Re:Excellent by Total_Wimp · 2004-07-01 05:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Heck yeah, but it's getting much harder. Knoppix screwed my ability to filter at the computer. My neighbors' open wireless access points are in the process of screwing my ability to filter at the pipe. It looks like the only sure fire way left to filter is at the kid.

TW
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 Brandybuck · 2004-07-01 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

But of course! We will always have people who will want to hand their responsibilities over to those willing to accept them.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Excellent by Peter+La+Casse · 2004-07-01 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, that sounds good, but I'm pessimistic. The same parents who bitch about our educational system but who won't sit down with their kids and discuss what Johnny learned in school today will continue to scream and scream loudly.
That's a different problem, which this solution doesn't attempt to address. This gives proactive parents another tool, which is a good thing.
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 ahaning · 2004-07-01 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny

...I drank well before I was 21. I smoked before I was 18 and I never wore a helmet on my bike.

And look where you ended up! Posting comments to your imaginary friends on the Internet in the middle of the day.

Isn't that bad enough?!

;-)

--
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

What reasons are these? By the time you're interested in porn, the last thing you need is for everyone to pretend it doesn't exist, which is what this guide is helping parents do. If your parents are of some denomination that makes this sort of thing bad, that's one thing; you can raise your kid however you like. Still, 'agreeing as a society' is kind of a stretch-- my grandfather is a psychiatrist, and he quietly made sure I wasn't at a loss for what was going on. And when you get down to it, I'd rather have 13 year olds masturbating to internet pron than 13 year olds engaging in sex with each other. How is it protecting kids? They still have these desires, the urges. The only thing it's protecting is their parents' conscience. Don't get me wrong, little jimmy shouldn't have to see goatse if he doesn't want to, or if his parents don't want to; but that is a family-based decision, and not one all of society agrees upon. Honestly not trolling, but don't want the karma backlash either.
Re:Excellent by gillbates · 2004-07-01 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, given that neither paying taxes nor sending your children are optional activities, I'd say your argument doesn't apply.

But there's something insidious about someone taking money from you (via taxes), and then using that money to undermine your parenting. Those who view children as a nuisance and the school district as a babysitter could care less what happens there. It is the parents who are actually being parents who take greatest offense at their own taxes being used to undermine their parenting efforts. It isn't an issue of free-speech rights, but rather of the rights of a parent to raise their own child in the manner they see fit. 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?

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Re:Excellent by Jim_Maryland · 2004-07-01 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Only if you agree that children don't acquire some rights to control their own reading habits at some point.

I think that if your installing a filter of some sort, you are controlling your kids reading habit. Parental involvement does not necessarily mean physically standing over their shoulders 24/7 though. You need to give children a degree of freedom while protecting them (what you protect them from is up to the individual parents). If you are filtering for your kids 24/7, they likely won't learn how to make decisions for themselves based on the values you have instilled into them. I'm not saying that you don't stay involved with kids but that you have to prepare them for that day when they go out on their own. I do agree that parental involvement is the best filter but it isn't the only way to protect and raise children.
Re:Excellent by swv3752 · 2004-07-01 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Home schooling and and private schooling are always options. Taxes pay for more than just schools and it is good that you should be responsible for more than just your own children. 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.

Besides, it is more likely the parents undermining the schoold system. Parents come in bitching about little Sally getting an F even though she did no work. If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society. Instead, we have parents teaching kids not to respect authority.

There is a time to question authority, but that time is not when you should be learning to read and write.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
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 Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 06:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

who won't sit down with their kids and discuss what Johnny learned in school today

If you think it is trivial to ask your kid what they learned in school today, you don't have kids. The "Leave it to Beaver" ideal of sitting around to dinner table and talking about their day in school doesn't exist. But, whatever, this is slashdot, you get what you pay for.
Re:Excellent by stienman · 2004-07-01 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

You have a very interesting style of discussing a very common belief. I'm assume you are not using particular language to offend - perhaps this is how you really talk about this subject.

There is some good in the idea that one should expose children to many variants of disease and illness to build a healthy immune system while they are young and physically able to handle the ravages of such bacteria and virus.

But that doesn't prove your point.

Subjecting a child's body to alcohol, nicotine, polio, etc is provably detrimental to their physical health. To say that there are no mental or emotional equivilants to these compounds is to dismiss decades and centuries of behavioral studies and observation.

"The beginning of a habit is like an invisible thread, but every time we repeat the act we strengthen the strand, add to it another filament, until it becomes a great cable and binds us irrevocably in thought and act." -Orison Swett Marden

While you and I may disagree on what specific emotional and intellectual activites are worth restricting to adults I suspect you may agree that there are such limits you wouldn't want your children to pass. I could come up with a million hypotheticals, and many (many!) actual examples - but I'm sure you are equally imaginative.

-Adam
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 'nother+poster · 2004-07-01 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Home schooling and and private schooling are always options. Taxes pay for more than just schools and it is good that you should be responsible for more than just your own children. 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.

<pa feedback>

Testing, testing. This thing on? Uhmm, fuck the village. Thank you.

</pa feedback>

Besides, it is more likely the parents undermining the schoold system. Parents come in bitching about little Sally getting an F even though she did no work. If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society. Instead, we have parents teaching kids not to respect authority.

If by undermining the school system you include demanding my child's teachers actually work to educate their students rather than simply lecturing them out of a book, I'm guilty as charged. Also, if by teaching kids not to respect authority you mean teaching my children not to simply swallow what the teacher spews and take it as gospel, I am guily of that charge also.

There is a time to question authority, but that time is not when you should be learning to read and write.

When is it then? When they've dropped out? How about when they're in prison? Ooooh, I know. When they're standing in the soup line carrying their worldly goods under in their arms.
Re:Excellent by Jim_Maryland · 2004-07-01 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

You missed the point entirely. The parent post I responded to seemed to indicate that installing a filter was side stepping parenting by putting the responsibility on software.

Perhaps you should offer drugs to your children, so that they can learn to resist?

Now why would you think of doing this? Did it work for you or your kids? Come on, nobody would do that. Kids need to be taught the dangers of drugs (and lots of other things), but offering them drugs isn't the approach I would use.

Kids don't need all the temptations of the Internet. Hell, I don't: I installed Dan's Guardian to filter my own browsing.

Kids using the Internet is almost a requirement in schools today. My kids (ages 7 & 10) have both had reports that asked for one Internet resource as part of their reports. Now that doesn't mean you give the kids unlimited access to the Internet because of the content. You could almost look at the Internet as going to the mall. For the most part, the stores are OK for kids to be in. You might want to "filter" them to not go into a "Spencer's", "Victoria Secret", etc... because you don't agree with the content (NOTE: I'm not saying these stores are necessarily bad, but as an example, their goods could be seen as "bad" for young children). Installing a filter for browsing can be useful to keep the "bad" information from showing up in your kids browser. I don't actually have a filter installed on my system but rather I do sit with my kids when they are doing anything in a browser. My kids do enjoy a few of the sites (Barbie, NeoPets, YuGiOh (sp?), Lego, Bionicles, etc...) and once at that site I might let them on their own for a bit. They know how to operate the browser and they also know that if they see anything that they weren't expecting that they are to get myself or my wife immediately. The sites they visit are what we consider acceptable material. Now my son has asked to look for things on Google and we as parents have told him that he can't use that unless we are sitting there with him. For now we trust him to follow our wishes and until he shows that he can't be trusted, we'll continue to give him some level of freedom (in this case we don't "block" him from doing things on the computer).

Or more realistically, take them shopping and then yell at them when they want you to buy them something?

Well telling them that you aren't buying them anything depends on why you went shopping in the first place. If you were going because you needed to pick up some groceries, then you can tell the kids that you aren't buying them anything. If you take them to the store and tell them that you are buying them something, then by all means you should hold to your word.

Back to the topic though, filtering is a tool that parents may choose to use to protect children from information they deem inappropriate. As for using a filter for your own browsing habits("I installed Dan's Guardian to filter my own browsing"), I guess you feel that you can't make a good decision or wish to rely on someone elses opinion (which may or may not match your own). You probably shouldn't allow your children Internet access as you don't seem to be able to protect yourself from the content. My approach is to prepare my kids to judge for themselves, within reason for the age/maturity.
Re:Excellent by swv3752 · 2004-07-01 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Teachers can not actually teach, they can only present material. If the kids do not want to learn, then they will not. Your attitude teaches your child to be a selfish prick that needs to be spoon fed. Have you actually taught in a classroom setting in the last decade? I have.

Kids need to respect thier teachers. Kids need to do the work. And parents have to back up the schools in making the children accountable for what they do and don't do. If you feel that a teacher is only doing a mediocre job, then explain your concerns privately either to the school administrators or the teacher. If necessary, teach your kids what you feel they are missing in school. Don't tear down the teacher in front of your kids, that will only do the teacher and your kids a disservice.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
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 h4rm0ny · 2004-07-01 07:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

This brings us to environment. Only by exposing one's kids to life in the real world ... 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

I only wish to add a little something to this, which is that children will not so much learn purely from exposure, but from watching their parents deal with the exposure. I guess most of what we're talking about with filtering is naked people. Well, a child seeing nudity may or may not learn anything, but watching whether his father pervs, looks away or just accepts will surely guide his future behaviour.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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 the_mad_poster · 2004-07-01 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

We see a child misbehaving in public, we morally have the responsibility to step and tell the child that they are doing wrong.

That's ridiculous. If I had children, I wouldn't trust 90% of you yahoos to "pitch in". What you and I consider "morally" acceptable are, quite possibly, light years apart. I don't give a rat's ass if a kid wanders around in public swearing and being "vulgar" and etc. etc. However, lots of other people do. Who's the one with the right to enforce their moral opinion here? If some bible thumping klan member explains to their child that it's morally wrong to say "fuck" but morally right to refer to black people as "niggers" and gay people as "faggots", do I have the moral right and obligation to go over and beat the kid in the head with my ideals which are completely opposite of that? Hardly. I may WANT to, but I don't have any RIGHT to.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Excellent by japhmi · 2004-07-01 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

And as a society, we do have the right to tell you how to raise your children.

No, you don't. As long as a parent isn't harming their child, they have the innate right to raise him or her as they see fit.

If that child doesn't live up to the societies standards, than society has to take it up with the parents - it's their right and responsibility.

Parents come in bitching about little Sally getting an F even though she did no work. If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society.

If the schools backed the parents up in return, then it'd be great. If I were a teacher, and a parent came in asking why Little Sally got an F, I'd point out the requirements for each grade level - and show how Sally did not meet them. (Then again, I'd have the policy that one of my teachers had explicit - if you turn in every assignment, and they're all complete, you will pass the class.)

My kids - they're being homeschooled. 1st, my wife and I feel that it's best for my family. 2nd, we can't give them the kind of education we want for them in school.

--
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
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.
Re:Excellent by Rude+Turnip · 2004-07-01 08:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Subjecting a child's body to alcohol, nicotine, polio, etc is provably detrimental to their physical health."

Alcohol and nicotine are drugs, not diseases, so it makes no sense to give them any when they're young. What do you think they put in polio vaccines, or any vaccine for that matter?

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Excellent by holt · 2004-07-01 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Kids need to do the work.

Not necessarily. Many gifted students don't need to do the many repetitive exercises that teachers assign the entire class, because they can pick up the ideas after the first or second time through. If the kid can prove they know the material, then why make them waste their time (and yours)? Let them do something else.
Re:Excellent by the_mad_poster · 2004-07-01 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whether or not a person believes that a word should be used in a public place because it is wrong is a function of morality.

Whether or not a word should be used in a public place because other people believe it should not be used in a public place is a function of politeness.

Therefore, telling a child that they should not use a word in public because other people believe it should not be used is a function of politeness.

Telling a child that they should not use a word in a public place because it is wrong is a function of morality.

Short of vulgarity laws existing to enforce a community's veiw of acceptable behavior, you have niether the right to be surrounded by polite people, nor the right to enforce your moral viewpoint on anyone else.

This difference of belief we have here is a function of social liberalism/conservatism. Liberals hate it when someone tries to enforce an arbitrary code of conduct on them. Conservatives want their own arbitrary code of conduct enforced on other people. To be honest, I view the conservative position as utterly idiotic. The idea that other people should presume to know what's better for me than I do when I am not afflicted by anything that would impair judgement and I'm not impacting any unwilling third party negatively is ludicrous. Obviously, society needs to protect itself to a reasonable extent, and that's when we hit laws. The argument is over just how much society needs to be saved from itself.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Excellent by Jim_Maryland · 2004-07-01 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree that filters may not be the most effective tool, but they can be useful, particularly in preventing accidental viewing of some of the more extreme material on the web. The first example I can think of would be something like the whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov (I don't know if this is still a problem).

As far as the long term approach, if I'm trying to filter when they are in their mid-teens, likely I messed up when they were younger. In my opinion, a value system has been instilled at a much younger age. I'm sure that my kids will get a level of curiosity at some point but I don't want to expose them too early.

PS: Sorry for misinterpreting.

Fun with Filtering... by Kjuib · 2004-07-01 05:31 · Score: 5, Funny

A nice how-to. This could be fun in the hands of kids to filter their parents Internet to only include toys and cartoons and... uhm... slashdot...

--
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers

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 Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 05:35 · Score: 2, Funny

1. if my kids pictures of naked people find, fine. I did as child.

2. I run linux...

Q.E.D.
Re:Why Censor? by eln · 2004-07-01 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Man, if you think the only things that you can find on the Internet are naked people and goatse, you must have been on the Internet for all of about 8 seconds.

Parents need to protect their kids from extreme pornography, highly graphic images (like rotten.com and the like), and websites that foster extreme viewpoints and hate speech, like the Aryan Nations. These things can have a much more profound impact on a child's immature mind than it would on a mature and rational adult's mind.

What your personal threshold for your family is as to how extreme content has to be before you feel the need to protect your kids from it is dependent entirely on your own belief system. This is why systems that allow the parents to decide criteria, rather than depending on things like Net Nanny, is so attractive.
Re:Why Censor? by dtrent · 2004-07-01 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Well, there's naked people, and then there's porn. Personally I'm more worried about sites like bangbus which come 1/2 inch from condoning rape. I don't want my son treating women like that, and I don't want my daughter being treated like that, clothes on or off.

As friend said "You Americans are so puritanical!"

And that is just insulting. How do you resolve the above stereotype with the fact that most the porn *origninates* in the States? I suppose you think each and every German wears liederhosen too?
Re:Why Censor? by Milo+of+Kroton · 2004-07-01 05:44 · Score: 2, Funny

I only own single pair. Have been carried twice since bought them, when drunken at Oktoberfest in München in 2000 and 2001.

--
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
Re:Why Censor? by Mysticalfruit · 2004-07-01 06:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the big issue that when some my age (late 20's) sees a site like bangbus, they see it for what it is.

It's a fantasy site. Centered around the idea "What if your driving down the road and you drive by a hot woman and for 500 bucks she does anything you want."

We adults see it for the fantasy it is and nothing more.

The problem is that when a minor sees something like that, they're not going to see the fantasy aspect of it. Their going to see it as an acceptable way to treat a women. Then people will be all shocked when that same kid goes out and objectifies every woman he meets into a sex object.

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.

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.

Good News by arieswind · 2004-07-01 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, this is good news for linux parents, and hopefully it will set a precedent for either, more people moving off of windows, or developers of filtering software for windows to make their products more easily customizable to what parents think their kids should not see, instead of what the company thinks their kids should not see

I might as well say it first by mobiux · 2004-07-01 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

So there are what, 4 people using linux at home that also have intimate enough relationships to actually produce offspring

Another filter by z0ink · 2004-07-01 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Make sure you add /. to that filter if you ever want your kids to grow up to be productive human beings. Otherwise they'll be just like the rest of us, lurking around until the next item is posted. I've got some work to go not do now ...

--
Steal This Sig

Bumper Car for OS X by bennomatic · 2004-07-01 05:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Those fun-loving shareware dudes and dames over at Freeverse have a customizable browser for kids, aptly named BumperCar. Don't know much about it, but I happened to see it on a browsing jag yesterday, and thought I'd mention it here.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?

Censorware by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

I thought we were mostly in agreement here. Consorware is bad. Filters don't work.

Why is it that censorware suddenly becomes good when it's implemented by an open source program?

Re:Censorware by any other name... by eln · 2004-07-01 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know that most people really object to censorware as a concept to protect kids. What people object to is installing censorware in public, government-funded institutions like libraries where non-children can be affected by them, thus limiting constitutional rights.

Other people using these things in their own home is none of your business, and if you make it your business, you're the one violating people's rights.
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.
Re:Censorware by any other name... by Secrity · 2004-07-01 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps because the censoring criteria is being done in a knowlegable way by a parent, not by a corporation that may have it's own reason for censoring certain material. What happens when the RIAA has a little chat with the censoring software companies and the censoring companies decide that children shouldn't see something negative about the RIAA?

Well.... by tekiegreg · 2004-07-01 05:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Granted all the software is released under GPL and source code included, all it would take is for the kid to either A) Learn a little C++ (or whatever language this software is coded in) to make the software worthless or B) Start hunting for a patch that someone else was nice enough to build. Though if your kid can learn C++ I presume he's probably mature enough to view anything he wants and parents should stay back. However full censorship in Linux,IMHO because of the nature of open source is just next to impossible. As it should be though :-)

--
...in bed

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.
Re:Well.... by chris_mahan · 2004-07-01 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Best HTTP proxy is at the local netcafe, where, upon paying your $3 (what lunch money) said 10 years old is now getting a faceful of creampie.

Clueless Conservative Parent:
"I'm gonna filter my puter and Johnny's not gonna get access to nuthin."

Johnny:
"My friend Jason (the other 13 year old) just burned me a CD with 30 hours of german bdsm, as well as Jenna Jamison's entire collection! My dad's so stoopid."

--
"Piter, too, is dead."

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.

I think configuring it yourself is better by soft_guy · 2004-07-01 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is better than letting some company configure it for you. A lot of the companies that make filtering software don't even allow you to know what their critiera is for blocking a site.

On the other hand, I tend to think that when my daughter becomes interested enough in sex to seek out these kinds of pages, that maybe it is better that she be able to.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

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

Stumbles right out of the gate by goldspider · 2004-07-01 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The only software you need to set up parental filters under GNU/Linux is iptables, Dan's Guardian, and Squid."

That's two too many, as far as the target audience is concerned. I'm no GNU/Linux programmer or anything, but what's stopping people from putting that all in one single installer?

I'll admit I didn't read on to see (God forbid) what other numerous (supposedly "easy") hoops that parents would have to jump through to get the desired result. Not that it matters; they'd probably already lost most of their target audience.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Re:Stumbles right out of the gate by tsg · 2004-07-01 05:48 · Score: 3, Informative

That's two too many, as far as the target audience is concerned.

Netfilter is part of the linux kernel and doesn't require a separate installation. As for the other two, the entire unix philosophy is build small tools that do one thing well and connect them together. If someone doesn't like Squid, they can use another proxy server without ditching Dan's Guardian (or the other way around). It's called choice. It's a good thing.

Not that it matters; they'd probably already lost most of their target audience.

Their target audience is mostly parents who are already running Linux. The "hoops" (that you admit to not reading yet feel the need to criticize anyway) they have to go through are little different than configuring any other Linux app.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Stumbles right out of the gate by Niflar · 2004-07-01 06:45 · Score: 2, Funny

> That's two too many, as far as the target audience is concerned.
And to add some more fun the article says:
> If yours doesn't, you will need to compile a new kernel and enable iptables,
> which is beyond the scope of this article (and probably beyond the abilities of most parents).
Has Linux reached a whole new "target audience" or did my brain melt when I became a parent?

Complexity... by burrows · 2004-07-01 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I say just run the box in console mode, and if the kid can figure out how to configure X and open a browser, they are old enough for porn.

Seriously, this is a little strange in it's scope. In the fourth paragraph, it defines for the reader what a "server" is, and then they expect the reader to be comfortable just jumping right in and editing the squid config. Seems like a little user-friendliness is probably needed before we can consider the parental filtering thing taken care of...

--
Paper Pusher

Re:Complexity... by archen · 2004-07-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know what else is a good filter: Put the computer in the living room. Then disable networking after say, around midnight.

GNU nipple detection by tomRakewell · 2004-07-01 05:35 · Score: 5, Funny

I have been developing an algorithm that scans images and can detect whether there is a nipple in the image. If this were incorporated into an http filter, you could get rid of porn and possibly notify parents when nipple-laden images were being downloaded.

The only technical problem at present is that I can not discern between human nipples and animal nipples, so some images of cow udders and the like register false positives. Nevertheless, I think this is a very important algorithm.

I have considered selling this to the Justice Department, as Atty General Ashcroft has expressed an interest in this kind of software. However, I feel this is too important to be closed. I am happy to say the project will be listed at Sourceforge soon, and released under the GPL!!!

Re:GNU nipple detection by havoc · 2004-07-01 05:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Screw that, I want to use it to create the worlds largest archive of porn! Have it traveling across the net day and night looking for nipples!
Re:GNU nipple detection by almostmanda · 2004-07-01 05:44 · Score: 2, Funny

And Fox News could use the technology to automatically blur out nipples! While still showing explicit penetration shots/
Re:GNU nipple detection by kill-hup · 2004-07-01 05:44 · Score: 2, Funny

[...]I can not discern between human nipples and animal nipples, so some images of cow udders and the like register false positives.
Gee, I feel bad for you then. How horrible it must be to go through life not being able to tell if that naked chick has nipples or udders.... ;)

--
Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
Re:GNU nipple detection by stinkyfingers · 2004-07-01 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

What about all the good porn that has no nipples in it?
Re:GNU nipple detection by whitis · 2004-07-01 07:16 · Score: 2, Funny

Error: Adult Content Blocked!
Site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
Reason: George W Bush is a boob!

Still missing the point... by angst7 · 2004-07-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

So much is made about filtering content for children, presumably to prevent them from wandering upon unsuitable content. The fundamental flaw with this (techological limitations notwithstanding) is the notion that kids under the age of 13 or so should be left alone to browse the net.

It seems to me that proper parenting requires an active participation with your kids, whether it be in watching TV, checking out books in a B&N, or spending time on the net. Simply throwing in a vchip, blocking channels or applying hole-ridden filters can never be a substitute for actively being entertained, lerning, etc. alongside your child.

At least I think I read that somewhere...

--
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums

Don't filter, log and ask by hackstraw · 2004-07-01 05:37 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't have any kids, but if I did, I wouldn't filter a thing. I would install squid, write a perl script to parse out the domain names and report to me a count of each domainname reached.

I would tell the child that I had records of every site they visit, and step on them if they kept "making mistakes".

Re:Just wondering.. by eln · 2004-07-01 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, and they do generally charge more. They are usually run by religious organizations. The PAX network has been advertising their own filtered Internet service, for example.

Platform doesn't mattter - filtering == bad by gentlewizard · 2004-07-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Putting filtering on Linux doesn't make it better. Filtering still:

a) doesn't work. Kids who want pr0n will find it, or find a way to get around the filters; and
b) creates and adversarial relationship between parent and child instead of a collaborative one.

Having parents set up their own filters instead of trusting an outside organization to do it for them almost GUARANTEES that the filters will not be effective. Who has time to be comprehensive on content, given the rate at which new sites are created? The only alternative is to trust some organization that does have the resources to do a more comprehensive job, and even then will not be complete.

The more serious issue is the loss of trust demonstrated by putting filtering software on the computer.

Re:Platform doesn't mattter - filtering == bad by goldspider · 2004-07-01 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

"b) creates and adversarial relationship between parent and child instead of a collaborative one."
The assumption here, naturally, is that it is bad to have disagreements with your child. That's why kids these days are so fucked up: parents will do just about anything to remove conflicts from parenting.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Important step by Fiz+Ocelot · 2004-07-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

No matter what people say, how futile it is etc etc, it's an important step in getting Linux to be more common in the educational environment. A school or library needs to be able to say "we tried our best!" when it comes to these things. It helps linux get its foot in the door.

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.

Went back and RTFA... by goldspider · 2004-07-01 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

...and it's even worse than I originally thought. If by some miracle that Average Parent User trudged through the installation of the three programs, there is NO WAY IN HELL that they are going to be competant enough (let alone willing) to configure them all without throwing their hands up in frustration.

What "average" users do you know that would be comfortable with modifying .conf files and all that other crap that this forces them to do?

Anyone who calls this process "easy" is completely out of touch with the average PC user.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

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.

You need to be shocked into reality by confused+one · 2004-07-01 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Go to Google and type in a bunch of keywords which would represent the most disgusting and/or disturbing idea you can think of. You'll get hits. With pictures.

Then go looking for news articles about kids being lured to their death by people in chat rooms, etc. You'll find plenty.

You need to monitor what your kids are doing on the net. The children aren't responsible for their actions, You are.

Re:You need to be shocked into reality by greg_barton · 2004-07-01 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then go looking for news articles about kids being lured to their death by people in chat rooms, etc. You'll find plenty.

Then go looking for news articles about people dying in freak accidents, like being struck by lightning. You'll find plenty.

Doesn't mean you should avoid the outdoors, or cower in the basement every time you hear thunder.

Or you could by akvalentine · 2004-07-01 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Make sure that when they are very young, that you are with them any time that they are online.

Then, when they are old enough to understand, you open the Internet wide open and log everywhere they go. Make sure that they know you are logging.

Discuss with them what you think is inappropriate for them. If they visit sites that you don't approve of, talk to them about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love cool technology, but technology isn't a valid substitute for parenting.

Re:Limits Create Curiosity by Quill_28 · 2004-07-01 05:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, my daughters love pill bottles. Love to try and open them and eat anything that pops out.

But according to half the people here I should let them at it.

Parents should surf with their kids! by Patris_Magnus · 2004-07-01 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have installed two different filters on my kid's computers and I still find porn in my son's cache. Whether Linux or Windows, to date, the only filter that realy works 100% of the time while I am not at home is to disable the lan connection to the internet. It's only a matter of time until he figures that one out too.

Still No Substitute For Close Supervision by TheFlyingGoat · 2004-07-01 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

While this might take care of keeping kids off a large number of porn sites, it still will allow kids through to sites with all pictures. Those can't be filtered by keyword.

My personal belief is that kids under a certain age should NEVER be on the Internet without close supervision. As the kids get older, they should be given more freedom to explore by themselves, but monitoring software is still a good idea.

A close friend of mine who's 18 and getting ready to go off to college still isn't allowed on the computer when her mom is at work during the day. The computer is password protected so the mom has to be around when they're on it. They just accept it and deal with it. She doesn't sit and watch over their shoulder now that they're older, but she's at least around and able to glance at the screen occasionally.

--
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill

Re:Still No Substitute For Close Supervision by garcia · 2004-07-01 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

To be honest, the fact that you view such material at all speaks volumes about your attitute towards women.

Yeah, it says that I appreciate women's freedom. I appreciate women that are sure of themselves and their body.

It speaks volumes about you when you honestly believe that a naked woman is somehow demeaning.
Re:Still No Substitute For Close Supervision by radish · 2004-07-01 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

A close friend of mine who's 18 and getting ready to go off to college still isn't allowed on the computer when her mom is at work during the day.

Wow. I truly am speechless...

When I was 18 I had moved away from home and it had been my computer for 10 years. No one tells me what I can/can't do with my own computer, not then, not now. Of course this was before the net, we had to swap..."art"...by mailing floppys around the place.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

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.

Parenting by any other name... by goldspider · 2004-07-01 05:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I thought we were mostly in agreement here. Parenting is good.

Putting limits on material they want their children exposed to is a HUGE part of parenting. So why do you oppose software intended to let parents do just that?

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Oh Really? by mratitude · 2004-07-01 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Regarding all the "kids will hack it" and "watch your kids" content so far.

The underlying issue is quite simple - Access to the Internet is the equivalent of allowing your kids to leave the yard without permission, not bothering to know where they are, who they're contacting or being contacted by and generally leaving them at the mercy of the big, bad world.

So, establishing them on isolated segement NAT'd computers where every single 0 and 1 goes through a router that their parents manage or through a proxy service of the same circumstance isn't anything more complicated than insuring that Jack or Jane ask permission to leave the yard and to know where they're going and who they'll see when they do.

With kids, you don't throw out the rules for sake of convenience or with the idea of being "progressive" about child rearing. The consequences are just too dire.

--

Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.

Re:Oh Really? by ciggieposeur · 2004-07-01 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

With kids, you don't throw out the rules for sake of convenience or with the idea of being "progressive" about child rearing. The consequences are just too dire.

I'm not trying to slam, but what actually are the consequences of unfiltered net access? Realistically:

1) If a kid is somehow communicating with a real sexual predator, wouldn't their behavior in the outside world show that some kind of problem needs to be addressed?

2) Has anyone shown a solid correlation between childhood/adolescent pornography viewing and adult dysfunction?

I mean, how is Internet access so much different from say unfiltered library access? When I was a lot younger I could easily find dozens of naked pictures in the art and sexology books, and I also found plenty of books undermining my parent's religious, political, and ethical views. I don't feel like I was mentally or morally hurt by that process, so I don't quite understand the need to shield others from it.

In all seriousness, as a parent what are your concerns?

Oh crap! by zoloto · 2004-07-01 05:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean parents will actually have to talk to their children? Does that mean they will actually have to teach them values and standards of their own?

You don't say. What a shocker!

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.

Re:Bangbus is a work of genius. by TwistedSquare · 2004-07-01 05:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the grandparent is aware that bangbus is fantasy, but the problem is: will kids be this aware? If they see pretend rape happening and nothing being said against it, it is not unreasonable to be worried that they will view the real thing as fine too. Remember that a small child's mind works differently to ours.

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.

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.

Re:Bayesian Filters Applied to Web Content by CRCulver · 2004-07-01 06:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, for SpamAssassin, one is encouraged to gather at least one hundred spam messages to feed to the Bayesian filter so that it is adequately trained. In the complex world of pornography, one would have to collect, gosh, thousands of sites. What a great task!

Well, I'm prepared to make the sacrifice and do the difficult work of visiting these highly erotic sites for information-gathering purposes. Does any parent group wish to provide funding for my brave endeavour?

Drop broadband by Thrakkerzog · 2004-07-01 05:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Only use dialup. with a 14.4 modem.

Porn will take too long to transmit. They will be browsing without images in no time!

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 ;)

Proxy the Proxy by Eberlin · 2004-07-01 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not sure how all this is supposed to work and all, so anything I'm spouting off is strictly theoretical.

Couldn't someone float to a web-based proxy, get the stuff there, and pass it through the filters? If it's keyword-based, you could even probably parse it through a "translator" to get rid of those particular words.

It mentioned pushing traffic through the proxy -- does this mean that it'll be strictly on port 80? No FTP, no NNTP, no SMTP/POP, no Realplayer streams? Sounds lovely already.

I work at a place that does content filtering -- all MS-based with the proxy/filter hardwired to IE (this implies a few things, but I'll leave that as an exercise). Though this stops most folks from getting to certain places, the filter doesn't do too well taking out the IP-based addresses that some porn popups are made of. Even better, it won't stop anyone from receiving valid web-based e-mails that may contain "objectionable content" either in text or as attachments.

I believe filters are made to comply with rules. Otherwise, totalitarian dictator admins would simply restrict access to every port but 80...and even then, subject that to some heavy filtering and logging.

You don't have kids, do you? by underpar · 2004-07-01 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are looking at this as though parents making mods or installing software are trying to prevent kids from looking at something they are actively searching for.

The real reason we want this stuff is so the kids won't stumble on to something bad they had no intention of finding. The lack of trust being demonstrated is a lack of trust toward every jerk on the internet that doesn't care about my kid.

That's my reason anyway. Does anyone here have kids?

Re:You don't have kids, do you? by underpar · 2004-07-01 06:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wouldn't let my son use a computer in his room unsupervised. I do want to be able to cook dinner or brush my hair while my kid looks up something he finds interesting online. I have a fenced in backyard so my son can go out and play with a slightly lower risk of wandering away. I still have to check on him, but the fence helps.

All safety devices CAN give a false sense of security. You know those little bath seats they have so 8 month olds can sit up in the bath tub? There are idiots that think it's okay to leave an infant alone in those things. I'm not one of those idiots. However, when my son was little I liked the fact that I could take my hands away for a minute.
Re:You don't have kids, do you? by glhturbo · 2004-07-01 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yep, Two boys ages 4 and 8 (see my reply above). I am worried about the accidental slips, but to be honest, I supervise my sons in the Internet because they might try looking (my 8-year old son knows a few kids in school who have most likely heard of www.playboy.com already...).

As a comparison, I also monitor their TV use. Am I in the room every minute checking up? No. Has my 8-year old tried watching something inappropriate? Hell, yes, but when I caught him, I didn't sue Comcast, or the TV maker, or write a letter to Congress. I kicked myself in the rear for not supervising him. I then explained what was wrong with the show he was watching, and tossed in some light discipline to make it stick. So far, so good...

What a waste... by InvaderXimian · 2004-07-01 06:05 · Score: 4, Funny

This whole article is a complete waste since we all know that people who use Linux cannot attract the opposite sex which therefore means that they won't ever be able to have children. Its in the GPL too, somewhere around the 30th line...

"If you can comprehend the aforementioned statements and use this software, you will not get laid. Ever. I know this because I'm RMS and chicks dig bearded guys. I haven't been laid yet so you won't either."

Still, we all know that chicks dig BSD instead.

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

You have GOT to be kidding! by Intraloper · 2004-07-01 06:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, but I don't want my 10 year old daughter to be seeing pictues of violent and abusive sex, whether staged or not. Neither will I want my son to do, when he gets old enoughj to staart using the computer. Not to mention the many sites of brutal, if putatively consensual, abuse of women that are also out there. At ten, she is NOT ready to see pictures of women beaten bloody, being pissed and shat upon, and enduring mutilation of tits and genitals. Hell, I'm in my 40's and some of that shit is hard for ME to dismiss from my mind if/when I see it. Turning a child loose on the internet without supervision, is the psychic equivalent of sending them out to play on the freeway, without even giving them Safety Orange vests to wear.

culture subscription by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-01 06:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why don't various culture magazines offer filtering proxies tuned to reflect their cultural values? Like a Web "Reader's Digest". Different magazines would draw lines differently around sex, violence, gender, and other sociopolitical issues. Their magazine editorial would fill that out, and let people make consistent decisions through these infomediaries.

Of course this scheme doesn't thwart the porn-hungry mormon teenager, or the santablind pre-barmitzva. That's an NP-complete problem: a bad kid will just go to a friend's unfiltered web terminal. But I note the Slashdot oracle's fortune at the bottom-right of this posing page:

It is a wise father that knows his own child. -- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"

--

--
make install -not war

ClarkConnect by nick13245 · 2004-07-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I have done several network installs for people who have kids, and want web content filtering. Generally what is set up a gateway machine with a distribution of linux called "ClarkConnect" clarkconnect.org which is designed specifically to be used as a gateway. It already has dansguardian and squid installed, as well as a iptables, dhcpd, and other various useful features. What I really like about it, is that it has a nice web interface which allows my customers to actually make changes to dansguardian/squid, the firewall, and other services without having to actually know any linux commands. It's very user friendly.

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:Bangbus is a work of genius. by dtrent · 2004-07-01 06:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whoa there conclusion jumper, did I say I wanted to ban bangbus? No, I said I don't want my young children seeing depictions of rape and the general lack of respect for women that I see there. What is "painfully obvious" to you and I isn't so obvious to a 7 year old.

Re:look at the typical people demanding filters... by bckrispi · 2004-07-01 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Considering that the people usually screaming the loudest for government to "protect" their children are usually the dimmest bulb in the marquee sign

You miss the point entirely. This article is good because it puts the power of filtering in the hands of the parent, where it belongs *NOT* the government.

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

You're obviously not a parent. If you were, you'd never make such a moronic statement. Kids do stupid things. You can teach your child not to run in the road - is that a guarantee that 100% of the time the lesson is going to stick?? Hell no!!!! That's why residential neighborhoods usually cap the speed limit at 25.

I don't see how filtering for linux is going to help. You're not very likely to find linux running in in a trailer park, folks.

Insightful, my ass. This article isn't for Joe Sixpack. It's for Linux users who want a filtering solution. If I'm a Linux user, and I want to apply net filtering for my kids, this is how I do it. Pretty simple logic, huh bubba??

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno

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."

Squid and SquidGuard by rossz · 2004-07-01 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Being a little smarter than the average websurfer, I set up squid+squidGuard and set my daughter's computer up to go through the Linux box. She could easily bypass this if she had ever taken the time to learn the basics about computing, but she has never shown any interest when I have offered to teach her. Doesn't really matter, in the next week or two I will be reconfiguring the entire home network to force everyone through the Linux box and use a transparent proxy system.

My proxy system enforces just a few basic rules:

IE is not allowed. Never ever. I'm not taking any chances with my network's security.
She loses internet access late at night. I got tired of telling her to shut down and go to bed every damn night, "just a few more minutes!" In her language a few more minutes == an hour.
Warez, porn, and hate sites are blocked. I don't think she'll go porn surfing on purpose, but she's a little quick to go to links without thinking about it. She's also too willing to believe fringe and conspiracy theories, but I think that's very typical of teenagers.
Music sharing programs are blocked. I told her to stop downloading pirated music as we couldn't afford an RIAA lawsuit, but she didn't listen to me, so now she can't even trade music when it's legal.

I told her straight out, if you think a blocked site is legit, just tell me and I'll see about unblocking it. I have blocked a few fringe science, religion, and political web sites. When she refused to discuss the contents with me, I blocked the sites. I was perfectly willing to leave them unblocked, but only if she was willing to discuss them rationally with my wife or myself.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth

Re:Squid and SquidGuard by rossz · 2004-07-01 08:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Typical. You and everyone else are quick to jump to conclusions about what kind of parent I am. I actually give her way more freedom than most parents would for a 13 year old girl. As she grows older and more mature, the proxy settings will be adjusted. Emotionally, however, there is a lot of bad shit she is not ready to deal with on her own.

Running squid is a compromise. I would prefer my wife or myself were around when she's browsing, but we can't be with her every moment. So we run squid and allow her reasonable unsupervised access. When we're at home, she can ask for a site to be unblocked. I've unblocked on several occassions.

I'm not blocking teen or women's health sites, and I'm not blocking political websites (except for some lunatic fringe places). I'm not blocking sites on sexuality (not even gay sexuality). I'm not blocking religious websites (except for one lunatic conspiracy theorist nut job foil-in-the-hat cult site).

As for a teens sexuality, I would prefer she learn about that from someplace besides hardcorewithdonkeys.com (I made this up, I don't actually know if it's real or not, nor do I wish to know).

I am no prude. Nudity does not bother me. If she wants to see nude pictures, fine with me. Hardcore, however, is out of the question. She's only 13, she's not ready for everything.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Squid and SquidGuard by lucas+teh+geek · 2004-07-02 04:29 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm not blocking religious websites (except for one lunatic conspiracy theorist nut job foil-in-the-hat cult site).

You're not letting her read slashdot?!?!?

--
TIAEAE!

"Especially porn" by niom · 2004-07-01 06:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not all parents want their children exposed to everything on the Internet, especially porn.

I find it strange that porn is the only content to be avoided that is explicitly mentioned by the story submitter and many comments. There are lots of things in the Internet that would be way more disturbing for children than porn, such as very extreme violence. Until that kind of content can be filtered I wouldn't even start thinking about filtering porn.

--
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".

Re:Still missing the point... by glhturbo · 2004-07-01 06:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fundamental flaw with this ... is the notion that kids under the age of 13 or so should be left alone to browse the net.

Fully agree...

My 8-year old has a list of bookmarks for sites that he is allowed by me to access. Additions to the list are pre-screened by me, and I'm not afraid to tell him why something will not get on the list. I try to hide the Address box so that he can't type in URLs, but sometimes I do forget... Not that it much matters. I have his computer in plain sight of mine, and I watch him on the 'Net, if I am not interacting with him at the time. I also monitor TV usage, friends that he plays with, etc...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not micro-managing him, nor am I always in his face. He has my trust and confidence to make a decision on his own. If I feel he makes the wrong one, I try to educate and guide him, and discipline if necessary.

A good first step... by thephotoman · 2004-07-01 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

This software should make Linux a more viable option for families, but parents need to remember that no software is a substitute for watching what their kids are doing online in person. That's really the only sure-fire way that no objectionable material gets into children's hands.

Of course, that's difficult to do in practice, especially with latchkey kids. That's why teaching responsibility on the Internet is more effective than just installing a web filter.

However, this could be used by corperations to keep their employees on task instead of goofing off on the Internet, too. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. However, it is probably a more useful application of the software than using it as a net nanny.

--
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

quick (and fairly easy) by oneishy · 2004-07-01 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative

I have used dansguardian on ipcop for several different sites (schools, homes etc), and have been please by the relative ease of installing (as far as linux stuff goes) and the configuration options.

I have used IPCOP v 1.2 and 1.3 w/o any problems. Sidenote :it runs well on an older pentium 133 box.

Just block sites with garish color schemes by Animats · 2004-07-01 07:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Porno spams seem to have distinctive color schemes. Who else uses large areas of saturated yellow? And where else do you see multiple animated GIFs larger than icon size?

Oh yeah, here

Re:look at the typical people demanding filters... by bckrispi · 2004-07-01 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

If careless drivers don't obey the 25-MPH speed limit sign, what's the probability that another sign is going to make any difference? Our neighborhood has "children at play" signs and people still drive down my street like bats out of hell.

I think the sign will make a small difference. I, personally have no qualms about doing 80 in a 65 if that matches the flow of traffic (living in Phoenix, this is a fact of life). Even at lower speeds, it's common for most drivers to "bend" the speed limit by 5 mph or so. If I know I'm in a residential neighborhood, and I'm aware that there are kids playing, (school zone, etc) I'm more apt to keep to the letter of the speed limit. More signs certainly not a "catch-all". If a jerk wants to fly through a school zone at 45, a sign isn't going to stop him. But I do believe that it does slow down a percentage of drivers (especially parents).

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno

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.

Are there any standards at all? by duck_prime · 2004-07-01 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The same parents who bitch about our educational system but who won't sit down with their kids and discuss what Johnny learned in school today will continue to scream and scream loudly.

Well and good, parents should indeed keep tabs on what their kids are told in school or see on TV or internet and help them interpret it.

That said, I can see parents getting annoyed when they have to fight a constant rear-guard action against smut, violence, and what-have-you everywhere. Despite what your parents tell you, it is undeniable that what the kids see around them is what they accept as normal. So parents do have a legitimate interest in public debate over what types of material are appropriate for public places / airwaves. And especially over how much of their own social/political philosophy teachers should be allowed to preach in classrooms.

There is an argument to be made between community standards, especially with respect to media which is so easy to see (often impossible not to see), and 1st amendment rights. Speech is protected, but ... is venue? Most folks are entirely happy that we don't have cig ads or graphic sex acts or murder or Druidic rituals on open billboards, and are happy to get any tool that helps.

What about TV filtering? by FrankAnemaet · 2004-07-01 09:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Long ago my parents where visiting friends, I was bored and checked tv to watch cartoons.
(I was 10/11 by then)
I turned on tv and saw porn.

--
-- Frank Anemaet irc.freenode.net frank

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.

offer drugs to my children??? by NumbThumb · 2004-07-01 09:49 · Score: 2, Funny

hell no, i would *ask* my children for drugs!

"ok, daddy, the first one is free..."

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.

Telnet to port 80 by shoppa · 2004-07-01 10:01 · Score: 2, Funny

My kids browse the web by telnetting to port 80 from my model 33 teletype. What am I supposed to be filtering out?

Barbie, McDonalds, etc. etc. by refactored · 2004-07-01 10:08 · Score: 3, Funny

You let your daughter go the Barbie site? Shudder Yeurgh. The poor girl, she'll grow up all twisted.

Honestly, though...... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 16:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't believe this is the same slashdot crowd that flames every other attempt at even the slightest application of censorship. (And, just a little while ago, was comparing their favorite pr0n mags)...

What's the point of all this? Explain to me, logically, how blocking the real world from a child is going to help him or her become more mature and prepared to deal with the same real world later on? Exactly what "mind warping" are you all so afraid of?

Come on, think about it...they can't stay in your little plastic bubble forever. All you're doing is stunting their mental growth (no pun intended).

Face it. The world is the world. You can't change that, no one can. Don't think about "protecting" them...think about preparing them. How are they ever going to become independent if you are working to prolong dependence and naivete?

I know I'll probably get modded troll for this, but it's an honest question: why censorship? What good, specifically, does it do?

Besides, unless you've seriosly locked down your machine (read: padlock+ ), it's pretty trivial to bypass these little pieces of software... Knoppix CD, anyone?

Even if they aren't able to bypass it (say you've set up a Fort Knox of padlocks, bios passwords, bootloader passwords, system passwords, filtering at the gateway, filtering off-site, etc), it's only a matter of time before they try looking for the same stuff on a different, less "protected" computer. And thus, they just will become resentful towards you....

Just my $0.02
(And no, I'm not a parent :) ). (So flame on :) )....

Slashdot Mirror

A Parent's Guide To Linux Web Filtering

127 of 529 comments (clear)