Slashdot Mirror
Child-Suitable Alternatives To Passwords?
An anonymous reader writes "Two months ago I donated my old PC to my little sister, who is 7 — I had promised she would get her own computer as soon as she can read and write properly. I then proceeded to answer her questions about how it works, as far as she inquired, and tried to let her make some choices when installing Debian (she can already use GNOME). As I explained password protection and encryption to her, I was pleasantly surprised when she insisted on protection measures being as strong as possible, so that no one else can screw with her computer. She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent. The significant problem is that she cannot permanently memorize abstract passwords, even if they are her own creation. I talked with a teacher who assured me that this is common at her age. My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords. What mechanism of identifying herself does the Slashdot crowd suggest?"
Would a fingerprint reader be suitable?
Have her make a pattern on the keyboard that she can remember. I've actually had a number of PIN codes that I didn't actually remember apart from the pattern they make on the numeric keypad.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Why on earth should a 7 year old be able maintain privacy on a computer that can serve as a portal to many nasty things?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I would suggest the parents have the root password, and their child can ask them to reset her password when she forgets.
Parents guessing the password of a seven year old is ridiculous, is this a serious question ?
Otherwise, quit undermining your parents and let them raise your sister. You can contribute if you want by teaching her about computers, but do it in assistance to your parents, not in opposition.
Seriously, she's 7?!
I have two daughters around the same age. They share a computer that we gave them for xmas. They have their own accounts, with their own passwords and my wife and I maintain the Administrator account. I could not fathom them having an Internet-accessible computer without us having full control over it.
Am I missing the point ? Because when I read:
"My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords"
it sounds to me like you're trying to keep a 7 year-old's parents off of a computer she uses when they have every right (and reason / responsibility in this day in age) to know what their young child is doing on a computer.
Of course I am all for teaching kids how to be security conscious and protect their private data. But it's a fine balance. Parents need to keep themselves in the loop in order to, you know, be effective parents.
Have her take a favorite book, start at a random page (or first page if she only needs to keep family members off.) Read the first letter of each page for 10 pages.
On a different topic, you said one thing that shocked me:
She's 7. I don't know how old your younger brother is, but at some age, it is a reasonable thing for a parent to do. It cannot suppliment for parenting, but it can be handy to insist on a website whitelist, or 2-hour cutoff.
Seven-year-olds shouldn't have the full rights of adults.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I noticed the same thing. Also the quote how the brother had to "endure" parental control software. We're talking about a 7-year old. There should be parental supervision, education, and monitoring.
With phrases like "She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent" and "My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords" you are clearly trying to undermine your parents. I know that children, though you don't give your age, usually think that they know better than their parents, but guess what: it isn't usually true! I hope that your parents are smart enough to take your sisters computer away if you succeed in locking them out.
For instance, in high school I listened to Tomorrow Never Knows off of the Revolver record by The Beatles nonstop. Since I know every lyric of that song, I might pick the opening line: Turn off your mind, relax and flow downstream Which would render the password: Toym,rafd Not a bad password, in my opinion. You could do the same with the opening line of a book, quote from a movie, TV show or even a line from a poem. All of these things are very memorable and produce hard to break passwords.
My work here is dung.
I agree. At that age, her dealings with computers (particularly computers with Internet access) should be closely monitored by her parents. She should set up a password and be instructed not to tell other people what it is in order to get her into the habit of good security practices, but her parents should nevertheless know the password (or some other way to access the computer).
Of course, my son is 8 and he's only allowed to use the computer in the living room, and we can easily see what he's doing on it at all times. Kids are already going to obsess about keeping things from their parents when they're teenagers, there's no reason to start building that barrier when they're only 7.
This can be solved by giving the parents the root password and letting the girl keep a secret password. That makes it so that she gets the feeling of privacy and, for the most part, the reality of privacy while still allowing the parents to do and see whatever they want on the computer.
Yes, and I'm questioning two aspects of that:
Why the parents need to be kept out, and why the AC thinks that any password will keep out parents who presumably have physical access to the system.
If the parents are taking an interest in keeping young children safe, then by all means let 'em.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Thank you to all who have pointed out that perhaps locking the parents out is not a sensible goal. While I think it is good for a child this age to understand the concepts of security and privacy, I don't think that it is reasonable for a minor to expect her own little private computing world, free of parental control. There should be some semblance of openness and trust in a healthy household, particularly between parents and their children.
Memory... a seven year old's is quite fluid. "My favorite food is steak" might morph into "My favorite food is ice cream" or "I like steak" or "I like eating" or "I like my little pony". Passphrases might be easier than g%jP22094jmqqlDMSk, but they're still memory-based.
That judgement is learned, generally through the parents. And yes, you'll see lots of adults using their parents' poor judgement.
The second reason is that it helps prevent parent ignorance. If the parents participate in her "computer experience" they will become experienced, too. The younger kid had to endure safe-surf software because the parents didn't want to surf with the kid.
What gets me is that a 7-yo actually feels the need to hide things from her parents. This can be from watching her brother and deciding his frustration was bad, or it could be because she doesn't trust them so much.
Quit posting crap articles like this...this is obviously about a 14 year old boy that thinks his sister needs security from his clueless parents.
You need to stay the hell out of your parent's business.
When you have a 7-year-old, feel free to lock yourself out of their PC.
Is it not, after all, a fundamental not only on Slashdot but of security in general that any security can be broken if you have physical access to the boxen?
In any case, I think as a primary corollary to your first question, one really needs to ask whether this is a decision that the submitter should be making with his sister. It seems to me, that with all of the talk on Slashdot about 'we must blame the parents who do not take care of their children', this is a decision the parents need to make with their daughter (or that she needs to make alone and can then argue with them afterwards about).
It seems like a ripe situation for family conflict when the (brother, presumably) interposes himself as he is doing here.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
You nailed it.
As a parent, there's no way in a hell a 7 year old will have a lock down to keep mom and dad out, no responsible parent will allow such a thing, and the machine gets taken away if such a practice is put into place.
When your 18, go right ahead and make the 53 ch4R@ct3R password to lock your machine up, until then, accept the fact that you are the child and we are the parent, and you don't get root access or personal and private encryption, you ask the IT department (dad).
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There is a giant leap between "kids have a right to privacy" and "kids need to be monitored 24/7." Kids have a right not to be under constant interrogation and inspection by their parents, but not a right to privacy when the parent thinks it's necessary to inspect what the child has been doing. That's just parenting common sense.
Or it can just be for the same reason that kids like having a "secret hideout" or "secret clubs" or whatever. Like everyone else, they like space --whether physical or conceptual-- that is their own.
Children, even that young, DO need a certain amount of privacy. But that's too young to be having privacy from parents in connection with her interactions with the outside world, and her interactions with the random & anonymous people that she'll meet there.
And being in her own room gives a very dangerous illusion of complete safety-- she would probably want parents present when wandering through a large, bustling crowd of unfamiliar grown-ups, but she's far less likely to recognize any danger when she's alone in her house with her parents in the next room.
If this computer is not connected to the internet, then sure, let her have a password that keeps her parents out of the computer. It's like having a room with a door that closes, or a diary that no one else is allowed to read.
But if it's attached to the Internet? That's another story. Her parents NEED to be involved.
Diaries aren't connected to the internet.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
You can't take the sky from me...
The parents are, however, legally responsible for the child's actions. As such, it is entirely reasonable for them to have unfettered access to the child's person and effects.
Children don't -get- privacy from their parents, unless the parents should choose to give it to them. A family is not a democracy--it is a dictatorship.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
This can be solved by giving the parents the root password and letting the girl keep a secret password. That makes it so that she gets the feeling of privacy and, for the most part, the reality of privacy while still allowing the parents to do and see whatever they want on the computer.
That's a slippery slope. A seven-year-old child should be entitled to the kind of privacy necessary to protect their dignity (in other words, the same privacy to which any human is entitled) and keep them safe. Sending the message that it's acceptable to do things on a computer that the parents won't know about (whether or not that is true) is extending far too much discretion to someone who lacks the maturity to make wise decisions.
A computer is a (potential) gateway into the worlds of people who would knowingly do harm to a child for their own gratification, and children often times lack the experience to know when they are being manipulated into compromising positions.
hell, no wonder so many kids get screwed up and run away at 16.
A family is most definately *not* a dictatorship. It's a family, which has its own dynamic. Respecting the rights of the child (one of those rights is the right to privacy btw.) is fundamental to a healthy functioning family. In turn they should respect your wish to know what they're doing - but not every detail (and you will never find that out anyway).
Responsibility of the parent doesn't make it a dictatorship, legally or otherwise.
I'm shocked that anyone would even think that. A child with no freedom and no room to grow would turn out to be a basket case. I'd wager social services would get involved at some point.
I totally agree with you here. I have 3 children who use the computer(s) in my house, and I made it VERY clear that they have no reasonable right to expect privacy. I will read their email, read their IMs and view their screen with vnc whenever I feel the need to. I own the computer, I own the networking equipment and pay for the connection(s) to the internet. Just with their cells phones, I own them and can check txt messages, pictures, etc any time I wish. Anytime they feel that their privacy is being violated, I tell them they are free to hand back over the phones and are free to discontinue use of the computers. I have passwords to all their email accounts, both the ones I host on my domain and their yahoo and MSN accounts.
Now, don't get me wrong, i don't monitor every email all the time, nor do I sniff their network traffic all the time. I DO trust them online, they have earned my trust (to get a myspace account, my daughter had to write a 2 page paper on internet stalkers and how to avoid them). However, if I see a change in behavior they don't care to discuss with me, I have EVERY right and the responsibility to find out what's wrong in any way that I need to.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
"As a parent, there's no way in a hell a 7 year old will have a lock down to keep mom and dad out, no responsible parent will allow such a thing, and the machine gets taken away if such a practice is put into place."
I did not understand that point of view at 7, and I do not agree with it a 40-something.
It seems to go without saying that children are not entitled to privacy from their parents. I say it is up to the individual parent. Many parents DO respect their children enough to give them privacy. Some consider doing otherwise to be a form of abuse.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
So I guess you're saying I, as a 16 year old, have no right to my 47 character password... (yes, I do actually have a 47 character random password for rare use.)
...ok, maybe you're right. Let the parents install security software, and teach her how to get around it.
I do agree that 7 years old is a bit young for that, but in my case, it's my computer, I paid for it, I can do what I want with it...as is the case here. It's her computer, let her do what she wants. How is she gonna learn anything if the whole system is locked down? I would not be a future computer science major if my parents controlled everything I did on the computer. The main reason I know as much as I do about computers (enough to let me take and easily pass 300 level college courses while still in high school) is from trying to get away from that kind of control.
If the computer isn't connected to the net (and they aren't able to load inappropriate stuff their friend gave them on a thumb drive), then I don't need access to it. Likewise with a journal. No one ever got kidnapped, raped, and murdered by someone they met by writing in a private journal, and material which the child isn't emotionally and developmentally ready for never spontaneously appeared in it.
Plug it in to the net, or notice little Bobby or Susy loading up stuff on it that you don't recognize from friends, then you bet it's time to want to know what's going on. Kids aren't adults, they don't get the same level of privacy from their parents that adults do, nor should they.
Parents need involvement in their kids lives, it's the way that they shape and mold their kids into functional balanced adults, as well as protect them from dangers the kid doesn't realize exist or doesn't believe in. It's the mark of a good parent, and it's something that's lacking in too many parents.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Hah, I don't remember a single point in time I hadn't r00t on all boxes in my home, and I always had at least one computer at home since I was three.
Either you're young enough that you're not a parent (i.e., that "computer when you were 3" was a Windows 95 machine) or you're old enough that the computer you had at home had no real user account control.
TODAY, with the internet everywhere, control of a household computer is as important as control of a household medicine cabinet or control of the family car. You might trust a teenager with it, but if you're stupid enough to trust a seven year old with it you should have your children taken away.
I agree; that's a parental decision. I wouldn't let my daughter (especially back when she was anywhere near 7 years old) use a computer that I wouldn't have access to.
I'm not saying I would use that access. I'm suggesting that 7 is too young to need it.
Side note--I thought we all agreed 5 years ago that 'boxen' was stupid.
I neither know or care anything about rising children. I will learn if I ever have any. I simply answered the question "why the parents need to be kept out"; since the summary gave me the impression that the it is the child who wants a "parent-proof" PC, I took this question to mean "why would a child want to keep its parents out".
You are seeing moral judgements where there is none, merely an attempt to see the world through someone elses - the kids, in this case - eyes while attempting to solve an interesting problem: how to secure a computer against an attacker who has physical access to both it and the onwer. Since the rest of your post proceeds from this flawed assumption, commenting on it further would be pointless.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
He comprehended you just fine. My question is, what color is the sky on your world?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Uh ... wait. "Cybernanny" software for high schoolers, yeah, I can see where that's the wrong approach. But what's the problem installing it on a computer for a seven-year-old? There really is a lot of really foul stuff on the Web, and stumbling on it by accident isn't uncommon. Why allow the child's experience to be colored by that?
Breakfast served all day!