Police Chief Teaches Parents To Keylog Kids

Hugh Pickens writes writes "LiveScience reports that James Batelli, the police chief of Mahwah, NJ, and his detectives conduct seminars that teach parents how to outfit a computer with keystroke logging software, giving them access to the full spectrum of their kids' online activities. Batelli explains that kids put themselves in potentially dangerous situations online every day, especially on Facebook, where they run the risk of coming into contact with child predators who troll the social networking site. 'When it comes down to safety and welfare of your child, I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children,' he says."

Comments

Nope

[Anrego]

I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children

If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online that you need this.. then you forgot to sacrifice something somewhere along the way.

No, you can't watch your kids all the time .. and at a certain age you can't just say "internet only when I'm around" either.

You can however educate your child on the risks out there, and have a good understanding of your childs judgment is.

Re:Nope

[cheekyjohnson]

But... I thought that education was bad! They need to be able to happily live in their little bubbles thinking that society has no bad qualities. Banning/censoring/nannying is so much easier...

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

"In order to save the village, we had to destroy it" comes to mind.

Or "never time to do it right, always time do fsck it up and try something even worse" perhaps.

If parents'd done their homework, there'd be no problem. But they haven't, so this guy's "teaching" some half-assed catch-up technique that doesn't scale next to the drawbacks of being highly unethical and is bound to lose the parents their childrens' trust if (inevitably) found out. So the value of teaching this is mostly in how it's eventually self-defeating. The fact that a holder of public trust thinks its acceptable to teach this I find... telling.

As a parent you can insist that no internet access happens unsupervised ("training wheels") until it's time to take off the training wheels. If you don't understand that, then internet access is the least of your parenting worries.

Re:Nope

[louic]

It also reminds me of the story of Perceval. As I remember it, a mother brought up her kid in a forest to protect him, after her husband (a knight) was killed in battle. The only thing she achieved with this was that the first time the young boy accidentally saw a knight in shiny armor wandering in the forest, he first thought it was a god, and from that moment on, all he wanted to do was become a knight.

Children need to be protected, but not overprotected. They need to be ready for a society where the naive are being used by the not-so-naive.

Before there were computers and the Big Evil Internet, did parents follow their children everywhere when they were playing outside to make sure they did not accidentally see a porn magazine? (at the time, the older brother of your children's best friend usually had them). Did they rig their kid's Walkman to record everything they said, in order to later check if it was "acceptable"?

Re:Nope

[houghi]

Reminds me of a girl in my class. She was not allowed contact with any of the other kids. He parents were very over protective. Then at 18, she was old enough according to her parents and was left loose. In about 3 months she became the school slut, because she had no idea how to correctly interact with others.

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

It is basically the standard: do not take candy from strangers. I was raised in such a way that I would not even take candy from neighbors and if my parents were there and some neighbor wanted to give me candy, I would aks my parents first.

Education on what to do is the best thing you can give your kid. Not only so he won't get raped (which happens way more with people they know then with people they don't) and murdered, but s they have a basis for the rest of their life on how to handle situations.

As a parent you are NOT the babysitter and you are NOT their friend. You are the parent and YOU need to see that they learn as much as possible. Putting them in a cocoon will take the ability to learn away.

Protection is a short term goal. As a parent you need to look at the long term goal. 20+ years from the start.

Re:Nope

[wisty]

Remove unacceptable hazards (hot oil, going to a sleep over with a kid you have only chatted to online, and playing in traffic), but don't about acceptable ones (hot metal, p0rn, and other non-life-threatening things).

Re:Nope

[physicsphairy]

If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online that you need this.. then you forgot to sacrifice something somewhere along the way.

You *are* that out of touch with what your kid does, and it's not because of a lack of parenting. It's because they are free and sovereign creatures. The child you see and interact with everyday is not the full expanse of your kid--it is the expression of words and actions your kid has learned avoids your ire and keeps the allowance money flowing. You hope there is a good correspondence, but it's not guaranteed. If your kid is up against some dark inclinations, he or she will realize that telling you could have negative results, and that not telling you keeps the situation fully under their control. Will they approach you if you try to always be open and loving? *Maybe.* Who even knows how to raise a kid properly? A kid could have a terrible abusive alcoholic father and follow the same pattern that he sees; he could have a terrible alcoholic father and realize how much he loathes selfishness and violence, becoming the kindest person you would ever meet.

Besides that, kids are curious. You can teach them something is bad, and have them fully 100% believe you, and they will still wind up seeking it out.

What it comes down to is teaching your kids to live life in the proper pattern and hope that when they're older the "don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong." Otherwise, all you can do is exemplify those values in a way you think will give them a desire to emulate you.

On this basis, I think it is entirely appropriate to keep tabs on them: or at least let them know the possibility is there. It's not a matter of questioning their judgment: their judgment is stupid and will continue to be stupid long after they leave the nest. It's about keeping them in the habit of third person perspective (how does my deed look when viewed outside my personal selfishness?) and strongly ingraining good habits so that when they go out and flop (the final lessons always have to be learned by experience) they have a nice deep groove to fall back into.

Re:Nope

[Anrego]

I think there is a huge difference between meeting up with someone they're chatting with online and the other usual childhood "behind the parents back" type stuff that we all did and expect our kids to do (though will probably still freak out over).

Do you think your kid is going to actually put him/her self in real danger? Ok.. then yeah.. surveillance mode, but I would probably use some other tactic then this, and at the very least would tell the kid about it.

Beyond that, I think standard passive monitoring is called for. My parents didn't follow me around everywhere, but they had a pretty good idea of who I hung out with, and always knew where I was. I think the same kind of approach can be taken to the online world.

Re:Nope

[cheekyjohnson]

he could have a terrible alcoholic father and realize how much he loathes selfishness and violence, becoming the kindest person you would ever meet.

It's possible if they have strong willpower, but this does not usually happen.

"don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong."

Neither of those are very good explanations. Neither answer the question of "why." Besides that, there are far better methods of attempting to reach an agreement with someone than physical abuse.

their judgment is stupid and will continue to be stupid long after they leave the nest.

That really depends on the person, now doesn't it?

Re:Nope

[nahdude812]

Very well said! Every time a story like this comes up, you get people like GP who say, "If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online..." These statements are ironic in the true sense though; the author self-admits that you should be keeping tabs on your kid (by suggesting you're doing it wrong if you're not), then lashes out at tools which enable this in the same breath. It strikes me as a surprising lack of critical thinking.

There seems to be some sort of confusion in the sense that people don't recognize that protective actions by parents are necessarily suggested for every kid of every age until the day they turn 18. Somehow they fail to realize that most parents actually are reasoning adults who are capable of making decisions about when it is and isn't appropriate to give children privacy. They simply see a tool which could be abused and therefore assume this is its only intent, and that therefore makes the tool unjustified (demonstrated so by construction of a straw man example of a child who has outgrown the need for the tool).

Children do in fact not have the same rights as adults. This is correct and appropriate. As they approach adulthood, they should be granted more and more of those rights by their parents, according to that child's development.

The real affront in this article is that this isn't a very effective way to keep an eye on your kids. The assumption is that a keystroke logger will pierce the children's activity. If the child wants to keep something secret, they will only use the monitored computer for updates they're ok sharing, while they use a school, library, or friend's computer for anything else. If you keep the monitoring secret, it represents dishonesty with your child (which might be necessary, but should be avoided except when there's an extenuating circumstance). If kept entirely secret, it will probably do an adequate job for a while, but that secret is ruined the first time you act in any way on the knowledge it provides.

Instead for things like social networks, if you feel your child should be monitored, you should require access to their profile, and you should require that you know who each of their friends are. Especially at younger ages, presuming many parents are acting the same way, this knowing who each of the friends are prevents proxy identities from being effective (other children will not be able to explain who the proxy is, so they can't friend the proxy, and the proxy is therefore of no value).

Children do not have a right to privacy in what they do online. Eventually of course you have to trust your children, but this should manifest by less and less frequent checking of their activity, not by never having checked in the first place.

Re:Nope

[HungryHobo]

I spent most of my free time for a big chunk of my childhood from about age 8 to 12 down at the local river /stream building damns and rafts with some of the neighbourhood kids about a mile from home.

when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."

In that time I never put myself in any more danger than I did climbing trees in my parents garden. Some danger but no more than the norm.
My parents had a fair idea of roughly where I was and had instilled in me the basics of not killing myself.

When we got an internet connection when I was 12 or 13 they instilled the basics of "don't give out your details online, don't give out your location online" which is really really really easy to follow if you're not an unusually thick child.

being a 13 year old boy I looked at quite a lot of pornography, went on a lot of forums and a lot of chat rooms but not once did I ever get approached by any kind of child predator or anyone trying to dig my location/details out of me.

the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top.
Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.

Re:Nope

[digitig]

And there's a transition between those two stages. Just like the first time my kids walked to school "on their own" we followed a discreet distance behind, for a couple of months after we started letting the kids online "unsupervised" we ran key logging. Ok, my son turned out to browse to a lot of websites featuring large-breasted women inadequately attired for the local climate, but I figured that was pretty normal and turned off key logging again.

Re:Nope

[drinkypoo]

the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top.
Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.

I agree with you in principle; I spent most of my childhood roaming all over Santa Cruz county, which is pretty big. Walked from La Selva to downtown Santa Cruz and then back to Capitola as a tween... for lack of bus money.

On the other hand, I think the internet does for pedophiles who want to find vulnerable children what it does for lonely men sitting at home looking for pictures of boobies.

Re:Nope

[h4rm0ny]

when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."

I would be so proud of a child of mine that came up with that. Seriously, the main thing these parents will teach their children is it's okay to spy on people and they shouldn't trust their parents (and that their parents don't trust them).

Seriously fucked up.

Re:Nope

[PopeRatzo]

Reminds me of a girl in my class. She was not allowed contact with any of the other kids. He parents were very over protective. Then at 18, she was old enough according to her parents and was left loose. In about 3 months she became the school slut, because she had no idea how to correctly interact with others.

And yet she was still able to become the governor of Alaska.

Shows the resilience of the human spirit.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, I think the internet does for pedophiles who want to find vulnerable children what it does for lonely men sitting at home looking for pictures of boobies.

Not really, these kinds of arguments always ignore lots of practical problems with this. How many adults, of any age, can successfully pretend to be a teen/tween/kid convincingly when talking to someone that's actually that age? How many kids/tweens/teens are going to be interested in that kind of conversation? (And if your kid is, you have bigger concerns than the Internet.) How many of these supposed child predators are going to manage to find a real kid/tween/teen instead of a vigilante and/or cop instead? Hell, if they exist in any large numbers, they probably end up trolling each other more often than they do real underage people.

The ones that get caught, and law enforcement parades through the news, are the stupid ones, the ones that really aren't a danger to anyone but themselves. The real dangerous child predators out there aren't trolling Facebook or other social media sites, they're building their own connections on darknets and things like Tor/Freenet. Law enforcement wants you to think otherwise, which is why they trot out the idiots they do manage to catch and make it a big media show. Just remember, whenever you see that, it's probably nothing but a media show ~80% of the time (or more). And law enforcement has an abysmal track record doing stings of the real dangerous predators, they tend to take shortcuts (like that one they did in England where they took over a CP site and then went after all the credit card holders who'd bought access.... and only years later finally realized they'd mostly gotten innocents whose cards were stolen. There were many suicides by innocent people over that one).

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the internet does for pedophiles who want to find vulnerable children what it does for lonely men sitting at home looking for pictures of boobies.

Not quite the same. You don't go to jail if the cops kick your door in and find pictures of boobies on your computer... Well unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Anotheristan :).

Re:Nope

[rolfwind]

If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online that you need this.. then you forgot to sacrifice something somewhere along the way.

I kinda knew this would be the standard /. response. However, kids lie and lie well. Many probably know how to wipe their history. Many won't and don't know how to check for a keylogger. And in the end, honestly, I don't think there is enough hours in the day to know "everything your kid is doing."

I think I might use something like this. But not to spy on their internet activity. Just when I was in MS/HS, I knew a few kids that went missing or ran away with an older person. Then, such a tool would get you way ahead of the game on might have happened.

Of course, there will be abuse of the tool. It would be perching on your kid's shoulder, and if they sense you are doing that, they'll just as soon seek another computer, or go to a friend's computer, or from a school computer find out how to bypass it a million different ways (Linux Live CD for one if no BIOS PW). And I know parents who go out of their way to make sure their older HS kids don't look at porn. If they are actively seeking it out, they're old enough to look, imo - though it might signal a talk, not restrictions.

But I'm sure the likely outcome to the Police Chief's talks is that more than a few people will start spying on their spouses.

Re:Nope

[realityimpaired]

I trust my kids. I don't trust the Internet. I recognize that my kids are intelligent and capable of making decisions on their own, but I also recognize how easy it is for somebody who's more intellectually and emotionally mature to manipulate their decision-making process.

It's not about giving your kids privacy, it's about protecting them from the weirdos on the web.

That said, there are better ways to approach this than installing keylogging software on their computers. I had "the talk" with them about not accepting friend requests from people they don't know IRL a long time ago, and while their use is basically unsupervised at this point, they also know that I have their e-mail and facebook passwords, and can log in to check at any time. Trust is a two-way street, however... I never log in to check if they aren't with me while I'm doing it, and I never actually *read* their e-mail, I just look for senders that aren't friends of theirs that I know.

Re:Nope

[karnal]

hot metal, p0rn,

This just gives me an odd vision.

Re:Nope

[demonlapin]

As a general rule, I'm on your side of this debate, but let's not forget that porn these days is VERY different from what was around not so long ago. I graduated from high school in 1993, just before the Internet arrived for the general public - there was no ISP in town when I came home from my freshman year of college, while there were numerous choices the next year. The total collection of porn that my friends and I had was one or two magazines each. One guy (who had two older brothers) had a single porn video. You can see more porn photos in ten minutes online than I saw before my nineteenth birthday.

I'm not saying it's necessarily bad. But I've had discussions along these lines with numerous parents, and there are quite a few who don't care about the basic nekkid chixx but are a bit worried they'll have a son who gets into some bizarre fetish porn. The best they've been able to come up with is something along the lines of "computers in the family rooms only as long as I'm paying for it".

Re:Nope

[demonlapin]

pretend to be a teen/tween/kid convincingly when talking to someone that's actually that age?

When I was twelve, I was dying to be older (and to be treated as though I were older). Weren't you? I'd imagine that the pedo thing isn't to pretend to be thirteen, it's to pretend that your mark is interesting and, like, soooo mature.

Re:Nope

[demonlapin]

secret is ruined the first time you act in any way on the knowledge it provides

I dunno. I'm 36, and there are a couple of things my parents figured out when I was in high school that I still haven't figured out how they knew.

Re:Nope

[Gerzel]

Not out of touch really.

The phrase "trust but verify" comes to mind; also the fact that I really don't want to have to literally look over my kids' shoulders every minute they are online.

Keyloggers are an excellent tool for a parent to keep up on what their children are doing on their (the parents') computers. If I had children of that age you can bed any computer they had access to would have a keylogger, possibly hardware and software versions.

It is a parent's responsibility to keep reasonable control and watch over his or her children in order to be able to protect and guide them towards becoming responsible adults.

I didn't have a keylogger or anything like that on my computer at that age and I would certainly have been outraged if my parents had tried. I also would have done stuff had the logger been installed and properly checked that would have gotten me in trouble. It would certainly be hypocritical of me in a way to install a keylogger on my children's computers but as a parent my job is not to guard against hypocrisy.

Re:Nope

[arivanov]

Doubly wrong: "I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children"

1. There is something any parent must never sacrifice - it is the children future. If children are not educated in what danger is, what risk is and how to deal with them they will never ever succeed in life. The first really danegerous thing coming their way once they are outside their parents protective envelope and they are done.

2. "Nothing happens to their children" - most cretinous idea possible. Sorry, I would like stuff to happen to my children so that they learn. I do not stand right next to them in the playground and always keep at least a few paces distance. I let them fall and collect the usual playground bumps and bruises so that they do not grow up stupid uncontrollable delinquents who have no sense of danger. People laugh at the two proverbial parents standing next to a child which is trying to climb a tree in a cycling helmet for safety. Guess what, my son went and put his helment himself the first time he tried to conquer the apple in our back yard. At the age of three. I noticed what he was doing once he was already half the way up.

It is the parent's obligation to ensure that the children are not exposed to excessive danger or danger which they are not capable of handling just yet. However, limiting it to the point where "nothing happens" is the worst a parent can do.

Re:Nope

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There are only really three things that every need to be explained to children about the internet.

1. Everything you do online is monitored and recorded. Everything.
2. Everything you send or receive over the net is saved and stored in at least one place. Forever.
3. If you arrange to meet someone you met online in real life and something terrible happens to you, then it will be your fault and no-one else's.

That's really it. If your child is the greater fool, you may need to spell out some of these points in more detail. but overall a simple emphasis on taking responsibility for their own actions will be far, far more beneficial than vaguely hinting at dangers or outright denying access. Installing keyloggers is underhanded, creepy and frankly beneath contempt.

My basic point is that all you have to say is that there are griefers and perverts online and avoiding them is super-easy. Calmly make the point that quite apart from the loss of your child, knowing that they were stupid enough to get killed by someone they met online would stain the family reputation for generations. Show them newspaper clippings of children who have met such a fate and ask: "Do you want your face to be here someday; Above a sorid sex story and opposite the Page Three Girl? Is this how you want the world to remember you? Should this be your obituary.".

If you do this, you've done your bit. Your conscience is clear. Let them browse and come what may.

Re:Nope

[Cheech Wizard]

Too bad I don't have any mod points right now to mod you up. I'm LMAO!

Re:Nope

[SuricouRaven]

"I spent most of my free time for a big chunk of my childhood from about age 8 to 12 down at the local river /stream building damns and rafts with some of the neighbourhood kids about a mile from home."

Any parent today who let their child do that would not only horrify everyone else in the community, but risk social services getting involved. Children today are much more protected than they used to be. Things that were common back then just arn't permitted any more, at least not without a stack of risk assessments filled out in triplicate and under the supervision of a person trained in first aid and with a clean criminal records check.

"the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top."

I blame the media for that one. Child predators make very good news - great for the ratings.

Re:Nope

[drinkypoo]

Not really, these kinds of arguments always ignore lots of practical problems with this.

Oh good, this will be fun.

How many adults, of any age, can successfully pretend to be a teen/tween/kid convincingly when talking to someone that's actually that age?

So the only way predators are going to lure your kids is by pretending to be one?

How many kids/tweens/teens are going to be interested in that kind of conversation?

Probably lots of them. A friend who manages an arcade and I were standing by a machine when two young girls maybe just barely tweening just came up and stood by the machine for a while kind of tittering. We ignored them long enough to finish a sentence and then looked at them and they just tittered some more. I said "Can we help you?" and they ran off, still tittering. Kids are sexualized at a very young age by both society and hormones. We used to marry 'em off around that age as SOP because hormones are hazardous.

(And if your kid is, you have bigger concerns than the Internet.)

Welcome to life.

How many of these supposed child predators are going to manage to find a real kid/tween/teen instead of a vigilante and/or cop instead?

There are way more kids than fake kids.

Hell, if they exist in any large numbers, they probably end up trolling each other more often than they do real underage people.

Assuming, you mean, that they exist in numbers larger than the kids? Which is a ridiculous assumption?

The ones that get caught, and law enforcement parades through the news, are the stupid ones, the ones that really aren't a danger to anyone but themselves.

Fascinating premise, but it's irrelevant. We're talking about the ones who don't get caught.

The real dangerous child predators out there aren't trolling Facebook or other social media sites, they're building their own connections on darknets and things like Tor/Freenet.

No, that's what people trading child porn do. People who want to molest children are going to want to come into contact with children.

Law enforcement wants you to think otherwise, which is why they trot out the idiots they do manage to catch and make it a big media show. Just remember, whenever you see that, it's probably nothing but a media show ~80% of the time (or more).

Uh no. They do however want you to believe that it's a bigger problem than it is. That doesn't make it not a problem. It does mean that you should childproof your cabinets before you worry about nasty men creeping into your house and stealing your baby.

And law enforcement has an abysmal track record doing stings of the real dangerous predators, they tend to take shortcuts

Now you're discussing law enforcement's response to actual dangerous predators, the ones you just told us not to worry about.

My point is not that there is a high probability of any given child coming into contact with a sexual predator. My point is that it is a real problem, and taking means to protect against it is the responsible thing to do.

Finally, I believe that you should use whitelisting and keylogging until your child is responsible enough to not need monitoring. I don't have kids. I do remember what it was like to be a kid. When I grew up I was the computer expert explaining stuff to my mom who was just getting into computers because her profession (graphic arts) was just becoming computerized, so it's not like these measures would have worked on me anyway. I was 15 before I met anyone from anything online (a BBS) in person. She ended up being my first girlfriend. I went to a house to meet her... but I was about six feet tall at the time, not really the kind of "child" being targeted for abuse.

Re:Nope

[TheRaven64]

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

The point of childproofing is not to prevent your child from getting hurt, it's to prevent your child from permanent injury or death. Very few people learn a valuable lesson by dying.

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

the author self-admits that you should be keeping tabs on your kid (by suggesting you're doing it wrong if you're not), then lashes out at tools which enable this in the same breath.

There's a difference between keeping tabs on your kid by, say, talking to them (and their friends), and effectively forcing them to wear a wire.

Children do in fact not have the same rights as adults. This is correct and appropriate.

I agree. However, the longer you treat them as a child, and the less you're willing to grant them adult rights and responsibilities as they earn them, the more you're going to lose control.

If the child wants to keep something secret, they will only use the monitored computer for updates they're ok sharing, while they use a school, library, or friend's computer for anything else.

Unless, of course, all of these are monitored. Also, if you actually read the article, you'd realize this isn't about monitoring the computer, it's about getting access to the child's Facebook account so that it doesn't matter what computer they use.

Re:Nope

[Hylandr]

Which is worse, having your child's online privacy invaded, or your child's privacy invaded by a speculum by the OB when she's going in for her prenatal checkup?

I have 8 children, so I can speak authoritatively on this subject.
My Kidz have no expectation of privacy at all. I get a copy of every email they receive, and every computer is in the living room. Educating them of the risks, will only make them curious, depending on how you bring it up. No it's not over protection, they will be taught about x,y,z, when they have reached an appropriate age. Censoring their communications endures that *I* remain the parent. And yes we homeschool.

Don't like it ? Too bad. I had the same thoughts and beliefs as the OP before I had kids. Then I learned a thing or two.

You love your children? Want to keep them safe? Don't tell them to go play in the (information) Highway. Without at least keeping tabs on what their doing. Seriously.

This isn't a flame, but I expect I will be modded down by the majority of non-parents or liberal parents that give their kidz alcohol and cigarettes.

- Dan.

Re:Nope

[Z00L00K]

Before installing a keylogger or other monitoring software - check if it is legal to do that where you live or you can be suffering from legal actions of invasion of privacy.

There may be laws around that were in effect before the internet that can be interpreted in a way that can make such methods illegal to the level of a prison sentence. In some areas recording a phone call is only permitted if at least one of the participants of the call is aware of it.

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

The child you see and interact with everyday is not the full expanse of your kid--it is the expression of words and actions your kid has learned avoids your ire and keeps the allowance money flowing.

If that's the sort of relationship you have with your kid, you've already lost something important. Rather than teach your child what your values are and why they are your values, you've instead taught them that the only reason to be good is because of the consequences, and if no one finds out, it's ok.

A key example:

If your kid is up against some dark inclinations, he or she will realize that telling you could have negative results, and that not telling you keeps the situation fully under their control.

While they may not be able to tell you everything, you'd hope there would be some adult in their life they'd be able to talk to. In any case, this is precisely what I'm talking about. My parents brought me up with the attitude that I can tell them anything.

Besides that, kids are curious. You can teach them something is bad, and have them fully 100% believe you, and they will still wind up seeking it out.

Especially if you just say "This is bad, mmkay?" No, tell them why it's bad, and be honest. Don't tell them all drugs will kill them instantly, because then the instant they see their friends smoking pot and not dying, why should they believe anything you say about any drugs, and why shouldn't they go ahead and try heroin or cocaine?

What it comes down to is teaching your kids to live life in the proper pattern and hope that when they're older the "don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong."

Neither of these is sufficient, but think about it. Why don't you want them to hit their sister? For one, if you can't explain that to me, you're not going to be able to explain it to them, and "because you'll get a spanking" is again going to train them to be exactly what you said -- they'll have a set of behaviors they show you to avoid your ire and keep the money flowing, because after all, being a good person is only important for those reasons. Because that's what you taught them.

This is akin to suggesting that people can only be moral when they believe there's an omniscient, omnipotent god who sees everything wrong they do and is willing to punish them.

How about, don't hit your sister because you're a better person than that. Because you made her cry, look at her! And because she might hit you back, not because I will. But mostly because you want to be a good, compassionate person, don't you? What do you think a good person would do? Let's take one of your heroes -- what would Batman do? (Not WWJD because they may not care about that yet -- ask them who their heroes are!)

I've never actually been a parent, but my parents didn't hit me more than twice in my entire childhood. They very rarely said "because I said so," and I made life difficult for them when they did. They warned me about the Internet, certainly, but they told me the truth about what the dangers were, and far from installing keyloggers, they let me explore -- I switched to Linux when I was 15, and I was playing with programming not long after that, and I have to imagine a parent would need to restrict both of these if they were keylogging me.

Re:Nope

[c6gunner]

I'm leaning towards the opposite approach. I figure if you wallpaper your infants room with screen-caps of extreme fetish porn, he/she will probably grow up to be a priest/nun.

Re:Nope

[Z00L00K]

If they have to worry about their kids getting into something bizarre then they will have to worry the rest of their lives.

What they need to worry about is if some stalker will get after their kids for one reason or another. It's usually about sex, but doesn't have to be. Kids needs to be aware that they need to protect their identity well enough to at least be ambiguous about their age and location.

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

However, kids lie and lie well.

One guess as to where they learned that? Especially if you're the sort of parent who is going to be dishonest enough to use a keylogger to break into their Facebook account.

Many won't and don't know how to check for a keylogger.

And the more parents do this, especially once you start actually using that information, the quicker kids will get around it. Just look what they do with their schools attempting to censor the Internet.

You're going to be technologically ahead of them for a few months at best. Then they're going to be miles ahead of you again, and you'll have lost what little trust you had.

And in the end, honestly, I don't think there is enough hours in the day to know "everything your kid is doing."

Who said you need to know everything? Just stay in touch.

I think I might use something like this. But not to spy on their internet activity. Just when I was in MS/HS, I knew a few kids that went missing or ran away with an older person. Then, such a tool would get you way ahead of the game on might have happened.

In other words, you'll use it to spy on them, but only in their best interests?

My parents taught me, well before middle school, that people lie on the Internet and that if I meet anyone, they could kidnap me. They had a few sane rules about meeting people -- meet them in public, for example. Since I trusted them -- partly because they didn't do things like install keyloggers on my systems -- and since they made a good argument, I was safe about this kind of thing.

Re:Nope

[Z00L00K]

There are always life-threatening things. Kids can trip and strike their heads on the stairs, fall from a ladder or accidentally stab themselves with a screwdriver. Most cases aren't fatal and they survive and learn, rare cases are fatal but since you never know when it will happen you can't worry all the time. All of us has been kids and most of us has experienced things that could have killed or injured us but we did survive.

And what's really important is also to teach your kid to pay respect to other people - some kids don't care and just grab food from the table when they are visiting someone.

Re:Nope

[Z00L00K]

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

Reminds me of a sticker: "I kid-proofed my house but the kids still gets in."

Re:Nope

[purpledinoz]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this literally made me LOL! Good one!

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are too stupid to spell.

Re:Nope

[IICV]

Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.

As a matter of fact, if your children are sexually abused, 30% of the time they will meet their abuser at family gatherings, and 60% of the time they will meet their abuser through you - and intra-family child molestation is almost certainly vastly underreported, as nobody wants to bring that shame upon the family.

So basically, if you want to make sure your kid is never sexually abused, never leave them alone with your family, never leave them alone with your friends, and give them free reign of the Internet - it's the safest thing to do.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

If the kids think their punishment is bad for what they did at naughtysite.com, wait until they sue me!

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

and at a certain age you can't just say "internet only when I'm around" either.

Indeed. My kids don't have internet at home at all. And when I was growing up, neither did I.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

If you don't understand that, then internet access is the least of your parenting worries.

Nonsense. This is "trust, but verify". My kids have no privacy, period, end of discussion. I remember raging hormones and the inability to make a lucid choice - that is why they are in parental care until 18, which frankly is still too young but you have to cut the cord eventually. Besides, if you can throw them into battle it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to make up their own minds.

Re:Nope

[Jurily]

My kids have no privacy, period, end of discussion.

So you want them to do the "bad" stuff behind your back, then? If you're conditioning your kids to not be honest with you, what exactly do you expect from them later in life?

Oh, you think they'll stop if you tell them to? I thought you remember those hormones?

Re:Nope

[russotto]

I figure if you wallpaper your infants room with screen-caps of extreme fetish porn, he/she will probably grow up to be a priest/nun.

Some friends of mine tried that with their kid. It almost worked: As a teenager, he became very fond of missionary.

Re:Nope

[Tuan121]

As a parent you are NOT the babysitter and you are NOT their friend.

Sorry to hear you don't consider your child a friend.

Re:Nope

[Jurily]

Very few people learn a valuable lesson by dying.

But those who do, remember it for the rest of their lives.

Re:Nope

[cvtan]

You win the LOL of the day award!

Re:Nope

[Hylandr]

Spoken like someone that has no clue about real parenting.

Don't stay in touch, you are a *Parent* Stay in control. And yes, if you do your job right you will have control. Any parent that hasn't had their child hate them in some point in life hasn't been doing their job.

- Dan.

Re:Nope

[realityimpaired]

I'm not going to mod you down, or flame you. I am, however, going to suggest you look into the differences between an Authoritarian parent and an Authoritative parent, and the effects that these differences have on the child's development.

Protect your children yes, but respect them as human beings. You go further than I would (I'm of the opinion that kids need to be allowed to eat dirt), but I do agree that their safety should always be paramount. The trick isn't to shield them from anything and everything, though... it's to create a safe place where they can learn from their mistakes without getting burned too badly. Let them get burned, but don't let them get hurt. :)

Re:Nope

[slimjim8094]

when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."

I would be so proud of a child of mine that came up with that.

It's from a Simpsons episode; "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment"

Re:Nope

[maxume]

There's plenty of room between a padded cell and doing absolutely nothing.

I mean, keeping poisonous substances out of reach of a 3 year old isn't coddling them, it is preventing accidents that are easy to prevent.

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out. Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions - and (I know this is hard for people like you and the parents working with this jackass cop to understand), the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one. You do it slowly over time, so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they're mature and responsible.

Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.

Re:Nope

[Golddess]

My kids have no privacy, period, end of discussion.

Good luck convincing the judge that when your daughter drags you to court for sexual harassment.

Everyone has the right to some basic level of privacy. Some people just have a right to more, for lack of a better way of saying it.

Re:Nope

[Hylandr]

I agree with this almost completely.

Let me insert, eat *age appropriate* dirt. We don't shield, but we advise and instruct about certain conditions as development permits. So they can *see* the issue, before they become enveloped in it. Questions such as "Why does Auntie have a black eye?", We go into detail about how some men and women are god awful mean to those they are supposed to love. And then use the internet to show images of other examples, and explain that Auntie really doesn't want help, that's the kind of love she's used to etc. When Offered all kinds of chances to leave she might have, but went right back etc.

The Internet is a powerful and valuable tool, like a car or firearm. but you don't let kidz operate either without *close* supervision.

- Dan.

Re:Nope

[Myopic]

Underlying what you said is the preposterous assumption that being open and honest with kids will result in kids that don't do bad stuff behind your back. That is such completely asinine nonsense that I couldn't even begin to ponder anything else you said.

Re:Nope

[nickb64]

I know many teens who have a separate profile from the one their parents have access to. I wouldn't need it, but apparently some people do.

Re:Nope

[FatdogHaiku]

...Besides, if you can throw them into battle it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to make up their own minds.

As long as they don't decide to have a beer, as that would be illegal until they are 21...
Oh, don't forget the seemingly random age of sexual consent laws.
No opportunities for bad choices there.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

Look, I appreciate the sentiment, but don't take it too far. If a completely full bookshelf topples on top of your 2 year old and breaks half the bones in his body because you were trying to make a statement by not securing it to the wall, the lesson he should draw from it is that his parents are unfit to care for children. However, it's difficult for a 2 year old to learn any kind of life lesson, especially if he has brain damage.

As a parent (I am), I'm not the babysitter and not their friend. I need to see that they learn as much as possible. But anything that happens to them along the way is ultimately my responsibility.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

It made me think of a porn version of the Terminator films. "Sarah Conor. You have been targeted for inSPERMination!"

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the internet does for pedophiles who want to find vulnerable children what it does for lonely men sitting at home looking for pictures of boobies.

Nonsense. It's more like finding hot dates online. There seem to be plenty to choose from, but you're probably going to get a nasty surprise when you go to meet them in person. Except it's worse, because your "hot date" is just going to be fat, whereas the "vulnerable kid" is going to turn into your very own prison nightmare. They really don't like pedophiles in jail.

If you want to abuse children, go help out at your local church youth group, or maybe offer private tuition, or just have kids of your own -- that's what most child abusers do, after all. No pedophile with half a brain is going to troll Facebook.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Good luck convincing the judge that when your daughter drags you to court for sexual harassment.

Maybe I'm slow, but how does zero privacy translate to me putting the moves on my little girl?

Everyone has the right to some basic level of privacy.

A 4 month-old has absolutely no right to privacy. An 18-year-old has full privacy rights. Somewhere in between, there is a slow transition. Some kids will be able to handle more privacy than others.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out.

I'm a parent, not a friend.

Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions

Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?

the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one

I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.

Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.

I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption. My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions. I'm not talking about sheltering kids - I'm talking about having all the facts to judge and direct your parenting. I'm sorry, but I won't just "trust" that my kids aren't taking drugs or meeting predatory people (online or elsewhere). They will have full privacy when they leave my house.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Thank you - I wonder if some of the people commenting even have kids. Or in what wonderland they grew up in where teenagers weren't getting into all sorts of trouble. In my case, I was generally pretty good - but I sure wish my parents had been on me a little harder over my schoolwork.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

In principle, I agree with the theme of your post... but kids don't get a second chance when learning that they shouldn't taste bleach or play with the radial arm saw in the garage.

I have to think there's a reasonable middle-ground here. It is, after all, a parents job to protect their kid.

Re:Nope

[atomicdoggy]

Umm, yeah, that is kinda the point. They have to get around me first to do the bad things. They sure as hell aren't going to be doing it in plain sight (at least not more than once).

Re:Nope

[danbeck]

Well said.

Re:Nope

[man_of_mr_e]

While I don't generally have a problem with parents monitoring their children to a point, I think you very much misunderstand the role of parenting.

Your job is, initially, to protect them when they can't protect themselves. As an infint, toddler, maybe even up to 6th or 7th grade. But as time goes on, it's also your job to guide them, and help them to be adults. You can't shelter them, and control their every action until they turn 18 and then turn them loose on the world with absolutely no skills in how to do that for themselves.

You have to slowly give them responsibility, and make them accountable for their actions. This means slowly giving them freedom to make their own choices, or they will be unable to make choices for themselves when they are an adult.

Ever heard of the term "Momma's boy"?

Re:Nope

[danbeck]

Why are you sorry to hear that? I drink alcohol with my friends, have adult conversations, talk about my kids, go to R rated movies, etc., etc. You want me to do that with my children? What's wrong with you?

Re:Nope

[smellotron]

I mean, keeping poisonous substances out of reach of a 3 year old isn't coddling them, it is preventing accidents that are easy to prevent.

Nobody said otherwise. I believe "poisonous/caustic liquids" falls under the same category as "hot oil", not "hot metal pr0n". It's a lot like Q learning (or other reinforcement techniques). An event that kills the child will prevent it from learning. An event that damages the child either permanently or for an extended period (lost limb, helmet-less head injury on a bike, etc.) might be a learning experience, but the cost is too high. An event that hurts the child for a short period of time (after which the child fully recovers, of course) is perfect.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

Partial-agree. You know those things that cover outlet sockets? Probably a good idea until a certain age. Gates to prevent your child from accidentally falling down stairs before they're able to walk up/down them confidently? Also a good idea.

My pholosophy is this: Make the house child-proof enough so that if they do make a mistake, it won't maim/kill them.

Re:Nope

[Therilith]

"trust, but verify" is such BS...

Although I guess teaching kids to distrust and resent authority might actually be a good thing, considering the way the government(s) is acting.

Re:Nope

[maxume]

As a reply to wisty's mildly stated comment, Z00L00K's comment is pretty much suggesting that since you can't do everything you might as well do nothing.

Re:Nope

[Aryden]

FYI, you can legally join the military at 17 with consent. Your "besides, if you can throw them into battle" statement out the window.

Re:Nope

[Aryden]

"not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn"

If they earn it, then yes they damn well should.

"Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting "

Bullshit, if you can't recognize when you kid walks into the house stoned out of his gourd, it is PRECISELY your fault as a parent for not recognizing it and dealing with it.

"meeting predatory people (online or elsewhere)"

I'm sorry, I'm in my 30's. I have been actively using the internet for 20 years and I have been exploring the world for 15 ish years. I can't even recall any time that I encountered these predators that you speak of. The difference is, I was taught NOT to place myself in situations that could or would be harmful to my mental or physical health, and I avoided them. Not because I was lorded over and had every move I made monitored, but because I was educated.

Re:Nope

[tivoKlr]

I'm thinking of only allowing them internet access on the 52" LCD connected to a mac mini in the living room will help keep my kids in line. Kinda hard to miss the pr0n when it's filling a wall.

The last thing my kids will have is a laptop, unless I start proxying everything in and out of my home connection. You wanna use the internet, we're all going to be watching...

Re:Nope

[Aryden]

You grew up pretty much exactly as I did. And I have basically the same experience as you did with the internet. Fear is a tactic used by those with something to gain against those who are sheep. "You are a horrible parent if you don't fear your neighbors and anyone online, buy our product to protect your children."

Re:Nope

[Golddess]

I never said you "put the moves on her", I said "sexual harassment". And if your daughter has "no privacy, period, end of discussion", well, excuse me if I happen to have taken that to the extreme of, for example, demanding your daughter shower in a clear-as-crystal glass bathroom with clear-as-crystal curtains.

Re:Nope

[Thing 1]

so this guy's "teaching" some half-assed catch-up technique that doesn't scale next to the drawbacks of being highly unethical and is bound to lose the parents their childrens' trust if (inevitably) found out. So the value of teaching this is mostly in how it's eventually self-defeating. The fact that a holder of public trust thinks its acceptable to teach this I find... telling.

Exactly. I call it the "Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny/Santa Claus/God" progression of teaching your children to question authority. (Unfortunately, many stop after the third lesson, without full understanding.) I love that we lie to our children to make them healthier.

Re:Nope

[Thing 1]

Besides, if you can throw them into battle it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to make up their own minds.

I would argue the opposite; if we can throw them willingly into battle, I would argue that they are unable to make up their own minds. Dying for a cause is still dying and not spreading your seed.

Re:Nope

[Thing 1]

The parents do.

Re:Nope

[Thing 1]

It's about keeping them in the habit of third person perspective (how does my deed look when viewed outside my personal selfishness?)

I think there's some value in cameras throughout the house, which the child can also review. Nothing like an objective third-person perspective.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

excuse me if I happen to have taken that to the extreme of, for example, demanding your daughter shower in a clear-as-crystal glass bathroom with clear-as-crystal curtains.

No, I won't excuse you, because your comment is the shittest strawman ever.

Re:Nope

[Thing 1]

There are way more kids than fake kids.

For now; thanks to stopping HB Gary. But other moles will pop up in its place. The price of freedom is eternally whacking moles.

Re:Nope

[monkyyy]

"trust but verify"
RTFA; it talks about stealing passwords, that is not trust
not what i would put on my children(as an 18 year old is probably a little weak)

one, a super weak blacklist(starting strong (maybe a huge whitelist) but getting weaker over time)
two, ask them what theyre doing online when u have any reason to think they're are doing something u wouldn't approve of

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

Spoken like someone who has a pretty poor relationship with their kids -- the kind of dick who says "No child of mine will grow up to be a good-for-nothing poet when my father, and his father, and his father before him were all respectable bricklayers." Or whatever the respective professions are.

You have control for 18 years, at the very best. Then they're independent, and it's entirely up to them if they even want to see you again. If you want to spend the rest of your life in at least some amount of contact with your children, you're going to have to compromise, often. If you can't wait to be rid of them, asserting control at every step of the way is a great way to do that. Hey, if you do it right, you can make them hate you well into your old age as you threaten to write them out of the will!

Your child will probably hate you at some point. That doesn't mean this is a good thing to be deliberately sought after. That's like saying, "Any parent that hasn't had their child break a bone in some point in life hasn't been doing their job."

I may not have experience parenting, but I did take some clues from my own parents. They gave me exactly as much independence as I earned. They understood their job wasn't to control me, but to give me the support and guidance I needed to become an adult. Yes, sometimes it meant they took control, but only as much as they had to.

Re:Nope

[budgenator]

From what I'm seeing, my grandkids are rarely accessing the internet with anything as old fashioned as a computer anymore anyways. Most of what they post is listed as via a smartphone now.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

RTFA; it talks about stealing passwords, that is not trust

No, that's verify. I'm not giving my kids any illusion that they have privacy. I'm not lying to them. If they use my internet and my computers, they will have some chance of being observed. Hopefully, that keeps 'em honest.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

still dying and not spreading your seed.

Except that preserving their country and way of life may still help their genetic material propagate (i.e. through cousins and siblings).

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

demanding your daughter shower in a clear-as-crystal glass bathroom with clear-as-crystal curtains.

I'm sorry, but your comment is bizarre.

But I suppose if I thought my daughter was going to attempt suicide or do some blow while in the bathroom - yeah, I'd make sure she was being supervised. She is my (and my wife's) responsibility, after all.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Honestly, it's not the porn that I fear. It's linking up with unsavory characters. Porn can be explained easily as Hollywood theatrics, just as any violent movie can.

Re:Nope

[budgenator]

Not as funny as you'd think, walking with my grand-daughter and daughter-in-law to kindergarten, I was amazed at how many kids wearing Dora the Explorer backpacks looked mortified to be seen in public with their Goth parent.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

You have control for 18 years, at the very best. Then they're independent, and it's entirely up to them if they even want to see you again. If you want to spend the rest of your life in at least some amount of contact with your children, you're going to have to compromise, often.

My parents went for the complete control option and when I was of age and got a job I left and never looked back. There were times when I didn't contact them for more than 6 months. They have only recently made a re-appearance in my life due to the grandchildren. I have chosen not to take this path with my kids. I have 18 very short years to develop a lasting relationship with my kids and I'm going to try my damnedest not to fuck it up.

Re:Nope

[Thing 1]

Really? That's your argument? "Because other siblings/relatives can procreate, 18-year-olds are old enough to be able to make up their minds because we can throw them into battle?" Are you sure you're thinking this through? I mean, I love the George Carlin reference in your user number, but I don't think you're making a lot of sense. To the GGGP, yeah at work we also never have time to do it right, but we somehow always manage to have 3x the time in order to do it over a few times.

Re:Nope

[monkyyy]

how could that ever be trust, i never said it wasn't verifying,but part of growing up is making mistakes, parenting is helping them grow up and prevent the huge mistakes (visiting 4chan for example)

if you dont give them any room to grow and learn, can they really grow up?

Re:Nope

[Hylandr]

There is a difference from being in control, and being controlling.

Huge difference. To be controlling you don't need much in the way of information, just domination. To have control, you need information to intercept activities seemingly by accident. This helps other parents as well. A perfect example.

Other parents child mails my child about plans on getting laid that night. ( She's 12 ) I can A. inform her parents thereby exposing my data source and / or ruining the trust she has in my Daughter or B. Take my family out to dinner and invite the other parent's daughter to come with us, and possibly a movie. Contact the Perps parents and disclose where his email can be "accidentally" discovered, and let the boys parents deal with that. Talk to The daughters parents and advise the boys parents informed them of the mail. thereby canceling that relationship.

Scenario two, Another Parent and her Daughter sends mine a facebook message about losing her virginity and her BF didn't use a condom. The mother intercepted that mail and took her to the doc for a day after pill, an examination, and other kit.

Scenario 3, Boy rsvp's to an invitation for a gang fight. --- I could go on, but you get the idea.

All are scenarios where bad consequences were avoided because a child's privacy was invaded. Children aren't adults, and have no expectation of privacy. Having information allows you to take action where otherwise inaction would constitute poor parenting. Think about this if The first example turned into a Gang rape, or the second example turned into a pregnancy and transmission of Aids, and the third example, was a participant in the top two.

Imagine how you would feel when the investigating office asked, "You should have had access to all of this information, or should have demanded it. You could have avoided this, what have you to say for yourself? " And the Cuffs go on. If more parents were prosecuted for reckless endangerment for not monitoring their child's communications this would be less of a problem. And I believe a child is more an adult by 16 than 18.

Just my .32 cents.

- Dan.

-- And I hate the new slashdot text editor...

Re:Nope

[Meski]

That's not implicit in the statement at all. I think you just want it to be asinine nonsense.

Re:Nope

[Shadow of Eternity]

18 IS way too young... if you willfully and deliberately handicap your children's development and maturity by treating them like half-animal creatures incapable of learning or rationality and ensuring they never have any sort of opportunity to learn freedom and responsibility. You can't simply restrict more and more for longer and longer and expect them to magically become adults at some point, the way our society raises children and treats teenagers produces teen behavior... not the other way around. The entirety of human history and pretty much the entire rest of the world is direct evidence of this.

Re:Nope

[Technician]

I don't monitor the PC. I monitor the router. Whether I'm watching or not, the router log gives me a good general idea on where time is spent. All the PC's have static addresses so linking site visits to who is not difficlult.

I do let them know it is monitored and some sites are blocked. It helps keep them within the use guidelines for the privilage.

Re:Nope

[tivoKlr]

I was using porn as a loose euphemism for all the bad shit on the internet.

Re:Nope

[deadweight]

ROFLMAO

Re:Nope

[oldmac31310]

or sometimes when out foraging you could just happen up a faded mag under a bush or something. Happy days. Yes, fuck the over-protection thing. It's basically what split me and my psycho wife. She is a school teacher and believes as an article of faith the whole state vision of child protection (she has a masters in child development and psychology though it seems to have done her no good at all as she bullies and shouts when the moodswings take over). I'm an old fashioned, talk to the kids, be honest with them, treat them as people kind of guy. Be consistent. And I plan to remain so and I expect with time as my kids grow up they will respect me for it. Being myself, screwed me in the end as there is no winning against the current ideology unless both parents are concurrent in their outlook. Not in my case, sadly for my wonderful kids.

Re:Nope

[oldmac31310]

I beg to differ about the friend part. I see no reason why a parent should not also be a friend to their child. It is one of the most rewarding parts of being a parent (for me anyway) to hang out with them and be a friend to my children. There is no reason that my aged mother or father should not be now my friends despite the fact that as parents they never behaved in that way when I was a child. I think they know that now. That is something that was missing and I would suggest that any parents reading be friends to their children in addition to all of the other 'parent' stuff they do. It's not all duty and education. Simple love and affection goes a long way. If they are not experienced in the home, then kids may try to find it elsewhere. That's supposed to start happening about puberty, not before.

Re:Nope

[oldmac31310]

How dare you suggest that I am lonely, you insensitive clod. I, and many others here look for pictures of 'boobies' (not the bird I might add) and I can say for myself that I am rarely lonely. A dissolved marriage to a psychotic woman can have the invigorating effect of one's finding comfort in happy solitude and the occasional 'boobie' search and a hand shandy. Your analogy is erroneous, though. The number of pedophiles vs men surfing porn is hugely divergent. Comparisons such as yours are part of the problem. Porn is good. The wrong kind of porn is wrong. The issue is about exploitation. If anyone is being exploited. Wrong. If not. Right. Predators of any kind are wrong, but how do you conflate that with porn? You're wrong.

Re:Nope

[oldmac31310]

While I decry your 'paranoid' take on it I don't in essence disagree. Kids do lie. But I married a crazy person who thinks young children can't lie (!). I've caught my son out in so many lies at this point, and I can't make a big deal of it because of psycho mom. Otherwise, I think this key-logging thing is just ridiculous paranoia. Basically, it is what I intensely dislike about this country and my dislike increases with time. American children are not under threat from abduction and rape by lurking cyber fiends. That is just bullshit. They're kids, talk to them, be their friends, try to share their interests and your interests with them. So tired of children being somehow an alien race of beings that we accidentally spawned. They are people. Treat them as such. With respect.

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

I'm a parent, not a friend.

Being a controlling asshole != being a good parent. In fact, it's being a BAD parent because you don't teach your kids how to be adults since you refuse to let them make any choices that affect their life and they also miss out on learning to accept the negative consequences of their actions as a result. It's usually the kids who have psychotically controlling parents such as yourself who go to college, come face to face with reality and having to make their own choices, and then make a whole lot of BAD choices because they were never taught how to make good choices, merely ordered to "do what you're told!!!"

Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?

Actually I know plenty of 14 year olds who had more maturity than you do, as well as plenty as immature as you. If you had bothered to READ what I wrote instead of being an arrogant prick, you'd have noticed the part where I said you SLOWLY give them more responsibility over time (starting small when they're kids, more in middle school, even more in early high school) so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they'll be responsible and capable of making intelligent decisions. You know damn well that you had the ability to take care of yourself and decide what you wanted to do when you were in high school - if you claim otherwise, then you've fallen prey to the good old "anyone younger than me is a moron and needs me to tell them what to do" narcissism that runs rampant in anyone over the age of 18.

I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.

Controlling their every action and giving them zero privacy is NOT the same as keeping them safe. Keeping them safe means TEACHING them of dangerous things from a young age (such as don't play with fire, don't run with scissors, don't meet up with random people you meet online, etc) and then after they're a teenager, you have to let them make their own decisions and if they make a stupid one, you punish them. People learn from making mistakes - it's a proven fact. Those who never get to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences end up making nothing but mistakes and refuse to accept the consequences once they're finally put in a situation where they have to make decisions. Try asking psychologists, police, and social workers about the people most likely to end up doing drugs, being alcoholics, or dating gang members - having a controlling asshole for a parent dramatically increases the odds of someone doing those things once they get a chance because they want to rebel and use their actions to scream "FUCK YOU!" to their parents.

I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption.

Bullshit. Libertarians believe that people have the right to make their own choices and get to reap the reward or suffer the consequences of said choices. Your method of parenting completely contradicts that because you want to control their every action and keep them from ever making a choice, merely do as they're ordered to.

My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions.

No, your attitude is to control those in no position to get away from you and will result in people who make bad choices in college because they want to do all the things they were forbidden from doing and get back at you. I've yet to see a child of a respo

Re:Nope

[Requiem18th]

They simply see a tool which could be abused and therefore assume this is its only intent, and that therefore makes the tool unjustified (demonstrated so by construction of a straw man example of a child who has outgrown the need for the tool).

That sensibility of yours would be more appreciated if the strawmen were uncalled for. When people start they post with: "my children have no expectations of privacy", images of strip searching and hidden night vision cameras come to mind. If you don't want to be caricaturized don't act like a damned cartoon. And if you look above there are even posters that defend denial of privacy until age 18 or even "until they leave my house", the strawmen are meaty indeed.

Re:Nope

[Nyder]

If you don't understand that, then internet access is the least of your parenting worries.

Nonsense. This is "trust, but verify". My kids have no privacy, period, end of discussion. I remember raging hormones and the inability to make a lucid choice - that is why they are in parental care until 18, which frankly is still too young but you have to cut the cord eventually. Besides, if you can throw them into battle it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to make up their own minds.

Sweet. Glad your happy to have trust issues with your kids, since you are showing you don't trust them, they in turn, will pay in kind.
And not to mention sheltering your kids so much is going to make them worse targets for crap when they turn 18 and flee from you.

And 18 is still too young? Do birds keep their babies in their nest, or do they push them out to teach them to fly?

Why don't you be a parent. Lead by example. Teach them what is correct by doing the correct things yourself. Explain to them the dangers of stuff online, educate them. Show them respect.

If they can't grasp it after that, then beat the little brats and keep them inside till their 18, which is i'm sure your game plan.

Re:Nope

[JesseDegenerate]

I feel really bad for your kids, mainly because your an untrusting idiot. Way to take away any chance he she has at making informed decisions without you. Because that's not an important skill right? As if by the age of 15-16 you have any control whatsoever. If you remember those "horror"mones i don't see how you don't remember how easy it is to slip out of a window.

Re:Nope

[JesseDegenerate]

And you, who doesn't believe in the value of trust in a child, should never be allowed to breed. Guilt probably stopped me from doing all sorts of really stupid things. It works on kids who were brought up right. Never ever have children.

Re:Nope

[Nyder]

Congratulations on being an asshole who's kids hate you and will want nothing to do with you later in life after they move out.

I'm a parent, not a friend.

Your kids in high school are plenty capable of making their own decisions

Then we should make kids emancipated at 14. Or is that a bad idea?

the only way you teach them how to be a responsible adult is to TREAT them like one

I have to keep them safe enough to reach adulthood, and that means (in part) protecting them from their own inexperience, lack of brain development, and hormone imbalances. A kid is, by definition, not an adult and should only be given the responsibility and respect that they earn. Even then, you must stay on top of them because no teenager has the life experience to avoid bad situations.

Your attitude has nothing to do with the well being of your children and everything to do with your personal desire to lord power over others.

I'm actually more libertarian-leaning, so I'm not sure where you get off making that assumption. My attitude is 100% driven by my desire to raise healthy, productive adults. Many "good kids" get mixed up in drugs through no fault of parenting - many kids are just not capable of making mature, informed decisions. I'm not talking about sheltering kids - I'm talking about having all the facts to judge and direct your parenting. I'm sorry, but I won't just "trust" that my kids aren't taking drugs or meeting predatory people (online or elsewhere). They will have full privacy when they leave my house.

I had a step mom like you. She just wanted to protect me from the evils of the world. She forced her way of living onto me.

Guess what I did after I turned 16? Moved out, got emancipated and haven't regretted that decision since. Am I perfect? Hell no. I, like everyone else, have problems. But under the evil step mom, I only had her solutions. Nothing else. She wasn't open to anyone else's ideas. She was an adult, she knew what was best for me, the child.

What she didn't do was, of course was actually teach me anything about the real world. Her sheltering, and beliefs, only made me more naive then I should of been. But it was for my good. So that's okay.

Guess what? The means never justity the ends. NEVER.

Re:Nope

[JesseDegenerate]

Actually as you've said twice, it's NOT YOUR FUCKING JOB TO (just) RAISE THEM TO 18 AND LET THEM GO. (you idiot) It's to prepare them for as much of life as you can, which is good bad and unexpected. IMO your children will not be ready for the real world, but if it makes you feel better, there's a whole league of nanny parents who will have to take care of there children till there death. your one of them. There is no set age for a child to just be "set loose" and listening to laws for parental guidance just shines lights on you being blaring inadequate as parents. your kids are going to be fucked up (imo)

Re:Nope

[JesseDegenerate]

You need to go save MightyYar (622222)'s kids now. never felt so bad for kids i don't know.

Re:Nope

[JesseDegenerate]

Way to be an asshole for mod points. I'm not sure the OP was saying "no wall outlet plugs, they will de evolved your children" And a couple thousand of us took it the right way, because were not total idiots. He's talking about the extreme. As in your extremely dense for not getting the point. /done being an asshole (not for points however)

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why parents think that not being a parent makes me have no idea about how children should be treated. I have been a child myself, and I DO remember how I was treated, and why I still fear my parents. I am 34, and live in my own apartment, yet I still have things I hide rather than putting in the closet in my bedroom, in case my parents look in there when visiting.

I am horrified, when I read that your children have even less privacy than I did. And yet, you (and many other parents) seem to believe that only when (if) I get children of my own, will I understand that it's somehow good for children to grow up scared of their own parents.

Re:Nope

[nahdude812]

A straw man is by definition uncalled for. All tools are abusable, the fact that a tool can be abused does not mean it should be discarded. It is up to parents to make a decision about their child's developmental progress and make the best call they are able to about how to effectively guide their child. Some parents will allow their child more freedom than I would in their same circumstances. Some parents will allow their child less. Still, I am not more qualified to make parenting decisions about their child than they are.

You seem to suppose that I must be able to understand that children do have a right to privacy. I don't believe this at all. Children do not; at least not from their parents. But you can be a bad parent if you don't give them some according to their ability to handle it responsibly.

I have a daughter who is nine months old. She gets no privacy whatsoever. I regularly see her naked while changing a diaper or giving her a bath, and there is no activity I permit her to do without my approval. At some point between this age and when she's an adult, she will have gained the right to as much privacy as she chooses to exercise and is able to realize. It would be bad parenting if I still treat her at age 17 as though she's still an infant. But it would also be bad parenting if I grant her the same privileges and independence as I would grant a 17 year old. A responsible parent understands their child's development and grants them enough privileges to enable them to grow, but not so many that the consequences of mistakes are disastrous.

So just because you imagine a 17 year old kid whose parents grant them no privacy at all doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of reason some younger child should be denied privacy in their earliest forays online.

Re:Nope

[Ol Olsoc]

Welcome to the brave new world of people who never grew up.

So, we want to keep our child safe? Keylog them, Put a gps on the car and follow their every move. Fingerprint them and microchip them. It's all for safety and keeping them away from bad things.

Make sure they have their schedule completely filled, because idle hands are the devil's workshop. There is now a service on the web which allows you to do your own investigation of other people, so you can make sure that your child's friends parents are the right kind of people.

And yet, for some reason, this isn't doing much good. We are sending not quite properly developed adult children off to college, well educated and groomed, yet developmentally stunted. They now cut loose in college or post high school, binge drinking, and in so many cases acting like the people in Jackass.

Children need to develop, to become adults. And they can't/won't if you don't let them.

Re:Nope

[Golddess]

I think you missed the part where GP said "no privacy, period, end of discussion". Such finality deserves the shittest(sic) strawman ever. :P

Re:Nope

[Golddess]

As I replied to the AC, the finality apparent in saying "no privacy, period, end of discussion" is just asking for the bizarre scenarios to be brought out.

While your second post does mention a "slow transition" to full privacy rights, your first post made no such note. And knowing how some other people are, I naturally took your first post to mean a 4 month old and a 17.9 year old would have the same expectation of privacy under your roof, which (extreme examples of teens needing 24/7 supervision aside) is just ridiculous.

Re:Nope

[Phoghat]

It's the school's, teacher's, violent video game's, too much TV, social site's, texting, too much cell phone use's fault. But never, ever the parent's fault

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Apparently your parents didn't teach you much about having a productive argument - you call me an idiot and actually type in all caps just to emphasize that you intend to be shouting at and berating me, all while using profanity. How can I take anything you have to say about parenting seriously?

I'm not implying that parental responsibility ends at a certain age, but you'd be a fool not to consider the law. Certainly your legal rights all go away at 18, so your kid had better be ready for the "real world" by then. If your kid is ready by 16 or 17, great! If 19, not so great. It's going to depend on your kid.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

She just wanted to protect me from the evils of the world. She forced her way of living onto me.

First of all, I'm not a step-parent, so the whole dynamic is different. Second, I'm not trying to "protect them from the evils of the world" - I'm trying to prepare them for the evils of the world. I reserve the right to "violate" their privacy in order to see how I'm doing.

I have no intention of parenting in the way you describe your step-mother. Maybe she violated your privacy and so you are projecting all of her other behavior on to me as well?

Re:Nope

[JesseDegenerate]

you've just moved the goal posts, to suit your argument. I hope that helps your kids? i'm not going to get into nature vs nurture with you ~ i just wish your kids the best of luck.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

And 18 is still too young? Do birds keep their babies in their nest, or do they push them out to teach them to fly?

For some kids, yes, 18 is too young. My wife was mature enough at 17 to leave home (and she did, but to a fairly secure college environment). To use your ridiculous baby-bird analogy, sometimes the baby bird can't fly and gets eaten by a crow. Humans aren't bound to nature like birds are, and we don't really like losing as many kids as birds do.

Lead by example. Teach them what is correct by doing the correct things yourself.

Agreed.

Explain to them the dangers of stuff online, educate them.

Agreed.

Show them respect.

They, like all other people, have to earn that - but, agreed.

If they can't grasp it after that, then beat the little brats and keep them inside till their 18, which is i'm sure your game plan.

No, you completely misconstrue my argument. I'm saying that a child has no innate right to privacy. They have to earn trust, and until they do, you have a right (and actually a responsibility) to watch them very carefully. This is not about sheltering them, this is about letting them out and then checking to make sure they are doing what you hope they are doing.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

I said you SLOWLY give them more responsibility over time (starting small when they're kids, more in middle school, even more in early high school) so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they'll be responsible and capable of making intelligent decisions.

You need to show me where I said anything that seems to indicate otherwise. That is indeed the ideal situation.

Life is not ideal, however, and I reserve the right to watch everything my kids do later than that if necessary. Blind trust is a nice romantic notion, but doesn't always work well when teenage invincibility, inexperience, and hormones are involved.

Then you clearly do not trust that you did a good job and instead of trying to fix your failures as a parent, you become even more of a failure by punishing them for your shortcomings.

First of all, even great parents can produce a rotten kid. Second, this is not about "punishing them". This is about changing a bad direction. If my kid is doing hard drugs, I need to accept that and get them help. If my kid is lying to me about their sexual activity, I need to change direction and make certain that they are at least being safe. If my kid is being preyed upon by someone, I need to help them - this isn't about punishment. Even very smart and good kids get sucked into things that quickly make them feel in over their heads and afraid to get help. You cannot teach someone EVERYTHING by 16 - there is nothing wrong with watching a teenager.

Is that really how you want your relationship with your kids to be?

No, it is not. But I will not let that sentiment drive my parenting. I want healthy, stable adults - it is very hard to do this if you become a teenage parent, become a sexual victim, or find yourself an addict.

People like you should NOT be allowed to have children.

What are your credentials to make a statement like that? If you are driven to such a conclusion, isn't it at least possible that we misunderstand one another?

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Ahh, yes - we'll be doing the same thing. Only internet access for the kiddies is in the living room.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

if you dont give them any room to grow and learn, can they really grow up?

They have all the room to grow and learn that they earn.

Until then, verify :)

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

I agree with you, and am not advocating a step-function.

However, there is some merit to "my house, my rules". You also have an ignore-at-your-own-peril legal responsibility to know what your kids are up to. A lot of parents err on the side of trusting too much.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

"trust, but verify" is such BS...

I was trying to be funny, since the phrase is absurd on the face of it.

But just like a Russian arms treaty, I'm perfectly up-front about the monitoring. Sure, my kids aren't getting the privacy that makes the Slashdot crowd happy - but they aren't getting "spied" on any more than the nuclear treaty monitors are spying.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

I can't even recall any time that I encountered these predators that you speak of.

I'm guessing you are male? Talk to some girls... creepy, creepy bastards abound. Wanna be a model? Come to my studio! A good friend of mine was actually sucked in to this (pre-internet).

I was taught NOT to place myself in situations that could or would be harmful to my mental or physical health, and I avoided them.

I'm all for education, but the simple fact is that it is not possible to transfer my years of experience into the head of a teenager. I can teach them some basic street smarts, but I still need to use my extra experience to protect them.

And that's ignoring the sense of invincibility and raging hormones :) I did dumb, dumb shit well into my 20s. And I was considered to be somewhat of a wet blanket by my peers - there were far, far dumber things happening all around me.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Woah, hey, no. The darwinism angle is YOUR thing - not mine. I was just pointing out a potential evolutionary advantage.

Most people wouldn't sign up for the army if they thought they were going to die. And frankly, they wouldn't be silly for coming to this conclusion. There are millions serving in the army, and a few thousand die a year with a war going on.

I get into my car every day and drive despite it being the highest probability way for me to die.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

you've just moved the goal posts, to suit your argument.

No, I pointed out that you are more interested in calling me names and berating me than having any kind of a discussion about parenting. This is not how I want my kids to turn out.

I then pointed out that kids develop at different rates, and what is right for a particular kid is going to depend on that kid. I'm not sure how that moves the goalposts.

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

But I will not let that sentiment drive my parenting. I want healthy, stable adults - it is very hard to do this if you become a teenage parent, become a sexual victim, or find yourself an addict.

You clearly either A) have a hard time following logic or B) really don't want health and stable kids, because your actions are doing the exact opposite by raising them in an abusive and hateful environment. Even of those raised poorly, a large number of them don't get pregnant, raped, or addicted to drugs. That's simply you rationalizing your behavior.

If you are driven to such a conclusion, isn't it at least possible that we misunderstand one another?

How can you NOT understand why I would say your behavior shows you're unfit to be a parent? All you talk about is how you should have 100% control over their every thought and action and how they're your property, not human beings with brains. Did you not see all the other responses (I think around a dozen?) where people said pretty much exactly the same thing as I did, including a guy who had a step-parent just like you?

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

Whoa whoa whoa. You go from all of your previous arguments about how "They're mine to abuse as much as I want until they're 18 because they don't have a brain until the law magically gives them one at 18!" to "Kids develop at different rates"? Funny that when I pointed out that you can teach them to be responsible at younger ages, you said that it's impossible and that they need to be treated as poorly as possible until 18. Yea, you can't deny changing your argument to justify your abusive behavior towards your kids.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Yea, you can't deny changing your argument to justify your abusive behavior towards your kids.

Changing what argument? What abusive behavior? You are making me into some kind of a maniac, when all I've advocated is watching your kids!

Even a young adult will make poor decisions based on a lack of experience, and a teenager is going to be even worse. I'm not backing away from that. How is that inconsistent with kids getting more responsible with age?

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

abusive and hateful environment.

I don't know what kind of thing happened to you that you are projecting such a person on to me, but I was talking about privacy, and how kids have no inherent right to it.

Every human being will succumb to temptation, no matter how well raised and no matter how morally strong they are. Kids - and in fact many adults - don't always see temptation coming. Part of my job as a parent is to monitor my kids lives for such temptation and make sure they learn to avoid it appropriately. This is not about "trust" or "love" or any other such thing, this is about the basic, widely accepted notion that teenagers make some really bad decisions.

All you talk about is how you should have 100% control over their every thought and action and how they're your property, not human beings with brains.

You either read that into my posts or have me confused with another poster. Please point out where I said anything about "100% control over their every thought and action", or even ALLUDED to kids being your "property" - let alone not human beings or not having brains.

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

It's inconsistent because 1) you've said that regardless of age, they need to be 100% controlled (which you advocated until your last comment here) and 2) you've said again and again that YOU get to control everything they do - that's not "watching" to make sure that they're ok.

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

I don't know what kind of thing happened to you that you are projecting such a person on to me, but I was talking about privacy, and how kids have no inherent right to it.

Yes, I know, we've heard you plenty of times - your kids have no right to privacy or to make their own decisions or form their own thoughts / opinions. Hence me talking about you raising them in an abusive and hateful environment. You behave no differently than an abusive and controlling boyfriend / husband, but you think it's somehow OK because you're doing this to your kids who are under 18 (as opposed to a girlfriend / wife), and thus your property to do with as you please.

Every human being will succumb to temptation, no matter how well raised and no matter how morally strong they are. Kids - and in fact many adults - don't always see temptation coming.

OK, so your first statement basically admits that there's no point in your controlling behavior because your kids will do what they want anyways. Your second statement here admits that even you aren't perfect, so it's rather confusing why you still think that you have the right or omniscience to be such a controlling person. I think it's more that you're trying to seem "human" and "understanding", while still arguing that your obsession with control over your children is OK.

Part of my job as a parent is to monitor my kids lives for such temptation and make sure they learn to avoid it appropriately.

Monitoring and checking up from time to time is one thing. Your notion of reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation is a sign of serious control issues. You forget that another part of your job as a parent is to allow your children to grow and take on responsibility.

This is not about "trust" or "love" or any other such thing, this is about the basic, widely accepted notion that teenagers make some really bad decisions.

No, it's about SOME teenagers make bad decisions, so you decide to be an ass and follow the Stalin philosophy of "rule with an iron fist", which ironically, will likely cause your children to make bad decisions out of their desire to get a chance to make a decision on their own instead of simply following your orders.

Please point out where I said anything about "100% control over their every thought and action", or even ALLUDED to kids being your "property" - let alone not human beings or not having brains.

How about in pretty much every post you've made where you talk about how they don't get rights because they're not 18, how YOU get to decide everything they do until that point, etc.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Your notion of reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation is a sign of serious control issues.

LOL, we're in two threads now, but I couldn't help but reply to this...

MY notion??? I never said that - you are stuffing words in my mouth. Reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation sounds EXHAUSTING. Even if I thought it was a good idea, it's not even feasible.

How about in pretty much every post you've made where you talk about how they don't get rights because they're not 18, how YOU get to decide everything they do until that point, etc.

Feel free to cut-and-paste a quote, because I keep reading my posts and can't find what you claim I said. I mentioned privacy, and only privacy. I reserve the right to check up on my child, and contend that is completely reasonable.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Re-read the thread. I say "my kids have no privacy". I also mention that 18 is too young to "cut the cord".

You immediately jumped on me and called me an asshole. I shouldn't have replied to this flame-bait, but I did.

Anyway to address your points, at no point did I: 1) mention "100% controlled", let alone advocate it; 2) say that I have some right to "control" them.

Unless finding out about a lie and taking away the car keys counts as "control", in which case then yes, I have the right to revoke privileges. Fortunately, my kids are young enough that TV is still an effective reward.

Re:Nope

[ndege]

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

I agree with you; the scrapes and falls are a long-term benefit to the child, but it is rarely a short-term benefit to the parent.

And, if you haven't seen it, this is a great TED talk.

Case in point: My 3 year old knows how to use a screwdriver and can easily find screws around the house to take out and put into things. Yesterday I was, for the first time, wishing I had bought those little electrical outlet cover things.

I went to plug in a 3 prong electrical cord (US style) and it wouldn't go in. I decided to get down on my knees and look into the outlet. Turns out there is a tiny screw driven deep into the ground hole part of one of the outlets. Arrg.. We had to have a talk about that.

Anyway, I still haven't taken the time to go find the breaker for this outlet and proceed to disassemble the faceplate/recepticle to a point to see if I can get the screw out.

Now that I think about it...never mind. She would have most like just taken the outlet kiddy protector/cover plastic thing off anyway, then inserted then screw. After she realized her mistake, she would have most likely replaced the plastic cover. Then, it would have really blown my mind.

Oh well. Smart 3 year old, slow dad.

(BTW, I tried using a high-power neodymium magnet against the screw....but, it looks like the screw is aluminum ...appears to have come from a disassembled HDD.)

Re:Nope

[Totenglocke]

I reserve the right to check up on my child, and contend that is completely reasonable.

First, how is that any different from what I said earlier about you reading / listening to all of their conversations? Secondly, how is that NOT controlling their actions or thoughts when if they ever dare to express anything you don't like, you'll punish them for it?

Parents like you make me glad that I'm old enough that they didn't have all the surveillance technology back when I was a kid. I find it laughable that people will claim that the government has no right to spy on them, then turn around and spy on their kids constantly. Oh sweet irony.

Re:Nope

[Myopic]

I must be misreading it. Help me understand it better.

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

All are scenarios where bad consequences were avoided because a child's privacy was invaded.

Actually, two are scenarios where bad consequences were avoided, but could have been avoided through other means. The first was you being a dick. "Canceled that relationship" -- seriously? More like, talk to them about birth control -- which you're going to have to do anyway, and it doesn't have to be about a particular relationship.

But the other two:

Scenario two, Another Parent and her Daughter sends mine a facebook message about losing her virginity and her BF didn't use a condom. The mother intercepted that mail and took her to the doc for a day after pill, an examination, and other kit.

First off, the part where her BF didn't use a condom -- oh, and she wasn't on the pill? These things can still happen when the kids know something about birth control, but it's a lot less likely.

Let me put it this way: I knew about contraception when I was 10, at least. I also knew that there are places you can go which will treat situations like this with appropriate discretion. In other words, if something like this happened (which it probably wouldn't -- I knew about condoms), it's entirely possible that the situation would be resolved without my parents ever hearing a word. It is also possible that I would talk to one (not both) in order to get any information I was missing.

Scenario 3, Boy rsvp's to an invitation for a gang fight.

Never once growing up was I ever tempted to join a gang.

I should also add that once you know this kind of thing is going on, the kid has forfeited their privacy, but not before. Give them a chance to show it can work.

And the Cuffs go on.

Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.

You're suggesting parents get arrested because they didn't demand access to their child's Facebook account? What next, I should be jailed because I didn't install a keylogger or look over their shoulder every second of every day to make sure they didn't have a secondary Facebook account or email address? Or, I really should've had a camera installed in my child's bedroom?

Sorry, no, I'm not buying it. Children aren't adults, and it does make sense to restrict their rights somewhat, but that doesn't mean they're guilty until proven innocent.

If more parents were prosecuted for reckless endangerment for not monitoring their child's communications this would be less of a problem.

It would just introduce other problems.

Why do you think a child joins a gang in the first place?

I'm not a psychologist, so this is just a guess, but I'd think it has a lot to do with the gang treating them like an adult, giving them adult responsibilities, giving them respect where others don't.

So when your child finds out that you don't trust or respect them enough to let them make decisions about their own body, that you're instead going to do everything you can to deliberately kill their relationships because they might screw up on the birth control, how much more likely are they to go join that gang?

I mean, yes, they'll hate you for something, but there's a difference between the kind of fights almost every kid has growing up, and the realization that "Wow, dad, that was pretty morally questionable right there. I really can't trust you, can I?"

It's bad enough that you'd treat your own children this way, but what I find truly despicable about your position is that you want to force everyone to do it your way.

Re:Nope

[Hylandr]

Canceled that relationship.

Yep, Kids have no business engaging in a relationship earlier that 16 *in this nation* because the collective of society is just too effing market driven. You haven't had sex YET? What's Wrong with you?!!?

Don't talk about using a condom, girls "In love" will allow, "Whatever you want". Pills? No child will remember to take them in the morning. Children are not as mindful of consequences as you think. 12 year olds are entirely social creatures and are driven to one up their peers at every turn. You as a Parent are responsible for choosing her peers. If you're not there to guide them in their selection then you have failed. Massively.

Being a parent requires constant and vigilant intervention. While more self directed a 12 year old has the same wander as a child first learning to walk. They will walk where they are curious. You need access to all their communications, because they haven't yet earned the trust required to allow them to have that unfettered communication.

Bottom line is this, All these people that say I am over protective, is my indication I have it right. As a youth, whenever I made the same argument, was in anger over the realization that so in so's parent's weren't going to let me get close enough to her to have my way.

And I tell you what, there's a lot of intervention I am very appreciative my parents made on my behalf. And that's a true sign of maturity.

- Dan.

Re:Nope

[MightyYar]

Really? You don't see the difference between a parent checking up on his child and spying by the government on it's people?

Re:Nope

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yep, Kids have no business engaging in a relationship earlier that 16 *in this nation* because the collective of society is just too effing market driven. You haven't had sex YET? What's Wrong with you?!!?

In other words, because of the pressure of society, you don't trust your children.

I guess I'm still stuck on where 12-year-olds being in a relationship is a problem, partly because I don't see 12-year-olds having sex as being a problem.

No child will remember to take them in the morning. Children are not as mindful of consequences as you think....

And my point was, being mindful of consequences is exactly what you should be teaching them. This isn't armchair speculation on what a "child" might or might not do, this is my own memory of what I was like as a young adult.

It's worth mentioning, these sorts of consequences were drilled into my head early and often, but not to the point of nagging. My parents had my respect -- again, largely because they didn't pull shit like intercepting all my communications -- so when they told me about stuff like that, I listened. From a very early age, I was taught things like, "If she tells you she's on the pill, make her show you those pills, because you'd be the one paying child support if she keeps it." Never mind forgetting in "the heat of the moment", I still remember that over a decade later.

Notice the difference here -- my parents were treating me like an adult. An adult who didn't have all the facts yet, and an adult who needed advice and guidance, but an adult nonetheless. They weren't laying me down the law, they were telling me what they felt was best and why, and I knew it at the time. You, on the other hand, look down on "children" in an act of almost pure age-ism, and your response is to immediately fall into the parent-child roles -- they are the child, you make the rules, they're irresponsible, etc. Time and time again, I've seen this be a self-fulfilling prophecy, extending well into the real world.

You as a Parent are responsible for choosing her peers. If you're not there to guide them in their selection...

You're half-right. If you think that "choosing" is the same thing as "guiding", you have failed.

You need access to all their communications, because they haven't yet earned the trust required to allow them to have that unfettered communication.

Earning trust requires the potential to break trust. In this case, it requires that you either let them have that communication until they show they can't handle it, or let them think they can, and the latter requires a level of dishonesty which is likely to be damaging later on.

That is what trust means, from a security standpoint -- to trust someone is to give them the ability to screw you over in some way. Without the ability to violate that trust, it's not trust.

Bottom line is this, All these people that say I am over protective, is my indication I have it right.

Fascinating -- people saying you're wrong is your indication you have it right?

As a youth, whenever I made the same argument, was in anger over the realization that so in so's parent's weren't going to let me get close enough to her to have my way.

Close enough to explore. To discover. To make that sort of decision on your own.

And I'm not even talking about the experience of having to deal with others whose parents are over-protective. I'm talking about having been raised by parents who weren't. It's not a perfect analogy, but you don't learn to walk by being held up the whole way -- you learn to walk by falling. Parents shouldn't be there to hold you up the whole way, they should be there as a safety net so you never fall too far.

Of course, if I was interested in someone as tightly-controlled as your child, my solution would be to wait till she rebels

Nonsense

[Grapplebeam]

They will sacrifice all the dignity, freedom, and independence that child once had.

Re:Nonsense

[Man On Pink Corner]

And worst of all, the kid will grow up seeing this state of affairs as perfectly normal.

Re:Nonsense

[JustOK]

so, no down-side then?

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're building an army of intellectual and emotional zombies, no... no downsides.

Re:Nonsense

[Billly Gates]

You do know that if your 14 your old daughter decides to show her boyfriend her tittles for all fun and games on a web cam that she can go to jail for manufacturing and distributing child pornography and be labelled a sex offender for life! That counts for 2 crimes and the cops are asses and do not care.

I think that is ridiculous but I work for a school district and heard some of these presentations. To me the idea of my kid going to jail for something nearly all teens do now is disturbing. Having a talk or not they are teens and if I own the computers I have a right to keylog. Nearly a third of teenagers get stalked by sexual predators on the net. I have seen men wacking off in cars in front of elementary schools and others following innocent children. It is more common than you think and some parents want to monitor for good reasons.

I prefer to be honest as my kids are not at that age where I have to worry yet. However, I am not opposed to a parent keylogging their kid. Heck people keylog their spouses and so do your employers.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from World War 3 you mean?

Re:Nonsense

[sonamchauhan]

if your employer similarly monitors work emails, I expect you will save your own dignity by refusing to work there.

Re:Nonsense

[drinkypoo]

And worst of all, the kid will grow up seeing this state of affairs as perfectly normal.

And it is perfectly normal. That doesn't make it right. Public school trains you for a future in which if you are not in the "in" clique your success is limited by others who will keep you down just on general principle. It really is how the whole world works. That doesn't make it right. But you DO need to be trained to operate in that world. Unfortunately, school trained me to be an undercitizen so I've had to forget everything it taught me societally. Even more unfortunately, the only way we're ever going to change it is to stop teaching kids to accept it.

Re:Nonsense

[WorBlux]

PGP is great.

Re:Nonsense

[Maestro4k]

And worst of all, the kid will grow up seeing this state of affairs as perfectly normal.

Who said that wasn't part of the intent? If kids grow up thinking this kind of surveillance is normal, are they going to fight (as adults) the next time the FBI tries to demand back-doors into all encryption products and other such issues?

Re:Nonsense

[Seumas]

Children don't have much of that, as it is. I absolutely do not envy children who have to grow up today. Over-protected, over-monitored, over-controlled. They aren't necessarily any worse as kids were in the 90s or 80s or 70s or 60s, but they sure as hell have to put up with a lot more and have far less freedom than most of us grew up with.

Re:Nonsense

[Somebody Is Using My]

Wait, your argument is that since teens can go to jail for showing each other naked pictures of themselves, the solution is to keylog? Because I can see the inevitable conclusion of that: YOU go to jail because -thanks to this keylogging software- now *you* have naked pictures of minors on *your* computer. Yes, even if it is your own kid.

Heck, even the mere presence of the keylogging software might be used against you; isn't that a "hacking" tool? Its close enough for most people. I can certainly see wiretapping laws used against you if the keylogger is used to monitor communications between your kid and others. Likely your own kid won't take you to court, but what if the parents of his or her friends learn what you are doing?

This keylogging solution is wrong in every respect; it won't solve the problem and it opens up a whole host of new issues. Just because the sheriff of some podunk town in 'Jersey suggests it doesn't make it a good idea.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

And worst of all, the kid will grow up seeing this state of affairs as perfectly normal.

No, worst of all is when you wake up at 3:30AM to the sound of your doors being kicked in and teargas canisters breaking your windows. You know, after your 14 year old horny as Fuck son goes looking for naked pictures of girls his age.

Seriously man, it's your gear and your link; your rules because you're God. But it's typical of the cops to go with a keylogger instead of something a little more appropriate for novice parents. And no matter what anybody says, the tinfoil that runs in my blood screams "It's gonna phone home!!" Besides, it's just a bad idea to install that kind of software unless you know exactly what you're doing, from a security standpoint.

As for the kids growing up, they will learn that someone is out to get them. And so they'd better be damn sneaky about not getting caught.
At least that's what all the kids I grew up with learned when our parents did things to "keep track" of us. Sure there are always a few kids that wind up all dumb about it, but that's going to happen no matter what simply because of some parents. The problem is the whole 'nothing to hide' attitude and it takes years to drill that kind of bullshit into children. They know darn well that there's plenty of times you simply don't want other people messing with your stuff. Why? Because it's MY STUFF, that's why.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind that odds are good your kids are/will be at least as smart as you are. Which means that while you can keylog them, once you've undermined their trust you have to spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about what they've found in your top drawer/closet/browser history/etc. I'm all for keeping the lines of communication open and having reasonable limits on behaviour, but the logic of "something stupid is against the law, so I'd better invade their privacy to see if my kids are doing it" seems like pretty shoddy parenting to me.

Would you co-opt their computer in order to find out if your kids were using p2p filesharing (depending on where you are, it's at least illegal, though perhaps not quite as harshly)?

Re:Nonsense

[Archangel Michael]

If your 14 year old daughter is showing her titties to her boyfriend, you have bigger problems than jail. STDs and Pregnancy are two big problems. One is life threatening the other is life altering (next 18 years). Of course the typical /. crowd won't want to admit that 14 year olds shouldn't be having sex.

Re:Nonsense

[DrMaurer]

Well, the cop is from New Jersey.

Erm

[Spad]

...I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children...

Great argument there, really supporting your cause.

Re:Erm

[uglyduckling]

We have, er known unknowns, and, er, unknown knowns, and er, sacrifice something, er, so yeah.

Re:Erm

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure the way it was written makes it come across incorrectly. Think it was meant to say there are some things that parents wouldn't sacrifice, especially if its anything below rape/murder.

Sexting?

[MrQuacker]

And then he arrests them all when pictures of said kids pop up on the computer. Easy felony busts to fluff up a record.

Re:Sexting?

[C0R1D4N]

Nah, in New Jersey you don't really care about the record once you make chief. At that point you've got at most 3 years before retirement and a permanent paid vacation.

What a tool

[Krakadoom]

'When it comes down to safety and welfare of your child, I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children,' he says."

First off, shouldn't that say that he DOES think that any parent would sacrifice anything blah blah? Second, the parents don't actually sacrifice anything themselves, what they do is violate their child's privacy, which doesn't affect themselves in any way.

Re:What a tool

[amiga3D]

It's easy to fix the privacy issue. I told my children in advance that I was monitoring their computer. I gave them non-admin accounts on the box and informed them that I WAS watching everything they did. Thus informed it's not like I"m spying, they know I'm there.

Re:What a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

behind your back, your kids are telling all the other kids how bad a parent you are and that you give them not enough freedom.
online, they are afraid to post anything that may be semi bad
on your computer, they are working everyday to find a way around your watchful eye

within months they will be on 4chan asking for advice and providing tits to anybody that can help them.
bonus points, if they are underaged and provide tits, with you monitoring and saving every move they could get you locked up for child porn.

nah, probably wont go totally like this. although, some of these things will be happening in at least some way.

Re:What a tool

[Krakadoom]

Just because you're told you're being watched, doesn't mean it doesn't violate your privacy. If the goverment decided we should have state controlled yet fully disclosed cameras in every home, you would think your privacy was being violated, right? Whether you tell your kids or not, you're still violating their right to privacy. Now whether you think they should be afforded that right in the first place, as I assume you don't from what you wrote, is another matter entirely.

I just happen to think all human beings are entitled to privacy, regardless of age.

Re:What a tool

[Kjella]

Sounds a bit like "Yes, I'll knock before entering but I'll install a video camera in the corner". It's a solution to provide Internet access without privacy, but it's not a solution when your children start wanting privacy. They will known nothing they do on the computer is private to you and find some other way of doing things. Since so many computers are laptops today I'd probably go for that solution too, but it's an alternative to the "computer in livingroom" phase, not the later stages.

Re:What a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think they'll be sacrificing a healthy relationship with their child.

Re:What a tool

[REggert]

You should just put a big banner across the top of the screen that reads: "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU." The government in 1984 gave full disclosure as well.

That said, they are your children, and by extension it's probably your computer as well (or at the very least, your Internet connection), so you're well within your rights to monitor how it is used. It isn't really even necessary to actually do any monitoring. As long as they believe they're being monitored, the effect should be the same.

Re:What a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

"...is violate their child's privacy..."

And everyone else's whether appropriate or not if its in anyway related to their kid. ex.(rape and pedo paranoia)

Re:What a tool

[FrootLoops]

I think they think they're sacrificing time and effort to ensure their child's safety, which they actually are. They're also sacrificing some of their child's privacy--which they probably see as a good thing in small doses, so sacrificing it is a small but necessary evil in their eyes. It's short-sighted and probably selfish (the parent focuses on their own feelings of worry instead of their child's honest well being), but it makes sense to some people. In some situations it might even be a good thing to monitor your kids with a keylogger--if they're really stupid, for instance, so long as you told them about it.

Re:What a tool

[amiga3D]

Well thankfully both are now away from my watchful eye. After years of telling me that they couldn't wait until they graduated and could move out and never come back they finally, many years too late in my opinion, did leave for their own lives. It's gratifying that now that they are on their own and have their own children they see things a lot more my way. It helps that so many of their friends from those days got into serious trouble because their parents were so much more open and trusting. I actual enjoy seeing them now, especially when they bring my grand-children with them. Grand-Children:Gods reward for not killing your kids. :)

Re:What a tool

[amiga3D]

I happen to think that's a short sighted and foolish idea. Children have no right to privacy. I did accord mine some but it was severely limited in cases where I thought they needed oversight and guidance. That's a parent's prerogative....and obligation. Children are not adults and need guidance and control. A lot of our problems as a society today are because of parents not living up to their responsibilities. There are no bad children, only bad parents.

Re:What a tool

[Krakadoom]

Children need to learn right from wrong and good from bad. You don't do this by sealing them in a bubble of control. You do it by TEACHING them, and they have to have experiences in this arena too. What you are doing removes all responsibility from the child - how are they going to learn that concept?

Yes, you need to provide guidance and support, but spying is not it. Spying is exactly the short-sighted solution, what happens when you're not there to make their decisions for them and to "protect" them?

Re:What a tool

[Em Adespoton]

Human beings ARE entitled to privacy, regardless of age. They are not, however, entitled to privacy on the Internet (and will never have it). As for computer privacy in the home, I take the same stance I take in the workplace:

Everything gets logged (not just kids' activities). If something bubbles up in the logs and causes an alert, or some outside incident occurs that requires me to review those logs, I will. Otherwise, I won't. Things WILL go to management (in this case, parental discussion) if they are against policy. Attempts to mess with logs are against policy and will cause a detailed analysis of ALL logs.

I also like to apply the rule "don't do anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to discover ME doing on the internet." That image is usually enough to keep the kids in line ;)

Re:What a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

That is classic. Krakadoom must not have any kids. He should go tell most of the employers of the world they can't monitor his internet traffic at work because he has a right to privacy--see how far that gets him. Obviously a parent can't control everything that a kid does but I think most parents would want to watch their kids to make sure they weren't, for instance, walking three blocks to go to a XXX bookstore. Why is it troublesome that parents would want to watch their kids activity on-line where they can get to very bad material much quicker than walking three blocks? Until they are 18, kids do not have a right to privacy. When they turn 18, they should do as advised by a great sign that I once saw: "Teenagers, move out now! Get a job, pay all your bills, and support yourself while you still know everything."

I put keystoke monitoring software on my computer and I told my kids and we still get along fine, they are well adjusted, and it has helped me avert some very risky behavior. I don't by any means control all they do but, if nothing else, I sure have trained them not to post stupid very stupid stuff on the internet via facebook et al. That is a great lesson for them to learn at a young age.

Re:What a tool

[amiga3D]

I didn't say I sealed them in a bubble. I did limit their exposure however. As they grew older and showed maturity I gave them more freedom. It's a judgment call and I may have erred on the side of caution. However the safety of my children was always paramount. Instruction and trust are part of the equation but to turn children loose and say "well you have to trust them" is so often a recipe for disaster.

Re:What a tool

[Archangel Michael]

News Flash. Kids don't have a "right to privacy" in the same sense as you're placing it. Parents have an obligation to protect their children as they see fit. And you telling people how to raise their kids is just insane. How would you like me dictating how you should raise your kids, HMMM???

The arrogance of some people is just mind boggling.

Re:What a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone who doesn't have kids. Kids' privacy should be accorded to them based on their age. By your statement, a 1 year old has a right to privacy, do you really expect a 1 year-old to be changing their own nappy or giving consent to someone helping them because having someone change their nappy without their consent is clearly violating their privacy. I don't think children should have any right to privacy from their parents/guardians in general (except for sexual matters in their teens because some parents act really irrationally about this), this is because parents are responsible for their child's actions, so a parent should be aware of what a child does so they can guide and discipline where appropriate. Now, as a child gets older a parent should afford their children appropriate privacy, my daughter is 7, so it is appropriate for her to have privacy while going to toilet, but she doesn't get much privacy at other times. I haven't decided on how I will handle it when she gets older, but it will depend on her behaviour and how much I can trust her. I don't want to be monitoring her all the time, but some monitoring will be necessary, the question is what form will that monitoring take. Adult's should have a right to privacy, but while a child is the responsibility of it's parents they don't.

Really want to lose your children's trust??

[mehrotra.akash]

The age when you cannot say "internet only when I'm around" - 10-12 yrs I guess
The age when the children start maintaining the computers themselves, taking basic precautions against malware,etc -- 12-14 (and then they find out about the parent installed keylogger)
Would you really want your kids not to trust you after the age of 14?

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Seumas]

That's lame. I grew up with BBSes and the internet, in an age when most adults didn't have a clue. I saw porn. I saw anarchist material. I saw things which were obscene, idiotic, offensive, or just play absurd. From at least the age of twelve. I grew up fine. I wasn't abducted, raped, or brought into a cult. If your kids can't pick and choose and navigate their own content before the age of twelve, they may be mildly retarded.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why assume the keylogger is a secret to the child? Just make it a condition of computer use.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Ideally they should grow up trusting your judgement and respecting your opinions. My kids are adults now so when they were going through that dodgy early teenage phase the risk was viruses spread by IRC/MSN. You can tell them to be careful about what they click but nothing teaches the lesson better than a day wasted reinstalling Windows. I just gave them the install disk and let them fix it themselves.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

The age when you cannot say "internet only when I'm around" - 10-12 yrs I guess

The age when the children start maintaining the computers themselves, taking basic precautions against malware,etc -- 12-14 (and then they find out about the parent installed keylogger)

Would you really want your kids not to trust you after the age of 14?

that depends upon the kid. My friends son, i think is 8, has already changed the admin password of the home pc and has locked is parents out.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says you can't tell your children you've installed a keylogger?

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you really want your kids not to trust you after the age of 14?

How would this differ from the normal parent-child relationship? You ruin _everything_ dad!

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it will be good training for the real world. Trust Nobody, and erase your tracks.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[fermion]

Such melodrama. It is the nature of all children to rebel and lose trust in their parents. It is why we venture out on own and stop demanding that our parent take us to the mall but rather get their with our own resources, like a bus or a bicycle or walking. But wait, some kids never do that. They demand their parents drive them, or their parents car, and throw a a teenaged temper tantrum when they do not get it.

This loss of trust is really a want for privacy and self sufficiency, something that most teenagers do not even make an attempt to achieve, rather blaming the parents for unfair rules while enjoying shelter, water, power, cable, broadband, and all ther luxuries that are paid for the parents. In such a case, a loss of trust is not that big a deal because what is the kid going to do, give up a cell phone and cable because they can't pay for it? Not likely.

The real issue is the trust of the parent. Most parents will give give trust to the kids within the parents personal moral code. If a parent believes a behavior is acceptable, then as long as the parent trusts the kid the kid is free to engage in such behavior as long as it is responsible. A benign example is playing games on the computer. If a parent believes that playing games all the time is acceptable, then the kids can do that. If the parent thinks that time should be spent studying and reading and not playing games then they put blocks on the computer. The kid circumvent those blocks, and key logger can be useful to show how that happens. Now this is breaking the trust of the kid, but the kid is also breaking the trust of the parent. To the parents it is expected that the kid will fight these boundaries, and the same might be true for the kid, as kids will often test boundaries but will often feel secure when they find they still exist. In any case such cases might lead to a choice bettween key logger and no computer in the bedroom, which might even include the android phone.

What many people do not realize is that this can get really serious. Some parents don't play. I have seen kid thrown out at sixteen because they did not play by the parents rules. No food, no shelter, no nothing. I think it was the wrong thing for the parents to do, but also always wonder why the kid did not compromise to meet parent expectations until the kid was able to fend for themselves. Of course everything seems so real and overwhelming when one is a kid, everything seems so end of the world. Which is why sometimes the only countermeasure might be a keylogger.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Osgeld]

Billy? sweetie? I installed a key logger on the computer because I do not have the confidence that you will make the right decisions and I know you are nothing but a fuckup that does nothing we ask anyway, you disappoint me

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[jbeaupre]

My approach: install a logger early on. Scare the piss out of them for a while by casually mentioning what they have been up to. Then delete the logger. Saves having to check on it and damn hard to get rid of a logger that doesn't exist.

They'll be left with a perpetual feeling they are being watched and hard pressed to prove they aren't. If and when they figure it out or turn 18, I'll happily tell them I trusted them and deleted any spyware long ago. My real goal is for them to think very hard before doing something dumb. At least until they are a bit more experienced. And any kid smart enough or ballsy enough to find there is no logger or ignore a logger isn't going to be deterred by one.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Anonymous Coward]

Better option - install the keylogger, and tell the kids that you've done it! It's just another stage in the progression:

  * Internet only when I'm around.
  * Internet anytime, but I'll be checking the logs.
  * Internet unlogged - I trust you.

Re:Really want to lose your children's trust??

[Nyder]

The age when you cannot say "internet only when I'm around" - 10-12 yrs I guess

The age when the children start maintaining the computers themselves, taking basic precautions against malware,etc -- 12-14 (and then they find out about the parent installed keylogger)

Would you really want your kids not to trust you after the age of 14?

Kids stop trusting their parents after they find out santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny aren't real. And that babies don't come from storks, and all the other assorted lies you told them over the year, are well, lies.

Then puberty starts up, and you lost them for good.

The real threat is always in the home

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who knows anything about the Internet and Reality knows that the child predator myth is the creation of law enforcement and other agencies wishing to profit.

Everybody who knows anything about child abuse knows that the vast majority of abuse happens in the home.

So when a child is on the computer explaining to their friends how they are sexually, physically, or psychologically abused at home by their care givers, then their care givers will be one of the first people to find out what their children are saying about them in supposedly private conversations.

These activities are an indictment to responsible parenting, and responsible policing (if there is such a thing, and stories like this always seem to validate my doubts).

cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

...saying "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT TRUSTING YOUR CHILD / INVASION OF PRIVACY".

OK, how about this: if people didn't want to create another human in their image, they wouldn't have their own children. But since they did, it means they want to keep an eye on their kid to make sure they turn out as they wish, and everyone external to their little genetic collective is regarded as the enemy - preadator or otherwise.

A bunch of childless geeks and fringe case parents who only want their children to be like them in some ways can whine all they want, but this is what parents want. It's as inevitable as human nature.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

You almost sound like you're complaining. Every good parent knows that they should indoctrinate their children with their own pointless personal beliefs instead of relaying actual facts! They can question authority... as long as that authority figure isn't me.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Spad]

I don't think it's really about the rights or wrongs of invading your childrens' privacy; look at it this way:

If I found out that my parents had been keylogging my computer use, I'd find somewhere else that I could use a computer that wasn't being logged, at a friend's house or library, school, whatever and then they wouldn't have *any* idea what I was doing on it. On top of that, I wouldn't feel that I could trust my parents with anything that *did* happen, computer or no, because of that.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anrego]

I don't so much have a problem with the privacy issue. Up to a certain age, I think a parent should supervise what their child is doing online.

More the method.

This seems like a half-ass solution to a problem arising from the sadly typical "both parents work, no one actually raises their own kids any more" society we have now. No, you can't monitor your kids all the time.. and there is an age between the "computer in the living room, only when I'm around" age and the "computer in your bedroom.. I trust you" age.. but this seems like a really bad solution for something that _should_ be solved by actual parenting.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

All parents observe their children at varying levels of distance and will end up engaging in an arms race with any child who wants more privacy than the parent is willing to provide. This isn't something new to computers.

The policeman here is simply selling to the parents' side because the technology he's hawking coincides with his own interests.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Dhalka226]

That was one of the creepiest fucking things I've ever read. Even if that's exactly what parents want, why on Earth should society support it? Living through your children is not psychologically healthy -- not for you, and certainly not for your children. They're not little mini-you's. They share some genetics with you, they'll obviously share a bit of you based on their upbringing, but they are not you.

If you want to argue you're protecting them... fine. It's a stupid argument and a terrible approach, but at least I can respect the goal. Suggesting you want to keylog your child's computer so you can spy on everything they do and make sure they turn out to be like you in every way instead of just "some ways"... is fucking creepy. There's no other way to put it.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

This seems like a half-ass solution to a problem arising from the sadly typical "both parents work, no one actually raises their own kids any more" society we have now.

I still don't understand why people feel that they must have children. Not only does it contribute to the ever growing problem of overpopulation, but the fact that a startling number parents have children regardless of the fact that they don't have any time to raise them only worsens matters.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

OK, but what if they apply "actual parenting" and monitor their kids' behaviour? Sort of like current Western governments give you a fair deal of freedom (yes, they still do) but watch you closely anyway.

You could argue that it's not actual parenting/freedom if the monitoring is included in the package. But this is a thoroughly minority opinion, because people don't see that as a restriction or potential restriction (clearly, otherwise everyone would be lying in the streets in a mass exercise of civil disobedience).

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Living through your children is not psychologically healthy -- not for you, and certainly not for your children.

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition: it's what you do when you pass on your genes. If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

OK, but what if they apply "actual parenting"

Actual parenting (which doesn't include being a paranoid idiot that constantly locks their child inside a bubble).

Sort of like current Western governments give you a fair deal of freedom (yes, they still do) but watch you closely anyway.

In other words, make all of your citizens into potential criminals, violate their privacy, and then pretend to have their best interests at heart. No.

But this is a thoroughly minority opinion, because people don't see that as a restriction or potential restriction

Restriction? No. But it is, however, something that could easily be abused. Secretly monitoring them will likely cause them to trust you even less (note the word "secretly").

clearly, otherwise everyone would be lying in the streets in a mass exercise of civil disobedience

Wait, what? Even if most people disagreed with it, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd protest it. In fact, more often than not, people do absolutely nothing.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[amiga3D]

Ah, but everyone has their own viewpoint and it always colors their interpretation of the facts. It's the human condition, we all think that if everyone saw things the way we do that the world would be a wonderful place. Of course, I'm right and if you disagree it's because you are an idiot. :)

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Wait, what? Even if most people disagreed with it, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd protest it. In fact, more often than not, people do absolutely nothing.

This is a matter for philosophical debate, but I consider going along with something when there are many alternatives as agreeing with it in every meaningful sense.

There are various ways you can not go along with government monitoring other than by mass civil disobedience - for example, you could refuse to get a passport; you can refuse to drive; you can avoid use of credit cards; you can accept payment in cash and not open bank accounts; you can walk around with a basic disguise; you can encrypt all communication and try to obscure source/destination (not just on the Internet); etc. But if at any point you say, "OK doing all this is too much of a hassle - I want a proper job so I can have a more comfortable place to live and that means accepting the whole tax/bank account thing," you are agreeing that the government's offer is better than the alternatives.

Read this essay. Rulers don't exist through a small minority of force, but through a majority of consent. And taking away that consent would very quickly cause the power to crumble.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anrego]

This all just sounds like something that's gonna blow up when the kid inevitably finds the thing.

Also I think there is a substantial difference between the government/people and parent/child relationships.

My government doesn't know me. I mean, they kind of do.. but the government doesn't have an idea of my personality, my maturity, my judgment, etc. If the government spies on me... I understand it...

A parent on the other hand.... should.

I guess the question I would ask, is if this is an ok thing (as you said, doesn't restrict usage) why not tell the kid. My answer would be that you would basically be telling the kid "I don't trust you and need to monitor everything you do". Maybe kids don't think of it exactly like that, but I think that's the basic sentiment that would come through.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You have about a 0% chance of your children being like you.
Genetics have little to nothing to do with personality. Come on this is Slashdot, we've been over this before.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

"Trust" is an overused concept, I think. The only person you can really consider "trusting" completely is yourself. As for other relationships, there are two possibilities:

1. Your opinions coincide sufficiently with the other party that you can "trust" they won't deviate from what you want them to do;
2. You "trust" the other party to willingly go against their beliefs in order to accommodate what you want.

Since neither will apply except in the unhealthiest relationships of control (via physical restriction / scaremongering / propaganda), you must expect that everyone is going to go in some way against your wishes. This is why monitoring happens and is especially in demand by modern Western governments and the modern Western parents who both want to efficiently give the impressions of freedom.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Yes yes and IQ can be increased just by trying really hard. Sorry, bud, nature's not fair and political correctness won't change that.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anrego]

I think "beliefs" is kind of strong there. We're talking about kids talking to the wrong guy on facebook here.

The trust comes in the form of a parent knowing their kids judgment and behaviour such that they feel comfortable enough to not need to monitor them every second they are online. I don't think monitoring should be eliminated entirely, but this kind of secretive, absolute monitoring to me would send a pretty strong message to a kid if discovered.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[LockeOnLogic]

I wish my children will have the judgement to figure things out without someone looking over their shoulders constantly. Teaching a child to recognize dangers will do far more than watching over their shoulders constantly. Mommy and daddy aren't going to be there forever to hold your hand.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Ah, but everyone has their own viewpoint and it always colors their interpretation of the facts.

Sorry, but facts aren't facts without a great deal of evidence supporting them. You can't just claim that your personal belief (religion, for example) is a fact because you said so. That has nothing to do with viewpoints or opinions. That doesn't, however, mean that individuals won't block out evidence that supports a belief other than their own...

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

That wasn't my point. Obviously, they might agree that their pointless, comfy little lifestyles are more important than things such as freedom, but that absolutely does not mean that they like what is happening. It certainly doesn't help that they aren't willing to protest, but my point was that that doesn't mean that they like that fact.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

"Trust" is an overused concept, I think.

So is paranoia, which is inefficient beyond belief. The result is that you end up wasting a great amount of time and resources on pointless endeavors whilst only succeeding in worsening your relationship with others.

This is why monitoring happens and is especially in demand by modern Western governments and the modern Western parents who both want to efficiently give the impressions of freedom.

They succeed in giving the impression of freedom in the eyes of people who I believe are imbeciles, but it is a mere illusion. If the government, who can change the rules as they please, is allowed to spy on its own citizens and treat each and every one of them as criminals, then abuse will surely follow.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

A parent may have one or more beliefs:

• There are genuinely lots of old pervs out there effectively grooming teens for sex - the idea that every male over the age of 24 is a potential kiddie fiddler is very much a belief system about human nature reaching quasi-religious hysteria;
• The child will somehow be harmed by interacting with anyone on a particular prejudiced list - is there a problem meeting up with someone who is older and male if the guy has no sexual interest whatsoever (e.g. may have a common hobby)? When I was young I used to meet up with older geeks quite a bit and none of them tried to sex me. What would happen if I were a 14 year old girl today with an interest in, say, amateur radio? How would today's hysterical world react to me hanging around a load of 50 plus men in tatty shacks?
• Is flirting harmful? Is cybersex the same as rape? I wonder how my parents would have reacted to some of my chat logs when I was 15 (in the days when the Internet was a new and scary place and it wasn't "normal" for teens to have Internet access, let alone go online unsupervised), sometimes with members of the same and opposite sex who I knew to be twice my age.
• Insert all the usual arguments about a physically and mentally healthy 14 year old meeting a 16 year old and them getting up to stuff and it being labelled as statutory rape.

There is one fairly uncontroversial danger: meeting some stranger who will force you to have sex or to be otherwise sexually abused. The risk is obviously non-zero, but how often does that actually happen? How much of everything else is a real danger rather than a fear by the parent subjected onto the child? IOW, how many "wrong guys" really are there? "Wrong"ness is defined by a belief system.

The greatest abuse risk a child runs of abuse (including sexual) is, by a huge margin, from parents/carers/close family.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

So is paranoia, which is inefficient beyond belief. The result is that you end up wasting a great amount of time and resources on pointless endeavors whilst only succeeding in worsening your relationship with others.

Deployed effectively, it allows you to nip an emerging hazard in the bud as early as possible. "Your relationship with others" is rarely a concern when there's a power imbalance and you're the one with way more power. Machiavelli writes succinctly on this.

If the government, who can change the rules as they please, is allowed to spy on its own citizens and treat each and every one of them as criminals, then abuse will surely follow.

Depending on how you define "abuse", yes.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand why people feel that they must have children.

Demographic decline requires a compensatory influx of immigrants to keep services going. Many peoples want to preserve their culture as it is instead of allowing massive immigration to slowly efface it.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

OK, but who decides what is a danger? IOW, who decides what is potentially harmful? what is actually harmful?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

That's not a very logical reason, and it certainly doesn't lessen the impact of overpopulation or the fact that they will be terrible parents.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Merely "not liking" doesn't really have consequences. At best "not liking" leads to "complaining", seen by the majority as "whining" and summarily ignored.

They agree with an option, and they show their agreement by going through with it rather than going through with any of the other options available to them. This is what matters.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Deployed effectively

The smallest risk or problem is inflated into something bigger than it need be.

"Your relationship with others" is rarely a concern when there's a power imbalance and you're the one with way more power.

I suppose it does not matter to a tyrant who does not care for others and does not care if others help them.

Depending on how you define "abuse", yes.

The taking away of their freedom, violation of their privacy, and the fact that they may change the rules to eliminate those that oppose them at any time (the elimination of privacy helps in this regard). Giving anyone this kind of power will surely not have a good result for the people being monitored.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a logical reason. Without robotics like what Japan hoped for, how can you maintain services with falling birthrates? You have to weigh the impact of what you call "overpopulation" against the risk of ethnic strife or cultural loss, and it's reasonable that some believe the latter is the more pressing danger.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon?
I have two adult children (both boys), both are strong willed with their own personalities. Neither of them are me (or my wife!), and if they`d turned out as "mini-me`s" then I would consider myself a failure. As it is, I now have two friends that are different enough from me to be interesting to socialise with and provde diversity into the wider family.
They both follow some of my traits, both genetic and social. I can do nothing about the genetic - that`s the way it is. The social comes along for the ride - I am a strong male role model (not necessarily the best you understand, but a strong one none the less), children are built to pick up on this and follow those that appear to be in some measure successful. Of course this is instinctive, not intentional - children almost never think the words - "I like them, I`m going to copy them" even if as an adult you can perceive that that is what they`re doing.
If you are considering having children in order to continue / immortalise yourself in some way or to "live through them" then please, please STOP NOW. You will cause them major problems when they finally realise how heavily and intentionally corralled they were (maybe not until the`re 30-40 years old and have wasted the best part of their life trying to be dad) and you already have several serious problems of your own. Live your life through you - it`s the only chance YOU get, don`t waste it in some vain attempt to re-live years you`ve already had through some one else.
Wow, rant over.
PS this isn`t directed at FuckingNickName in particular, more at the thread in general, but your comment did make lots of alarm bells ring.
Welshmnt

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition:

Whose definition? Yours?

it's what you do when you pass on your genes.

Genes don't determine every single aspect of one's behavior. Most of it is learned. However, just because that is what is biologically happening, that absolutely does not mean that the parents are actively and mentally trying to live through their child. They may just like children. They may want them to grow up in their own way. It depends entirely on the person, and there is no absolute truth to this matter as you attempted to let on.

If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.

As I said above, genes don't entirely determine a person's behavior. I really do believe that people should adopt (not that you can't indoctrinate an adopted child), but to say that all biological parents are attempting to live through their children is quite the generalization.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

They both follow some of my traits, both genetic and social. I can do nothing about the genetic - that`s the way it is. The social comes along for the ride - I am a strong male role model (not necessarily the best you understand, but a strong one none the less), children are built to pick up on this and follow those that appear to be in some measure successful. Of course this is instinctive, not intentional - children almost never think the words - "I like them, I`m going to copy them" even if as an adult you can perceive that that is what they`re doing.

Precisely.

It will happen for genetic and social reasons you describe. It will happen whether you claim you intend it to happen or not.

If you as a couple give birth to and bring up a child, you are creating a variant of a miniature you. You as a single person aren't precisely creating a miniature you because (i) you have the genetic input of two people; (ii) you have the environmental input of two people and the wider world; but the greatest part of your child is the genetic and social mix of you and your partner. If you didn't intend this, you made a mistake in having and bringing up children.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

OK, but who decides what is a danger?

Facts. If I get hit by a car, that will endanger my health.

IOW, who decides what is potentially harmful?

Again, facts. Suddenly running out in the middle of the road greatly increases your chances of being hit by a car.

what is actually harmful?

Something that harms you in a way that you cannot avoid (your health, for example).

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

We have sufficient technology to maintain a population of constant size in comfort with reduced working hours. It just requires us not to continually consume more and to prevent hoarding. But then who can feel like they're a master of the universe?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Why do people have their own children?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

I have no idea. Generalizing all biological parents into people that wish to live through their children isn't really an answer, though. The answer likely varies. Perhaps they ignorantly believe that it's more 'natural' and that is important to them. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps they, for their own reasons (which doesn't excuse the selfishness of contributing to overpopulation, I think), feel more happy watching their own child grow (which doesn't necessarily imply living through them) from birth.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[drinkypoo]

If you're responsible for the actions of your children then it's only reasonable to keep tabs on their activity so far as you are able. Society has declared that children are subhuman. Their constitutional and indeed allegedly basic human rights are abridged as a matter of course, and indeed even in law.

The OP was 100% correct that people want their children to think like them. Most people are unable to get past it when they don't. Every way my alcoholic father "tries" to communicate with me is hostile and depressing. I've given up all hope ever having a real conversation with him because he thinks I think like him, and that everyone should think like him... but most egregiously, he won't try to understand what is going on inside my head, because he thinks there's something wrong in there and he'd rather just try to change it because he's sure he knows what's best for me. If you look at how he's living, though, he doesn't have very much advice that anyone needs, at least not in that category.

Most people have no fucking business being parents. If you knew what they were thinking, it would be "fucking creepy". And it would be depressing that they have bred. Unfortunately, around half of the pregnancies in the USA are unintended. Now, I know some unintended pregnancies that have turned into great kids, but even people who plan to have kids are often in over their heads.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

An answer in context would be more helpful. Who decides which activities you can get up to online are dangerous? Who decides which activities you get up to as a result of things you do online (e.g. meeting up) are dangerous?

It's likely that "meeting a murdering rapist who is considering you as his/her next victim" is universally agreed as dangerous. But the chance of that is very small. What about the decision on the danger levels of everything else?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

How? Building a few gadgets and maintaining a few services is not worth dangerously overpopulating the planet and conceiving children who will have parents that do not have time to raise them. Not to mention that if there were less people, there would likely be less demand for such things.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Who decides which activities you can get up to online are dangerous? Who decides which activities you get up to as a result of things you do online (e.g. meeting up) are dangerous?

I would think that the person themselves would be deciding that. If there's a 0.00001% chance of being harmed by doing something, it's probably not worth worrying about. The parents are worrying far too much over what happens to an abysmally small number of people (compared to the population at large).

But the chance of that is very small.

I agree. That's why it's a waste of time worrying so much over such things.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

All these reasons are just nature manifesting the default desire of sexual beings to pass on their genes, which is passing on the essence of your existence to someone else.

You speak as if there was a choice. I maintain that if you pass on your genes to someone then you are necessarily living through them - it doesn't matter what you do afterwards. You have taken the most fundamental thing that makes up you and you have used it to make up about half of the most fundamental thing that makes up them.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[h4rm0ny]

A bunch of childless geeks and fringe case parents who only want their children to be like them in some ways can whine all they want, but this is what parents want. It's as inevitable as human nature.

Most parents don't actually want their child to be how they are. They actually want that child to be like how they think they are. For example, most dads may condemn their child for looking at porn on the Internet, but do so themselves. They might not demonstrate trust and put a keylogger on the child's computer, but they'd be pretty freaked if the child showed the same lack of trust and put a keylogger on their computer and spied on them.

Parents keylogging their children like this are probably hypocrites as they would not want their child to behave in the same way. But children seldom turn out how their parents want them to be and more often how their parents are. The best way to teach a child a behaviour is to behave that way yourself.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

I agree. That's why it's a waste of time worrying so much over such things.

Most people have bases for living which are far more complex and involved than, "Well, I don't want to be raped and murdered or run over by a car... apart from that, whatever happens is cool."

And these bases will get passed on to the children.

Even if the few posts you've made to this thread, you've shown some fairly strong opinions. What happens if someone under your care ends up being an oppressive-government-worshipping, relative/friend-monitoring (report errant behaviour in the family, citizen!) baby factory? Do you perceive that this approach puts them in danger? Will you try to do anything about it?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

All these reasons are just nature manifesting the default desire of sexual beings to pass on their genes, which is passing on the essence of your existence to someone else.

Which has nothing to do with their personal beliefs.

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition

When you speak like that, it seems as though that is what you meant. You have to specifically try to live through your child to have that great of an effect. Genes aren't all that is required.

When you responded to the comment a few posts above, you really made it seem to me as if you were speaking of what they were mentally trying to do, not biologically.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

This could be seen two ways:

• They want their children to be at a standard ideal to them but which they're too weak to achieve - or maybe they feel they don't need to achieve it as long as the children do;
• They do want their kids to be like them: hypocrites who are well able to condemn some act and hide all evidence of engaging in it, despite doing that very thing behind closed doors.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[welshmnt]

"It will happen for genetic and social reasons you describe. It will happen whether you claim you intend it to happen or not." Well of course it will. I just don`t think it`s healthy to try to second guess this. However, I could not disagree more with your last comment. I intend very little. I try as much as I can just to be and do. (Yes, this is intent, clearly) I didn`t intend to have children, it`s what happens when mammals do not try to not have offspring. You could - validly - claim that I`m selling myself or my children short here. But I have have had (so far) a rich and varied life experience, my children are busy doing the same thing - in their own way. Given that there is only one life (mine, yours, my kids) surely that must be your highest goal? Life is for living - not thinking about. Think about it on your death bed. Did you do it? Or did you did you think about it and decide not to 'cause it was sub optimal? Again, not personal, it`s interesting discussing this with somebody who appears to have a very different approach to life. I`ll end by saying that you`ll have go a long way to find a better set of father - son relationships than we`ve ended up with. (Damn that sounds so smug. But is is both true and relevant to the thread. And when I see some of the train wreck families that try SO HARD, I can`t help feeling just a little pleased.)

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Most people have bases for living which are far more complex and involved than, "Well, I don't want to be raped and murdered or run over by a car... apart from that, whatever happens is cool."

What?

Will you try to do anything about it?

I would attempt to dissuade them from such behaviors by forming a logical argument. Apart from that, no.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Which has nothing to do with their personal beliefs.

Well, there's the belief that you should submit to nature. But what we're discussing is whether having kids means you're living through your kids, and that is so regardless of what your personal beliefs about anything are. So it's really all of the above.

If you want, I can argue that mental activity is just a subset of biological activity ;-).

ou have to specifically try to live through your child to have that great of an effect. Genes aren't all that is required.

The extent to which genetics have an effect can be argued, but the effect is clearly not insignificant. And you are still living through your biological children by virtue of having passed around half your genes to them, even if you make no effort after conception. Of course, the average non-absent parent does so much more "living through them" than that.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you CLONE yourself instead.
Half of your child has your spouse DNA.
Creepy. Boy am I lucky I am not your child.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

If you want, I can argue that mental activity is just a subset of biological activity ;-).

Which is also undoubtedly affected to your surroundings and by those around you.

The extent to which genetics have an effect can be argued, but the effect is clearly not insignificant. And you are still living through your biological children by virtue of having passed around half your genes to them, even if you make no effort after conception.

I suppose so.

Of course, the average non-absent parent does so much more "living through them" than that.

I agree. I believe that there is too much worthless indoctrination being done by 'parents'.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

I would attempt to dissuade them from such behaviors by forming a logical argument. Apart from that, no.

Well, until your son Bootlick Bob gets his sister Hippie Hannah arrested by reporting her for saying something nasty and oh so easily misinterpretable about the President at the dinner table... but maybe it takes a family who lived through a civil war to observe what happens in the extreme case. (OK, the worst case is that they join opposing sides and shoot at each other, a disturbing feature of several civil wars.)

Anyway, your "logical argument" would rely on various premises which come down to a subjective moral code. To put it in cold, practical terms, there are many people who are well off and fairly secure under the sort of oppressive government Bootlick Bob might dream of becoming part of.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[h4rm0ny]

This could be seen two ways:

• They want their children to be at a standard ideal to them but which they're too weak to achieve - or maybe they feel they don't need to achieve it as long as the children do;
• They do want their kids to be like them: hypocrites who are well able to condemn some act and hide all evidence of engaging in it, despite doing that very thing behind closed doors.

True. And often there's a bit of both. For me, spying on someone is too active a decision to really put it in with the first one as a failing you wish you could avoid. It's not really the same thing as failing to eat the last piece of chocolate cake or failing not to raise your voice and get angry. Where the line is drawn, there lies the debate. For me the line is quite clear between keylogging and not, but you may differ.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, until your son Bootlick Bob gets his sister Hippie Hannah arrested by reporting her for saying something nasty and oh so easily misinterpretable about the President at the dinner table... but maybe it takes a family who lived through a civil war to observe what happens in the extreme case. (OK, the worst case is that they join opposing sides and shoot at each other, a disturbing feature of several civil wars.)

If the situation is that dire then there really isn't much to do. Those were their choices.

Anyway, your "logical argument" would rely on various premises which come down to a subjective moral code.

Oh, sorry. What I meant to say is: I would describe all of the things that I perceive to be negative consequences that could result from such decisions and explain my reasoning. If they don't accept that, then it doesn't matter.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

And are none of the "negative consequences" subjective? Put another way, are they negative consequences based on your ideas of what is positive/negative, or are they negative consequences based on the kid's idea of what is positive/negative?

For example, if your son believes that married women should serve a particular role in society, do you argue that his wife's career options become limited to be a "negative consequence" or just a "consequence"? What if he considers that it is positive for only one member in a married household to have significant career options, because that means the marketplace is such that it is more affordable to maintain a single-parent-working household with one parent available to actually bring up the kids? Do you counter that a person shouldn't be restricted in society based merely on some feature they were/weren't born with? And isn't that stepping into moral territory?

I know I'm banging the point and I appreciate the input you're making in this thread, but I'm really trying to show how hard it is to fulfil any role of care without allowing your beliefs to rub off on the person you're caring for.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[HangingChad]

> But since they did, it means they want to keep an eye on their kid to make sure they turn out as they wish

My brother is one of those fat, old "the ends justify the means" right wingers. He felt it was okay spying on his kids because the ends justified it. What he didn't know was that my nieces and nephews were way ahead of him. I got a clue when they started asking me about running Ubuntu from a live CD and various ways someone might spy on a cell phone. It got to the point they were running "wild weasel" missions to cover one another. I don't think my brother knows to this day.

I mark the time we started going downhill as a country as the day those BABY ON BOARD stickers started showing up on cars. The dawn of the overprotective helicopter parents. After that it was locker and backpack searches, drug tests, fences, badges and metal detectors. On the way to the golf course a bunch of us drove past what I thought it was a minimum security prison. One of the other guys corrected me that it was a school. When we raise our children like prisoners, how do we expect them to behave as adults?

Classes like the one the police chief is teaching do little more than highlight the extent of decay our society has experienced the last 40 years.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[demonlapin]

I still don't understand why people feel that they must have children.

Because all the people who didn't have a slightly irrational drive to reproduce died without descendants. Evolution in action.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[riegel]

I still don't understand why people feel that they must have children. Not only does it contribute to the ever growing problem of overpopulation, but the fact that a startling number parents have children regardless of the fact that they don't have any time to raise them only worsens matters.

Your post made me sad. Not for me, I have six children, but sad for you.

btw. I like your sig.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Your post made me sad. Not for me or for you, but for your six children.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot easier to have your own kids than to adopt.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

But both processes pale into insignificance compared to the effort invested into properly bringing up children once born. If the reason you're not adopting is "it's difficult", I question your dedication to bringing up a child.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job working in the standard anti-religion troll. In reality it is very possible to present only partial facts in order to force your personal beliefs one someone. For example, most people that I have met think the US Civil War was only fought due to "racism." They have only been taught the facts regarding the South's desire to maintain slavery. The larger issue was the strength of the federal government vs. the states' rights to make their own laws. This fact is generally not taught, and most people don't research it after being presented the "fact" that the war was fought due to racism.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

No, you're not living on through your children, you're beginning the process of iterating; you will die and someone else will take your place. Iterative design is all about fixing mistakes in the previous version (you) and trying to find a way to create adult humans who are capable of dealing with any problem that crosses their path (your child).

If you're trying to create adult humans that are the same as you instead of capable in general, you probably believe one or more of:
* That you're perfect (in which case you're wrong, especially if you're doing creepy things to your children)
* That you're not perfect, but they're not going to come across any problems you didn't (in which case you're 99% likely to be wrong, unless you're a fifth-generation coal miner or something)
* That something you needed to do is left undone (which is a shitty thing to leave your kids burdened with, especially without their consent or approval, and by the way you're not even dead yet)
* That life doesn't allow people to make any progress anyway so we should all just be shitty people like you
* Your children don't really have feelings anyway and as long as you play the game of parenting right you can make them into whatever you want
* That your way of life gives you a unique way of dealing with things that is far superior to all others (a view shared by both too-rich people and scam artists)

As far as I know, all of those are legitimately unhealthy psychologically.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

No, you're not living on through your children, you're beginning the process of iterating; you will die and someone else will take your place. Iterative design is all about fixing mistakes in the previous version (you) and trying to find a way to create adult humans who are capable of dealing with any problem that crosses their path (your child).

"No but yes."

Of course "you" can be improved through your children.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[failedlogic]

I don't have kids yet. Some of my perfectly normal friends from university and high-school have kids. When I've met them with their kids or didn't know they had them (oh ... I have kids), they are really over-protective. Much more so than my parents, our neighbors and our community ever used to be with their kids.

So what's changed? Is is all the 9/11 stuff or is something else that triggered out society to be this way? I can't help but think that (even though I'm in Canada) with all this security paranoia that this is one of the reasons. Kids used to have monsters in their closet and under the bed now its "terrorists" and child predators. They are everywhere. Then, of course, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/2134202/Musician-Jailed-Over-Prank-YouTube-Video, yesterdays' news article certainly has some backing to this ideay. I can't help but fell uncomfortable if some cute kid walks buy smiling and laughing to smile or say 'hello' anymore. I'm just turned 30 and I don't see why this isn't ok. People used to do that to me and my sister, my neighbors' kids, kids in our community and it was perfectly ok. People used to touch my hair (curly, blond afro) all the time. I thought it was funny, still do. My parents thought it was perfectly fine... they never called the police. The swat team would probably be called in now.

Seriously this is FUCKED UP and I'm hoping we can change as a society and return to what used to be normal.

I don't understand child psychology very well but I do with adult psychology. Something changed. The Dr. Spock's baby type books (for parents unsure how to treat their child) seems to be revamped and tell parents to lock the house up and don't let the kid out. Homeschool them, don't let them out. Bad people are everywhere to purposefully rob your children of their innocence. Parents are buying this stuff up left right and center without any moral dilemma.

Adults of my generation need to preserve the society our parents cherished and keep that way. The Internet didn't really change anything. The parents have changed too much. The generation we're raising in North American society today is not going to preserve the good natured, humble people we once were.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

Imagine what society will look like when a whole generation is brought up like that. Who doesn't want a pool of scared idiots to exploit?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Temujin_12]

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition: it's what you do when you pass on your genes.

Dear Mr. Chemistry,

I know in your world the chemical reactions involved in reproduction are all that you see. Combination of chromosomes, DNA replication, mutation, proteins, RNA, etc. These are all well and good, but this species whose DNA your observing developed this little thing called a prefrontal cortex. Since then, this frontal cortex (not merely DNA) has ruled the destiny of this species. After millions of years of this species evolution being heavily influenced by this prefrontal cortex, things like individualism, self-identity, social interaction, personality, culture, etc. have become central to this species.

So I ask that although you must remain focused solely on your duties of executing the chemistry underpinning life, you keep an open mind to the fact that this species is no longer bound entirely by those chemical reactions. Perhaps a viewing of one of their own exploring some of these details would help.

Sincerely,

Mr. Evolution

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition: it's what you do when you pass on your genes.

If you clone yourself or reproduce asexually, then you're right.
Otherwise, you can only live approximately 50% through your children, or less. The spouse has the other half... unless you've already eaten them.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[FuckingNickName]

tl;dr Both. Which is what I said.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but this is what parents want..."

Then maybe(forget maybe!) parents should shoulder the responsibility and cost, especially the cost, of all and I mean all, their spawns' care instead of dumping much of it on the rest of us. I know it would drop my property taxes by two-thirds and cut the frustration, vehicle maintenance(brakes), and just plain waste of having to drop to 20mph in school zones/crossings(not seen a kid yet) three times on a major four lane thoroughfare going back and forth to work. And other people shouldn't be accountable for where your kid goes. Your kid disappears, you and your spouse goes to jail for neglect. You chose to have them, as parents you pay the price of losing them, not the rest of us. That way maybe potential parents will think before they dump their spawn on the rest of us. You chose to have the kid, give up your career/life instead of the kid as an extra to that life.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently your parents failed to provide the knowledge to solve your lack of understanding. demand a refund.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Religions/bible/koran on and on are some of the blame along with instinct and willful ignorance. It's amazing people follow a book written eight hundred years ago about a time a twelve hundred years before(might be backwards, religion/theology/history class was 30 years ago) during a time when humanity and civilization was just near beginning and just trying to survive. In a world of diminishing resources and overpopulation, breed-baby-breed, just doesn't make sense anymore. I asked my sister why she had another kid even though her daughter was about fifteen and she said she wanted to, nevermind whether she could handle or afford it or whether the rest of us wanted to help care for it like her first one, just she wanted to.(instinct/willful) AHHHH!!!!

ps. No, I chose not to have kids. (philosophic reasons) So I fully object to people placing much of the cost and responsibilities of paying for, caring about, and watching their kids on me.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Living through your children is not psychologically healthy -- not for you, and certainly not for your children.

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition: it's what you do when you pass on your genes. If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.

No, the reason to have kids is because Sex feels really good. You can prattle about philosophy and morals, but it comes down to the fact that we're wired to Fuck and reproduce. Women are wired to protect their offspring which is good in early life, and Men are wired to be rougher and less caring which forces them to grow on their own as adolescents.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, none of that biology matters. God made us and it's all about Love and Fucking Fairy Blossoms. My bad.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

and there is an age between the "computer in the living room, only when I'm around" age and the "computer in your bedroom.. I trust you" age..

I never had a "computer in the living room, only when I'm around" age, and I turned out fine. Now get off my lawn, and could you be so kind as to block off all sunlight entering my window? It's really hurting my eyes.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the main problem with society in America, apathy. Some of our most basic human rights an earn us hard time in jail and people give absolutely zero sh!ts.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your point? You think everyone should have their kids indoctrinated by cheekyjohnson?

You're a bad parent if you think mere facts are all that a child needs. Children imitate[1] what they observe. They often are able to imitate something way before they can understand the reasons (fact is most humans don't understand many of the devices they use in modern society).

If parents are doing their jobs, their kids would be getting "indoctrinated" by them, not by Foxnews or Disney or McD or "the education system" or the Government.

That's the whole duty and responsibility of being a parent.

Educating parents on the other hand is the responsibility of society (e.g. everyone including the parents themselves).

[1] http://ilabs.washington.edu/meltzoff/pdf/05Meltzoff_Like%20Me%20Hypoth.pdf

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in Georgia, so I feel qualified to help you out a little here.

Yes, one of the major causes of the civil war was states rights... One of the main rights they were fighting over, was the right to maintain slavery. Was that the end all be all of causes of the civil war? No, but it was a major contributing factor.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Em Adespoton]

If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.

As someone who considered adopting, let me say that I strongly disagree. Adopting is expensive. Adopting involves a large up-front outlay. Adopting usually means that you're getting a child whose infancy you didn't get to share, and they've already had their core personality formed by someone else (including issues created by parental substance abuse, etc.). If you can get past all these issues, then you'd choose to adopt. If any one of these is an insurmountable hurdle for you, natural childbirth is cheap, easy, and you don't have to pay for it until later (plus, you don't have social services monitoring you to verify that you're raising the kids the way THEY want you to).

There are many reasons for wanting to have children that don't involve the voyeur or "life extension" drives. One, for example, is the puppy/pony drive. People want someone cute to take care of and spend time with. There's also the "personal value" drive -- some people feel like they've already made a mess of their own life, and want the opportunity, not to do it over again, but to do something worthwhile with their own life. These are the people that most often adopt, but sometimes, mostly based on the above hurdles, adoption is too difficult a barrier to entry for them compared to childbirth.

Plus, people have a genetic predisposition to self-reproduce. They also have a predisposition to ensure the survival of those reproductions. Living through the reproductions is something that happens socially on top of that platform; sure, it almost always happens to some degree, but it is a symptom, not a drive (in most cases).

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

I could easily make a remark about your parents failing to provide you with the knowledge to explain yourself, but that would be a mere assumption. Why do you say that?

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

What's your point? You think everyone should have their kids indoctrinated by cheekyjohnson?

Where did I say that? I do, however, believe that people should relay facts that have evidence to support them (facts are not a personal belief with no evidence supporting them).

You're a bad parent if you think mere facts are all that a child needs.

And you're a bad parent if you believe that kids need to be indoctrinated with absolutely pointless personal beliefs (religion, politics, your opinion on someone). Yet, it happens all of the time.

Children imitate[1] what they observe.

But you can also teach them not to do so. Herd mentality is quite annoying. Not only that, but this doesn't mean they need to be indoctrinated.

That's the whole duty and responsibility of being a parent.

Sorry, but a parent's responsibility is not indoctrinating their child with their pointless personal beliefs. It is to take care of the child (stepping out in the road mindlessly greatly increases your chances of being hit by a car, which could potentially kill you, etc) and to relay facts to them. Unless, of course, you wish to tell me why children need to be indoctrinated to believe opinionated garbage.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

And are none of the "negative consequences" subjective?

Not if you're explaining to them how to live a healthy life (as most people want). I thought that much should have been obvious. If they want to kill themselves and hate life, then they are free to go do that.

but I'm really trying to show how hard it is to fulfil any role of care without allowing your beliefs to rub off on the person you're caring for.

I never claimed that none of your beliefs should rub off of them. That would be ridiculous. At the very least you should assume that your child wants to live a healthy life and teach them how to do so. That does not mean forcing them to believe pointless opinionated garbage such as religion, political beliefs, or opinions on someone else.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Such people are still alive. They just aren't ignorant and know the consequences of mindlessly having children like an imbecile.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

Good job working in the standard anti-religion troll.

Where did I do that? I merely said that religion isn't provable (to our knowledge) and therefore shouldn't be taught as a fact.

In reality it is very possible to present only partial facts in order to force your personal beliefs one someone.

I also suggest against doing that.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

a "do not feed the troll" sign is never around when it's needed.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[Hognoxious]

Not to mention that if there were less people, there would likely be less demand for such things.

In the long run, yes.

But in the short term, there's going to be a lot of old people who expect to be looked after, and very few young people able, let alone willing, to do so.

And by the short term, I mean pretty much now.

Re:cue 100% of comments...

[cheekyjohnson]

In the long run, yes.

Mission accomplished, then.

In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that most children are more tech-savvy than their parents. I'm pretty sure their keyloggers will catch the installation of their parents keyloggers. ;p

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[amiga3D]

Anyone that gives admin access to a computer to their child might as well forget it. But really if you spend some time talking with them and have a good relationship you've got a better chance to know if something is up with them.

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[mehrotra.akash]

Why would they not give admin access to the computer??
Shouldnt the children have the same opportunities to experiment with the computers as the parents did?

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[welshmnt]

Errr. It`s a practical thing. I don`t want to have to re-install the damn thing every week. Nobody, not even my normal user has admin rights - and I`m a network admin for a living! (I just typed loving!!!) You`ll know if they`re into computers (neither of mine are, they`re both just users) and can show them, teach them and learn with them, when you have ascertained that they have the skillz needed not to destroy the family photo album / mp3 collection / video archive, then give them gradually expanding sudo access until they can help you manage the the damn thing not cause ever more trouble. No different to keys to the front door. Or giving them a tool kit to maintain the car. Or wood working tools. Welshmnt

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[betterunixthanunix]

Or you could just give them their own, low-end computer (perhaps one that is very old) and they can tinker around with that. Then you will not have to worry about whether or not they are going to delete the family photo album that you did not bother to back up.

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[welshmnt]

Well, you know, I`d never thought of that.....
The boys each had machines (had they wanted it, they could have had half a dozen each, the entire network is dumpster derived). I encourage tinkering. I still don`t want to have to re-install the pc every time somebody else fubes it.Mainly because I deal with this sh1t all day at work (not my kids problem, I know, but still a practical issue). Now we have the option of bootable usb sticks and VMs, but that wasn`t an option when my kids were young (get off my lawn etc)
What tool doesn`t back up their data? There`s still the practical problem of "AARRRhhhggggg, again?" type of frustration.
When you went to school, college, uni, did some body just give you a pc, the complete works of Shakespeare or samples of every rock type on earth and tell you to get on with it? No, because that`s the slowest, hardest, least productive way of doing it. Sit with an interested child as you would with a student (as I said before, you`ll know if they`re interested) and teach, show and demonstrate. It`s not formal education, so let the kid lead in any direction interesting to them.Yes they have to investigate the machines on their own, and they`ll make mistakes (good!) but build up to it. A hard crash and a system restore is unlikely to encourage experimentation. Having bite size pieces explained and opened up as curiosity leads IS much more conducive to experimentation.
`course all this means that you have to like computers and kids :)

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You!

[betterunixthanunix]

When you went to school, college, uni, did some body just give you a pc...and tell you to get on with it?

As it so happens, that is exactly the situation I was in when I received my first computer. I was 13, my uncle and my mother agreed that I should have access to a computer, and as a birthday present they gave me one. My mother insisted it remain in the living room, which was fine since all I really wanted to do was learn more about programming, which I did without supervision. On a few occasions, I did do some serious damage to the software, and I found ways to fix things without asking for help (not that my mother could have provided much help); I was not discouraged when this happened, although maybe I am a special case.

It is not that I think this approach is going to churn out an expert, but it went a long way toward encouraging me to study computer science later in life. This is not much different than giving a child books to read or simple math puzzles to solve. It is not meant to be a formal education, it is meant to foster an interest that can be developed later in life, through formal education (where you get bite sized pieces). As I said, I might be a special case, since corrupted software, crashes, and even physical damage never discouraged me, nor did problems that I had no idea how to solve, but I seriously doubt that a teenager with a real interest in computers (or any other subject) is going to quit just because things occasionally go wrong.

"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[migla]

Talk to your kids.

Make sure there's an open environment at home where the parents take an interest in the kids and talk about what they've been up to and what they're going to do.

This will (statistically) make the kids want to share what happens in their life, which in turn will make them not do stupid things they'd have to hide.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

what if your kid's gay? Transgender? What if your kid's being bullied to the extent that they just do not want to talk about it?

Even if you create a perfectly safe space for your child, they may not open up.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[migla]

Sure. Talking to your kids in an honest open manner about all things is no guarantee, but it is still an important factor for having a good relationship with them and keeping them out of trouble.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

After hearing about the rash of news stories about GLBT teen suicides and bullied teen suicides, I don't know if there is a good solution anymore.

These news stories aren't new and the statistics haven't changed, but my total awareness of the problem has been refocused. I mean obviously the first step is to make sure the kid knows you're not a fuckhead who's going to judge them for being different, but what about the next steps? When the kid goes off to college, that's a different story, but, while there's the chance that something could go horribly wrong in terms of social pressure, you really should have your ear to the ground. Particularly when the stakes are so damn high these days.

tl;dr - snooping on your kids isn't so bad if you're responsible and loving and only step in when it looks like shit could get really bad.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[Anonymous Coward]

"the first step is to make sure the kid knows you're not a fuckhead who's going to judge them for being different"
 
Some parents do fit that description. What about them?

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're right. Though I do not have children yet, and my views might change, I also wonder if it might be worth exposing my kids (at a certain age) to the classic stories of what has happened to "cam whores." Show them that just because you expect things to be private doesn't mean they will be private, and that there are people out there who are trying for this. Worst part is, these days, is that thanks to the internet's infinite memory, once you're out there, you'll always be out there. It may be a trade off between innocence and knowledge, but innocence can't last forever.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[Em Adespoton]

Also, when you regularly talk to your kids, you find out pretty fast when something's up, because they actively don't tell you about it. This is different than lying about it or hiding it from you; kids are very good at hiding things from their parents. But when you have a safe environment for them to communicate in, they tell you a lot more than just the things they talk about. They'll ask you questions that, put together, tell you a bit about what's going on. If you create an environment for them where they feel safer hiding things from you than just not talking about them, THEN you've failed, and must resort to talking to others about them and using keyloggers, etc. in order to find out who your kid really is. It's almost impossible to take this path and get back to the "take an interest in the kids and talk" kind of lifestyle however.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because all kids are identical and inherently good, and as long as you do your part they will come out fine.

WRONG. SOME KIDS WILL FUCK UP NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.

I've been through this first-hand with my wife's now-17 year old. Despite the best efforts of everyone around him (good home, good schools, stay-at-home mom) he made (and continues to make) a fair amount of bad decisions. We did monitor his online activities. Not heavily, we just like to keep a bit of an eye on things every so often or as needed. If we say "you can't go online unless we're around" or take away his computer privileges then he'll just go online at a friend's house or the library or school. I know I can't protect him from everything or prevent him from making bad any decisions but I'd rather he do bad things at home where I can at least be a little aware of what's going on than have him do 100% of his bad things out where I can't see them.

I'm not saying every parent should monitor their kids all the time, but parents should certainly have that option. Sometimes it's just a matter of the lesser of two evils.

There was a really good TED talk (I can't find it now) about a guy who's a psychologist or psychiatrist and he was talking about raising kids. Of course he had kids of his own and he tried to practice what he preached. His first kid came out great, which he chalked up to his 1337 parenting skillz. His second child was a holy terror and nothing he could do helped. Now, if a guy like that can't raise two good kids, what makes you think that *anyone* can with 100% certainty?

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids:

[oldmac31310]

yes, but what you saw was just a rash of stories. Means nothing in terms of the big picture. Snooping on your kids is WRONG.

Predator thing over the line. Interesting though.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I've seen lives ruined because of mistakes made in youth online away from the prying eyes of parents.

Parents can't supervise *everything* but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be in the loop. Nor does it mean that they should be completely intrusive.

Most likely, what a parent should know is if your kid's being bullied, if they're being pressured to do drugs, if they're being ostracized, if they're depressed or otherwise that shit is going to go down. Just asking your kids if that's what's going on

Ultimately, I think it's over the line, mostly because when these sessions are taught, they're not taught with any sort of real perspective or context in mind. What's being lost is the potential of a really powerful tool that could be used to help guide kids away from mistakes and pain they should never go through in favor of scare tactics and sensationalism. Sigh.

"Be Prepared"

[davide marney]

I like the way the Boy Scouts handle this sort of risk. Far better to be prepared for problems and to know what to do in a dicey situation, rather than try to insulate oneself from all harm (which cannot be done, in any event.) I didn't find it very hard hard to teach my kids how to be safe on the Internet. I would not put a blanket prohibition on keylogging, however. If a child deliberately lies about his online activities, is actively seeking out bad things on the Internet, and has been caught in the act more than once, then monitoring is called for. Then, it's really more about the lying than it is about the Internet.

Re:"Be Prepared"

[Anrego]

Well put!

This thing really does sound more like a punishment for violating trust than a preventative measure.

Re:"Be Prepared"

[cptdondo]

Except that that the boy scouts won't prepare you for being gay....

Otherwise I agree with you mostly. Prepare your kids, tell them there are bad corners on the internet, use OpenDNS to block access to the really bad places, and keep communication going.

Praise your kids for doing the right thing, and punish them for screwing up. (No, I don't mean beat them; make sure they know that mistakes have consequences.)

But a keylogger won't help. We have kids who come to our house to update their facebook page because their parents won't let them access facebook. Kids will treat censorship as damage, and route around it. Unless the chief is advocating keylogging every computer your child may come in contact with, it will not work.

And no, I'm not a childless geek; I've got two right now who are doing pretty well, who make decisions themselves and strive to do the right thing, and aren't afraid to talk to us.

Re:"Be Prepared"

[jack2000]

You mean the Boy Scouts who shunned all of their gay or transgendered members and troop leaders? The boy scouts that now openly preach Christianity and severed ties with firmly atheistic people?


And because i know some one is just going to cry for sources here: Read up.

Re:"Be Prepared"

[welshmnt]

"Except that that the boy scouts won't prepare you for being gay...."
Errrr. How do I put this? The back of the scout, rugby or football bus is an excellent place to learn about being gay.....
Most learn that they`re not. A valuable lesson. Some learn that they are, equally valuable.
Good luck with the kids... boy scouts or not :)

Re:"Be Prepared"

[demonlapin]

What do you mean, "now"? The organization is, and to my knowledge always has been, quite open about its religious underpinnings. All the scout troops where I grew up were associated with churches. The "God and Country" badge... well, that's pretty explicit right there.

Re:"Be Prepared"

[Anonymous Coward]

Far better to be prepared for problems and to know what to do in a dicey situation, rather than try to insulate oneself from all harm

Unless it's teh geys! Then, run like hell!

Re:"Be Prepared"

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't find it very hard hard to teach my kids how to be safe on the Internet.

Repeating things probably helps.

My parents still don't know how to use a computer. They had no chance of monitoring me, basically from age seven and beyond.
But personally, I'm waiting for this whole cellphone trend to die out, before having children. Cartoons and toys could be better, too.

Re:"Be Prepared"

[Anonymous Coward]

Keylogging is just a way for lazy parents who don't really care about their kids to feel like they're doing something. You didn't find it hard to teach your kid about the harms of the Internet because you interact with your child everyday. I remember a friend of mine talking about his daughter using the Internet after a news story about a sexual predator. His response was, "My daughter isn't dumb enough to fall into something like that." because he actually raised her instead of doing things like spying on his child.

Came to say this

[Wrexs0ul]

Happy with your successful first post!

We're a generation bringing in the first generation born into Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, etc.. I can only assume that on Slashdot our kids will be curious of what their parents do online at an early age, and very quickly figure out what they can do online too.

It's a little scary to give kids that kind of access to information, but I'm excited by the challenge. I fully intend to have them on my lap in front of the PC at an early age (among other less stationary activities), and when their old enough introduce them to online media, it's power, and teach/learn along the way.

Until they're teens of course, then that sh*t gets locked-up after sundown :). j/k... maybe...

-Matt

Re:Came to say this

[hairyfeet]

Hi Matt! You won't have any problems as long as you are honest with your kids and actually know them. With my two boys I had them playing with my hand me down PCs almost from the time they could walk, had them a little LAN set up so they could play each other (no net access of course) at around 6 and gave them timed access to the net (most routers have time based settings) when their schoolwork started requiring research. I finally gave them full access at around the time I was giving them the talk at 15.

Funny part is I knew damned good and well what was gonna happen when I let them loose. I gave them the whole spiel about how many porn sites have bugs but I knew damned good and well the oldest would think I was full of shit and just saying that to spook him. Sure enough about 3 days later his little brother drags me towards his room laughing his ass off and there is the oldest with his head in his hands as "YOU CAN HAVE A BIGGER DICK!" and "HOT SEX IN YOUR AREA!" pop ups just flooded the screen. I looked at his little brother and we both just died laughing. A month without his PC along with having to learn how to do a spyware removal was a valuable life lesson IMHO.

So as long as you're honest with them, take it one step at a time, and realize they WILL fuck up occasionally and that ALL teens will eventually want to look at the opposite sex naked, everything will be alright. Now the oldest is in premed and the youngest is deciding whether he wants to be a chef or go into CAD, so I figure I did alright. One thing I got lucky with was dope, as my ex brother in law became a full blown meth addict which gave the kids a really great example of what drugs can do to you close up. I'm just glad I never lied to the boys or covered for him because now neither one wants a damned thing to do with any drug after seeing him fried with holes in his face where he picked himself bloody.

The world can be a scary place, but as long as you are honest with your kids and actually explain WHY there are rules (other than "because I said so!") then you'll do alright and they turn out just fine. Every friend I went to HS with that had trouble with his/her kids did the "Because I said so" bit and without a better reason the kids just thought they were being asses and pretty much ignored them when they turned teen. But other than the oldest thinking he knew more about computers and the net than me (BWA HA HA HA HA!) I never had a lick of trouble by simply being honest and giving them freedom in slowly larger increments. A little trust goes a long way.

Re:Came to say this

[Z00L00K]

And when they are old enough to have their own mobile phone they can do a lot of stuff unsupervised. Result is that what they do on the computer may be what you see and on the phone what you don't.

Re:Came to say this

[lwsimon]

Intelligent kids are so much more difficult to raise - and I'd wager that there is a disproportionate number of highly intelligent kids of parents who read Slashdot.

I've got a two-year-old, and I always take time to explain why I set boundaries for her, even though she doesn't fully understand all of it yet. "Because I said so" is valid, if and only if you're really setting a boundary only for your own personal preference; that's okay, you're the adult. The same reason shouldn't be given for "why can't I wear my tutu to Walmart?" as "Why can't I put my hand on the top of the stove to see if it's on?".

Re:Came to say this

[Totenglocke]

I fully intend to have them on my lap

Careful there chief - I know you just want to teach them, but as we've seen with all the bullshit "sex crimes" charges (like the guy on youtube getting arrested), I'd steer clear of that to make sure your kids don't grow up with a dad who's in prison.

Re:Came to say this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your intelligent parenting style is a credit to yourself, your children and the human race. It's just a shame that your are in the vast minority :(

A misanthrope now and always.

Re:Came to say this

[Aryden]

I've found the exact opposite. My daughter is far more intelligent than I was at her age. I have found that when I explain things to her, in a way that her level of experience can relate, everything is fine. I have and will not ever use the "because I said so" excuse due to the fact that it not only nests resentment in a child's mind, but also begins teaching them that they can dictate how/why things are done for no other reason than selfish wants.

Re:Came to say this

[Cederic]

why can't I wear my tutu to Walmart?

wtf? Let her wear her tutu to Walmart!

Re:Came to say this

[CastrTroy]

My thoughts exactly. Unless it's too cold, and then, it's only necessary that they put snowpants on. They are kids. Let them have fun. Took my three kids to the grocery store today. Only the baby had a proper outfit on. The other two were in pyjamas. Let them have fun. There's no reason they should have to wear "proper" clothes if they don't want to, as long as they are appropriately covered.

Re:Came to say this

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been smarter to get him OFF of MS Windows. You can trust the web period. You are teaching the kid to be a victim. Spyware removal is not a solution to the problem nor is "don't surf porn sites". It is more likely you will be infected at a non-porn site then a porn site. The fact he got infected was coincidence. I've NEVER been infected. At least not since about the time the Internet came to town. The only virus I ever had was a DOS based one before MS Windows 95 or GNU/Linux was really going full strength on the desktop.

Re:Came to say this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, your son didn't know about sex until he was 15?

You DO know that median age for a first sexual encounter in the US is 15 and better than 75% of 13 year olds are looking at porn (though only 5% of parents of 13 year olds think THEIR kids are doing it).

While, I think your approach is pretty valid and worthwhile, waiting until 15 to bring this up seems like pissing in the dark in most situations...

Besides, most 9-11 year olds can't do homework now without the Internet.

I know too many people whos parents had "the talk" with them at 15, and they'd already had more than a dozen partners. Everyone at school knew about it, but their family thought they were little angels. Actually, come to think of it, that was a common case, not a rare case. :-)

Re:Came to say this

[xero314]

I believe that was the point. The answer to "why can't I wear my tutu to Walmart" is "Because I said so." The answer to the other is "Because you could get seriously hurt" (overly simplified version). Point being that one is a valid reason and the other is just your own personal preference. I hope you can tell the which is which.

Re:Came to say this

[hairyfeet]

Well in my case I had a valid excuse as my sister, their mother was dying of MS at the time so needless to say nobody was much concerned with sex or dating at the time. When their father first found out she had it he decided that "being a dad just ain't my thing" so he skipped out leaving me to raise two kids while my mom took over full time care of my sister.

So whereas we got a few of the basics covered earlier when they asked questions such as "why do girls have boobs?" neither they nor any other member of the family was caring about the birds and the bees at the time with everyone too busy trying to spend as much time with her as possible before she passed. It was only once we had had the funeral and life began to move on that we were able to think about such things.

I just got lucky that around that time I met a truly wonderful woman who not only didn't care that I had kids but dropped everything and used up all her sick days just to come help out. Having a female shoulder to cry on other than my mother (who naturally was in no shape to help anyone) and to let them deal with their grief really helped.

But you can't really judge the average situation to what we had, because anyone who has had to deal with a long term terminal illness in the family knows you just don't have a normal life when that is going on. You do the best you can, but normalcy in that situation is about as far from anyone else as you can get.

Re:Came to say this

[oldmac31310]

and had you not used Windows it would have been a different story! So Apple and Linux are evil for letting teens surf porn without fear of virii and choking the system with rampant porn pop ups. Hmmm. Otherwise I agree with you!

Re:Came to say this

[oldmac31310]

Isn't there a website for that? Weirdos wearing decidedly odd garb at Walmart? Please don't subject little tinkerbelle to the possibility of joining those ranks at such a tender age! Anyway, she should be circuit bending and making things blow up at her age. What? Only two? Well, melting barbies then.

Re:Came to say this

[Kokuyo]

I hate being too late for these kinds of posts, but.... First I was going "WTF, full access only at 15 years?!" then I realised, that was when you thought it the right time to give them the talk.

W.T.F?!

I assume you mean the talk about the proverbial birds and bees. Let's omit the fact that giving one big talk about this topic is kind of overwhelming and paints a picture of this being something of a secret, something of a big thing that needs to be made a big deal out of. It's not. It's just another natural fact like eating, breathing and so on.

And at 15? Dude, I don't know how uninterested in that topic your boys are, but for me, that'd come seven years too late. Perhaps I just had a head start, I don't know, but FIFTEEN?!

At any rate, it always amuses me when people like yourself come online, go "Look at how enlightened I am with my kids!" and then continues to make himself look prudish.

Then again, I guess many people will have the exact opposite reaction to me, when I share my views ;).

Re:Came to say this

[Cederic]

I can tell the difference, but was ignoring that to make a plea on your daughter's behalf. You're clearly a cruel bully incapable of showing empathy with two year old girls. :)

Re:Came to say this

[lwsimon]

For what it's worth, a tutu is part of her daily attire. I was merely stating an example.

Sheesh - I wasn't aware Slashdot was so pro-tutu.

Re:Came to say this

[lwsimon]

Don't get me wrong - I don't arbitrarily dictate every moment of my child's life - but if I want to get out the door and she wants to go change clothes (again), there is a limited tolerance there.

In the end, I am the adult and my preferences supersede those of my child. Again, I don't do this constantly, but I maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. She may resent me for it momentarily but she'll live. She has plenty of time to be a child and express herself, but there are times where she must defer to the preferences of others.

Learning to balance your own desires with those of the people around you is absolutely a life skill.

Finally, when you are in a position of authority, you *can* dictate how things are done - and sometimes, you should. Would you expect your boss to always let you do what you want?

Another Substitute for Parenting

[OzTech]

It is east to always justify things like this in the name of protection and safety. It is the motherhood and apple-pie argument which Americans use to defend all of their actions.

Sadly, it is not a substitute for taking care of your children. Explain things to them, teach and guide by example. Make them aware of what they can stumble into and how to get out. Handled correctly and with educated children, you don't need nanny filters, porn filters, or key-loggers. With 3 children connected to the internet since their early to mid teens, two of whom are now in their early 20's, I have actually practiced this method and it works. Show some respect and guidance, you might be surprised to discover that you get the same in return. Children are a reflection on their parents, so kids who grow up with nanny filters and snooping software, think it is normal and won't have any issue in seeing it used elsewhere for any reason whatsoever.

Re:Another Substitute for Parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

"Children are a reflection on their parents, so kids who grow up with nanny filters and snooping software, think it is normal and won't have any issue in seeing it used elsewhere for any reason whatsoever."

Hear, hear: and so a police-state of people who think full-scale privacy invasion and monitoring is ok, is born. If mom and dad thought it was ok to monitor me, how bad can it be if the government helps me monitor my kids?

Just say no!

And to think these right-wingers talk about individual responsibility out of the other sides of their mouths.

Teach "internet stranger danger"

[jonwil]

If we teach our kids not to trust random people online in the same as we teach our kids not to trust random people in the real world, online pedophiles wont be a problem.

Kids should be taught that the "Captain Turbo" in that chatroom they like to chat in is not to be trusted in the same way as someone strange who walks up to them in the street.

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[jack2000]

It's hard to teach that to grownups sometimes. Especially ones that have had little exposure to trolls online. I've had to explain email scams to older people with the same situation but instead it's a salesmen at the door or a telemarketer, Then they go "oh". SEVERAL TIMES.
I don't know why people give so much credibility to digital communication.

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[Shikaku]

Because computers make most peoples' brains turn off.

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I got a better idea; teach through experience. (It's the only thing that works anyway)

Step 1: Make a fake facebook account that matches some kid they kinda know.
Step 2: Friend them and post some random garbage that seems real.
Step 3: Send link to tubgirl.
Step 4: ***
Step 5: Your kid will never again trust someone on the net.

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[Em Adespoton]

It's more difficult online though; you have to teach them that "Mrs. Hill" in that chatroom they like to chat in (who just happens to be their teacher at school) is not necessarily the same "Mrs. Hill" attempting to contact them over MSN Messenger. Similarly, you have to teach your kids not to trust the Internet itself -- for instance, when that chatroom all their friends have signed up for wants their age, phone number, address, name of school, and then wants you to enter all your extra-curricular activities, friends, pictures, etc. and keep your event calendar on there, you might trust all your "friends", but you need to trust your friend's "friends", as well as those running the chatroom, and also need to trust that they take your privacy seriously, and aren't leaking/selling your data to someone else (and aren't attempting to cover it up if it happens accidentally).

THIS level of abstraction is infuriatingly difficult to teach to children (to many adults too -- see how well Facebook is doing).

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[Cederic]

It's all fun and games until your precious darling replies with, "Cool! Tried that too, here's the video of me: ..."

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that usually it's not the strangers that are the pedophiles...

Taken from here

Myth: A child is most likely to be sexually abused by a stranger.

Fact: Children are most often sexually abused by someone they know and trust. Ninety-three percent of reported cases of child sexual abuse are committed by individuals who are considered part of the victim’s “circle of trust.”

Re:Teach "internet stranger danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

Outragious

[houghi]

This is not the job of the parents. It should be the job of the school to prepare kids for the future (where they will be monitored all the time)

Beat Summary I Have Seen

[tm2b]

"It is better, and easier, to try to worldproof your children than to try to childproof the world."

Re:Beat Summary I Have Seen

[symes]

Yet we still put up fences to stop kids running into the road and get them to wear seat belts, insist they eat healthily and not just live off fries and chocolate. In the same way, allowing, especially younger children, full access to the internet could take them to inappropriate places quite by accident - it is not hard to find images of people having their heads sawn off, for example. So it is probably a bit of both. I have used software to prevent accidental access to porn and the like. They know this and I've explained why it is there. And if they find images blocked that they would like to see, we will take a look together and revise the whitelist. But I would really not want them inadvertantly wandering into 4chan and the like. Being a responsible parent is all about nurturing and that includes curtailing certain activities.

Won't someone please think of the children!!

[LockeOnLogic]

I hate the notion that there are innumerable predators stalking children on the internet. The actual number of molestations ect barely registers on the actual list of dangers to a child. But it's just so scary in a parents mind that they will ignore real threats to their childrens lives. Fear triumphs over reality again!

Re:Won't someone please think of the children!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the notion that there are innumerable predators stalking children on the internet. The actual number of molestations ect barely registers on the actual list of dangers to a child. But it's just so scary in a parents mind that they will ignore real threats to their childrens lives. Fear triumphs over reality again!

Complete moron! I'd just bet that you're too young to have kids at this point, not mature enough etc... One day you will (hopefully not at the expense of one of your kids lives or livelihood) understand what it means to say "I thought it would only happen to someone else".

Sacrifice?!

[SpaghettiPattern]

Sacrifice?!

How many lazy bum parents do not really give a toss about what their kids are up to?
How many think education is simply telling off?
How many try curb internet access mainly for legal reasons?
How many try curb internet access for so called moral reasons?

The basic of education in a civilized society is knowing good from bad. (Be good to others but don't be a fool. Others may not be all good. Porn will come your way eventually and you should know that in real life stuff doesn't go like that. Sexuality has a lot to do with respect and NOTHING with taking unfair advantage. Laws are to be respected. Etc...)

Teaching kids about these things takes patience and time. Watching Oprah or Doc Phil and nodding at the TV set is useless unless you get your arse and mind out of that comfy chair.

First get your arse into gear. And only when everything you really tried hard fails, then you start spying on your kids. And BTW, spying you will loose you the respect from your kids.

Re:The real threat is close to home

[MathFox]

I agree that the biggest danger is close to home, family and friends of the family. And while there are "predators" on the net they are far less dangerous than the predators the child may meet in real life. Children are pretty safe with the online equivalent of "don't go with the stranger offering you candy."

What are some good rules of the thumb:

• Don't talk to people you are not comfortable with.
• Don't tell where you live. "Near Big City" is good enough for someone until you trust him/her.
• Be careful with what you show on your webcam.

If you following the advice the Internet is a good place to experiment with political and sexual discussion, pregnancies and STDs come from meeting IRL.

Install one on parent's computer too

[kindbud]

The chief continued... "Because kids are smart they might suspect that their own PC is keylogged, and use another computer in the house to avoid being supervised properly. To avoid this I suggest installing keyloggers in all computers in the household. Now, parents I know are very busy and it is hard to keep up with all this tech, so to help you be a better parent, the department has setup a website where you can register your keylogger and upload its data to our servers, where department specialists will look for any red flags that need to be brought to your attention concerning your child's online activities. Once this program is more widely adopted by your child's friend's families, we will all be able to keep all our children safe online, no matter which computer they use."

Re:Install one on parent's computer too

[mark-t]

If a parent is paranoid enough to be putting such software on a PC to monitor what their kid does online, there's a good chance that such software is on every other computer the kid can access in the house... so going to "use another computer" wouldn't actually change anything.

Re:Install one on parent's computer too

[Patman64]

The police don't even have to have a court order to wiretap your computer now, they just get you to install it to "protect your children". How wonderful.

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Show them the very worst 4chan has to offer. They'll be so scarred they'll never go near the internet again

Teach your kids about decisions/consequences

[bl8n8r]

Teaching kids to be sneaky is the answer!? Kids have been "going to their friends house" since the dawn of time. Understanding the lessons of decision making will be of more use to them when you are not around. If they are too young to understand decision making, they are too young to be on Facebook.

The consequences?

[Blackajack]

There will be many, many kids who will never, ever trust their parents again.

Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight I log what my kids do online, but I never admit it or tell them about it. We were all young once and we all made poor decisions. It is part of growing up.

I also block content at the proxy server and act really dumb when certain websites don't work at our house from the family PC. "I don't know, did you get a virus or a rootkit somewhere?" is my standard answer. It works on my PC.

Someday they will learn about transparent proxies ... maybe. Until they do, they are "Lusers" and don't need to know anything about our home network security, just like the users inside my company don't need to know. Google and results for proxy are not blocked.

BTW, I learned this from my excellent parents. They knew I was smoking pot and drinking as a teen. They said nothing, but after a bottle of JD disappeared from my room, we entered the "don't ask, don't tell" parent-interaction-method. About 10 yrs ago, Mom admitted to everything - she was pissed about the pot, but her and Dad decided it was a "phase" and to leave me alone if it didn't impact any other part of my life - which it didn't. I was in sports, held a job, got ok grades (As and Bs) and didn't get into trouble anywhere.

Talking with your kids is a good thing too.
Trust, but verify - just like in the business world.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Gravis Zero]

Trust, but verify - just like in the business world.

that goes up their with "charity for a price" and "unlimited, up to 5GB"

are you in marketing?

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Larryish]

Trust, but verify - just like in the business world.

That is an excellent policy.

It reminds me of "Rayfield's Law" - Trust only exists until it is questioned, after which it becomes an exercise in risk management.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[pinguwin]

But you're not in the business world. You're in a family. If you run your family like a business, I am most pleased to have grown up in the family I did rather than yours.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Synjyn]

Talking with your kids is a good thing too.

like a secondary objective, some messed up priorities here, lies and deceit, no wonder there are so many messed up kids.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Kielistic]

Wow. Now I'm no parent but that has got to be the most unhealthy family relationship I have ever heard boasted as advice. You secretly spy on your children's private conversations. You clearly know it is wrong and that your children would not be okay with it because you will never admit it to them. Do you have spycams and microphones in their bedrooms as well? If my parents had have logged my private conversations I would have been furious. I absolutely would have never trusted them or ever confide in them.

You lie to their faces when they ask you a question because you are too arrogant to actually talk to them. You come across as the OCD aspergers IT guy that everybody hates because he's an asshole. You even refer to your children as "lusers". "Don't ask, don't tell" is not healthy; it is not considered healthy by any sane person.

You know what is part of growing up? Having private conversations that your parents do not know all the details to. If there is evidence of something being wrong you investigate. You don't log everything they do so you can secretly read what they say when they think they have privacy.
Fuck I feel bad for your children.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Anonymous Coward]

What software do you use? Symantec tells me everything is a virus, so I can't tell what's legit and what's not.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Anonymous Coward]

Die in a fire you worthless cocksucking piece of shit.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[rhizome]

Damn straight I log what my kids do online, but I never admit it or tell them about it.

So do tell, what has your monitoring saved your kids from? I'm guessing nothing, since you appear to be raising them in an environment of lies and ignorance (rootkit?). I fear that one day you are really going to find out that your monitoring has some huge blindspots (and yes, I know you probably have a relationship with your child outside of network monitoring), since monitoring (whether kids or computers) typically fails in spectacular if not catastrophic ways.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[RightSaidFred99]

I'm sure you're raising yours in a much more open and healthy environment. Oh, wait.. you clearly don't have any fucking kids and are just talking out your asshole.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, great thing your parents did there. Invaded your privacy but didn't even proctect you once they found things out. What was the point of going through your room if they didn't even tell you it's bad to drink and smoke pot as a teenager?

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[oldmac31310]

So you're a jerk?

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online

[ModernGeek]

You have failed as a parent, as a person, and as a teenager. I just hope that your children find their way out of this generational trap of laziness and incompetence.

Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your kids

[93 Escort Wagon]

We didn't limit our daughter's online activities - but the computer she used was out in our living room. We explained to her why we felt it mattered, and also explained that it wasn't so much distrust of her as it was concern about a small minority of online denizens she might run into. We didn't spend time looking over her shoulder, but we would on occasion ask her what she was doing at the moment and who she was talking with. And no, we didn't really check - we took her word for it.

You may or may not agree with this, but really the bottom line is this - be honest with your kids. If you're sneaking around behind their backs, don't be surprised if they turn around and do the same thing to you. If you want them to respect you, show that you respect them. Sure, it's not an equal partnership and you certainly need to look out for them, but the goal of raising them right is you should be able to trust them to do the right thing most of the time.

That is how veal surfs the Internet

[gig]

If you are going to do this, you might as well just go all the way and crate them up like veal. Why not bug their rooms? Cavity searches every night will protect them from the dangers of contraband.

What amazes me is that we don't have a set of parents set on fire literally every night somewhere in the country. Maybe we do and we just don't hear about it.

In Soviet Russia, kids keylog you!

[gig]

I bet these same parents would be so pissed if the kids keylogged them and for example revealed Daddy's porno habits or occasional affairs.

Who keylogs whom?

[petes_PoV]

Meanwhile, the kids are learning how to install keyloggers on their parents' machines. After, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose's parents. Plus you never know when you'll need a little leverage to excuse those bad grades, trade for being grounded or as an "incentive" for that first car.

The parents have already set the ground rules (that privacy and respect mean nothing) so the kids are only learning fromthat example - oh, and the example from law-enforcement.

Re:Who keylogs whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

From personal experience:
When one of my parents tried controlling my computer use beyond anything I thought reasonable, I keylogged the machine and got all the passwords I needed to "right" things without an argument.
Clamping down on your children just makes them irritated if they perceive you as too controlling. Was what I did right? I certainly never felt any meaningful repercussions. In fact, when my parents found out, they recognized my abilities and bought me a book on C++. I was twelve at the time, and six years later I'm a freelance web designer. What this tells me is encouragement of productive--but still fun--computer use has more positive results than being controlling because you can.

Re:Who keylogs whom?

[oldmac31310]

yeah and root kits too!

Much easier way to handle this

[RobertLTux]

1 Be known as the neighborhood "Tech Guy" and ensure that all the wifi in your neighborhood is secured.

2 when your own internet is setup designate one room as the "com room" LOCK THE DOOR TO THIS ROOM

3 install a computer between the gateway and the router to the rest of the house

4 log and or filter the traffic as desired

5 Profit!

Of course this may result in you raising a Hacker (since if you do your job your kids will need to 1 break into the room 2 figure out how to access the filter computer) but thats not a bad thing. And yes this is mostly a "first pass" method that also requires you to be active in your kids upbringing.

Re:Much easier way to handle this

[toetagger]

How do you take care of Sim Cards? (in laptops, smart phones, or even a hidden mobile hot spot?) And how long do you think it'll take a kid to figure out how TOR works? And what do you do if you have 3 children ages 10 to 18? And how do you prevent them from being told the wi-fi key of one of your neighbors?

Re:Much easier way to handle this

[Mal-2]

What stops them from just jumping onto a sympathetic neighbor's wifi connection instead, bypassing your proxy entirely? If someone had tried this on me, the first thing they would notice is that the intercepted connection would go completely silent after obtaining tools to go through another route entirely.

Re:Much easier way to handle this

[Asic Eng]

What's the point, don't they have friends who have computers? Or access to computers in the library? Or friends with smart phones?

Re:Much easier way to handle this

[RobertLTux]

the same problems are present in a keylogger situation my method also gets around the whole problem of an antivirus program ripping the keylogger out doing its job.

Re:Much easier way to handle this

[Asic Eng]

Sure, but why expend all this effort when it's trivial to circumvent?

Things are going to get harder...

[Zelgadiss]

With the proliferation of mobile tech like the iPhone, monitoring is going to get harder.

No opinion on the issue, I don't have kids of my own ... No idea how I would go about it if someday I do.

Re:Things are going to get harder...

[betterunixthanunix]

I know how I will raise my children: they will not get a smartphone, because I am not going to hand a $300 cell phone to a child. When my children get their first jobs, even if it is just walking around the neighborhood mowing lawns, they can save their money and buy their own smartphones if they want.

Kids are smarter

[Aphrika]

Wait until they hear about the key logging software at school, then use it to swipe their parent's card details...

seriously though, technology isn't the answer to everything, communication helps.

its an illegal wiretap for other users

[Anonymous Coward]

a secret keylogger is a wiretap and a five year federal felony. A crime in most states. Generally courts rule parents can consent for their kids if the real intent is to protect them. But often one parent will put it on and watch not only what the kids are doing but what the other spouse is doing. And what about visitors?

Re:its an illegal wiretap for other users

[niftymitch]

Yep and the police chief is in trouble for being a co-conspirator.
It does depend on the specific state and local laws....
But it is a wiretap and when connected on line to a service
like Facebook that crosses city, state and county lines... there is
little doubt that federal wiretap laws apply -- as far as I can tell.

Heck my cell phone has an IP address across the Mississipi river.

No-Nonsense

[sonamchauhan]

Walk into work tomorrow then, and threaten to quit unless they turn off the surveillance cameras.

Re:No-Nonsense

[maxume]

A child isn't recognized as being capable of giving consent. It's like half of the point of the distinction between a child and an adult.

Most kids now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most kids now will be able to find and disable keyloggers before the parents have even turned their backs on the and most likely reversed to flow so they can find out what the oldman and Co get up to when they are not around

What a lot of these Fuzz types forget is that kids have no fear of computers if they fritz them up yea so what ,, Dad the computer has died again come and fix it or get the repair man in ,, kids watches dad/repairman type in passwords and usernames and bingo cover blown endgame 1-0 to the kids dont believe me try and see how quickly they crack your plans wide ass open .

Hell i have a 6 year old grand daughter that even knows how to boot off a cd and run fdisk just for the fun of it , I have refused to re install windows now on here machine

Re:Most kids now!

[cheekyjohnson]

Really? Some people keep talking about how kids today are so good with technology, but that's not necessarily true in my experience. Most of them merely know how to access their Facebook accounts, use a proxy, and point and click. That's pretty much it. They don't know the details about anything. They might know slightly more than their parents, but that isn't saying much. Most people just seem to be technologically illiterate.

Re:Most kids now!

[jack2000]

They don't need to know HOW it works. Make no mistake, there are point and click tools for detecting keylogers and rootkits. Killing keyloggers on linux is as simple as holding a three key shortcut.

There's even liveboot distros made to deal specifically with problems like these. They would mount your windost partitions and deal with the problem for you.

Re:Most kids now!

[cheekyjohnson]

They might not need to know how is works, but it certainly helps. What you say is true, but as I said, they are not much more technologically knowledgeable than their parents.

Re:Most kids now!

[Joe U]

Security key fob & password. Good luck kid.

Granted, part of my job is network security, so I might not be the typical parent.

Re:Most kids now!

[russotto]

Security key fob & password. Good luck kid.

Granted, part of my job is network security, so I might not be the typical parent.

Yeah, but as a result, your kid might not be the typical kid. Ask Robert Morris.

Although I suppose it would be a case of mixed feelings if you find your kid has managed to locate a camera to surreptitiously record the password, and ran a side-channel attack on the keyfob.

Re:Most kids now!

[Joe U]

Although I suppose it would be a case of mixed feelings if you find your kid has managed to locate a camera to surreptitiously record the password, and ran a side-channel attack on the keyfob.

*Sniff*... Junior is growing up so fast. I was twice that age when I cracked my first system.

OK kid, it's dial-up only for a month.

Turnabout is fairplay

[iter8]

Today's lesson is parents keylogging kids with the aid of the police. How long will it be before the computer savvy among the kids keylog their parents or teachers? Kids learn things quickly. Teach them that spying and dishonesty is the way to treat people and they'll learn the lesson and apply it.

Re:Turnabout is fairplay

[sjames]

Next up will be the police keylogging the parents with the aid of the kids.

Why so pessimistic, officer

[Anonymous Coward]

'When it comes down to safety and welfare of your child, I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children,' he says.

Oh, I think they would. These parents sacrificed their sanity.

Re:Why so pessimistic, officer

[Anonymous Coward]

And they sacrificed their children's trust and respect. Do they really think the kids will never find out?

I seem to be in the minority.

[Little Brother]

I seem to be one of the few here who does not object to monitoring and key-logging software. Although I think key-logging is overkill (a logging proxy is my preferred solution) I think software monitors offer a good compromise. More than once a parent has come to me wanting me to install internet filters or netnanny type software and I convinced them to go with a logging solution instead. (Again, I didn't use key-loggers, just proxy loggers, so the parent knew exactly what sites the child went to online, but not what they did there.) I do not think this greatly erodes trust if the parent tells the child it is happening. A simple conversation about it is enough, and simply letting the child know, "hey, there is a logger set up so I can know what sites you are going to if I want to, I'm not going to be looking at every site you go to, but if I get worried about something I can go back through the logs." is not a huge deal, especially if it is done while the child is young. Springing it on a child WITHOUT telling them could cause some problems. I'm not as sure I agree with this solution for much older children, as I think a 16 year old would have a problem if such a plan were suddenly implemented (unless, perhaps, it goes along with first computer in the bedroom or another increase in privileges so can be seen not as reducing their rights, but expanding them less.)

Re:I seem to be in the minority.

[cptdondo]

So your kid knows that if they want to visit the latest "hot site" they have to go to a friend's house.

Quit kidding yourself; computers are legion, and all they need is an ipod, and a visit to the local coffee shop and they've completely circumvented your logger.

Re:I seem to be in the minority.

[inventorM]

There isn't much that can be done to prevent a determined child from going around the protection. However, the software should not be considered a panacea for Internet problems, but rather a reminder to the child to do right while using the Internet. The knowledge that somebody might be watching tends to prevent many problems before they occur.

Re:I seem to be in the minority.

[Little Brother]

I would most likely just have no problem with the hot site being visited at home.

Re:I seem to be in the minority.

[Little Brother]

And if it were something so bad I would have a problem with it, yes I would rather that shit be traced to someone else's IP.

Hold on...

[Internetuser1248]

Given that a significant percentage(canadian statistics) of children who are the victims of violent crimes committed by their own family, there is something decidedly sinister about this. I am not sure what the percentage of violent crimes commit against children by people they met online is but I imagine it pales in comparison to the 30-40% committed by family members. It seems to me that the only real purpose of a keymapper would be to know if your kids ever tell anyone "daddy hits me sometimes". Conversely, the better method that was suggested by posters above: that parents simply educate their children about the internet, will result in the children being aware how easy it is to report such things to an authority who will act on the information.

As is so often the case, the claimed purpose of security is the opposite of the actual effect.

When was it that

[Xanlexian]

When was it that everybody decided that everybody else wanted to fuck our kids???

Wonder how he would like it?

[geekmux]

Hrm. Kids put themselves in dangerous positions every day online huh? Not unlike the officer sworn to protect the People. Therefore, "to ensure the mental stability of our Police Force, we are instituting a policy of installing keystroke loggers on every electronic device the officer owns." Yeah, I wonder how many officers would retire early or quit if that policy came down...

Seems good parents were able to raise their kids for hundreds of years without the need for such invasion of privacy. If your control and influence over your own children has been reduced to needing a keystroke logger, then you probably are far too late.

Not to mention monitoring will soon become a futile effort as children figure out the ways around these "big brother" tactics. What's next, parental wire-tapping to capture all the voice conversations too? Talk about slippery slope.

Sorry, I guess I'd rather step up to the table and be a good parent rather than raise a paranoid child with severe trust issues. Keep pulling this hyper-monitoring shit, and the new fashion trend in Hollister will be tinfoil hats to outfit an entire generation of conspiracy theorists.

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only would I install this on the computer I bought for my child to use (I would tell them it is installed and that is the rules while you live under my roof) I would also log any outbound access with a firewall and tell them this logging is also the rules.

You can't trust the millions of predators out there to do the right thing.

Rarely has we asked the question...

[Rix]

Is our children Facebooking?

fearmongering plain and simple

[Lawrence_Bird]

protecting them from what? The 36 child predators that are online trolling facebook? The whole child predator/child pron thing has been so blown out of proportion. How about this? Little Jonnie and Susie can't meet any new facebook 'friends' in person without mom or dad there the first time? And not at the house.

Instant 24/7/365 'news' coverage has resulted in mass hysteria over so many things (not just the above) that we are now a society that is petrified to go outside lest some boogeyman somewhere get us or our loved ones. Because well, it can happen! Of course, the incident rates are minisucle and events which otherwise would remain isolated and local now become out latest national problem to solve. Liberty be damned. Constitution? ha.

False positives and overprotective parents.

[Alex Belits]

There is a much worse problem with this -- what parents are going to do with all this data? Keylogger gives no context, does not identify people the user communicates with, does not even properly reconstruct a message after editing, copying and pasting. So huge amount of perfectly valid conversations may look potentially bad for parents. And parents will have to process this every day.

It's inevitable that each and every parent will eventually encounter something they have to "react" to. But how? Kid will get the whole thing thrown into his face, including the fact that parents installed a keylogger and did not tell him. Overprotective parent will happily sacrifice kid's trust in himself when seeing that his precious child is in a danger of being raped. Over what? Emailing grandpa his home address? Expressing approval of classmate's dress over IM? Arguing about exact lyrics of a song heard on TV? Millions of other perfectly normal conversations?

Brilliant Cop....

[EuclideanSilence]

A group of detectives just talked adults into voluntarily installing keyloggers on their own computer.

It's like a cop's wet dream, a city full of computers with keyloggers already installed on them. All they needed was a little it's-for-the-children.

"Your children need to learn how to avoid potentially dangerous situations on a computer.
Here.
Install this keylogger."

Did the detectives have to practice keeping a straight face during the seminars?

and the kids hacker buddy does....

[Anonymous Coward]

and the kids hacker buddy teaches the kids to setup the logger to show what the parents want and thus totally negate the use.
ONCE kid = this smart parents are doomed to survey.

Nothing Wrong with This

[inventorM]

A parent's job is to ensure that his child matures into a responsible adult. A parent has the responsibility to know what his child has been doing so that he can reward the child for doing right and punish the child for doing wrong. For a parent to supervise his child's Internet access is not different than for him to watch over his child while the child plays in the park. A child might bypass some of the dangers of the Internet, but a child is not able to discern many of the complicated dangers that abound in society. Therefore, a parent should use tools such as keyloggers to supervise a child's Internet access. This is not a breach of privacy, but another way for a parent to unobtrusively care and watch over his child.

kids will be kids, good or bad.

[cenobyte40k]

I am guessing 99% of the people posting here don't have children. They have no idea what it's like to raise a child and while they think they are offering good advice they are coming from a place of ignorance do the lack of experience. I have three really great children, One is a 4.0 student in College, One is a Army Ranger, and One is making me a proud grandfather. All three of these kinds where the good kids, the ones the schools always raved about, they where the ones that the other parents said 'I wish my kids where like that'. I also caught each them drinking, sneaking out, using the computers/phone when they where not suppose too, sneaking people into their rooms, etc. etc. etc. Sure I always knew my kids where smart enough to stay out of real trouble or at least try too, but to suggest that if you have good kids you don't really have to watch them is wall idiotic.

Re:kids will be kids, good or bad.

[wealthychef]

I am guessing 99% of the people posting here don't have children....to suggest that if you have good kids you don't really have to watch them is wall idiotic.

So is assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. It's possible that your point of view is not as ironclad as you think.

trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids lie.

Yet Again...

[FlyingGuy]

It never ceases to amaze me how many apparently well educated people ( I am assuming of course that most people on /. are well educated either formally or informally ) just don't get it.

There is a razor fine line a parent walks between giving a child the freedom to express themselves and explore and grow and protecting both the child and themselves from some of the very ugly bits of reality in this world.

Could Have, Should Have, Would Have if only I had known

How many times have we all seen or heard of a situation that we come up against in even our own lives that even the slightest aside to someone would have prevented something very very wrong from happening.

Call it spying, call it invading their privacy, call it not trusting them call it whatever you like, but there is nothing wrong with key loggers for your 13 year old daughter or son. Absolutely nothing. I state that firmly and without reservation, and the rest of the world be damned.

I make that statement because in my world it matters what you DO with that information. As we all know information IS vital to being able to guide events. You look at the the data and you see that your kid is trending into a pattern of behavior that you know is going to get their ass in a sling you just might want to start doing things with your kid that will gently guide them away from that. Your daughter and all her little pals are planning an event and in their little chat groups and what not you discover that someone is bringing drugs or there is going to be booze there you just might want to plan an alternate family event that just happens to prevent them being able to attend. Do you get in your kids face and call all their friends losers or do you gently steer them elsewhere, "Sorry kiddo we are going to be out of town that day."

Since my wife I are the ones that are going to get our asses raked over the coals by CPS / The Police / Family Court if our child does something stupid which, and lets face it if we all remember back to when we were 13 we know that despite our parents best efforts we did some stupid shit, 13 year old's are want to do, then we damn well have the right to use whatever tools that are at our disposal to attempt to prevent said stupid shit from happening.

It really comes down to how you act on that information. If you see your kid making choices that keep them out of trouble then you keep your mouth shut and let them explore and make the small mistakes and occasionally a few of the larger ones that have consequences that might very well cause you to have to take some kind of punitive measures but that will not endanger their future and or health. BE the invisible hand of guidance and let them grow up and hopefully they will do no harm to themselves and others.

Re:Yet Again...

[russotto]

There is a razor fine line a parent walks between giving a child the freedom to express themselves and explore and grow and protecting both the child and themselves from some of the very ugly bits of reality in this world.

No, there really isn't. There is, in fact, a wide path within which a child can turn out just fine.

Since my wife I are the ones that are going to get our asses raked over the coals by CPS / The Police / Family Court if our child does something stupid

So this isn't about the children at all. It's about your own fear of punishment at the hands of a different bogeyman.

Re:Yet Again...

[FlyingGuy]

You are either not a parent, or you just don't pay that much attention to the news, or you were a parent ( to young children ) a long time ago.

When I was a 13 year old it was 1971 and the path was a lot wider, with that I agree, but that path has gotten narrower and narrower as the nanny state continues its headlong plunge into our lives.

Piss your kid off and all they have to do is go to school and mention any of a dozen things you have "done" to them and the school wont call you, they will call, usually in this order, Child Protective Services and then the Police and you will find yourself in custody trying to prove your kid is being a little shithead because you wouldn't give them a, pick one ( cell phone, play station, iPod, iTouch ) or any other thing that some idiot parent has given their kids to take to school.

This has happened in my kids school. I know the parents and they are good people that are trying to do their best with a kid who has figured out that he could really put a hurt on the parents by crying wolf. It may or may not happen again, but if the kid says something the school principal is obliged by law to report it. And guess what, your name is now in the CPS computer regardless of the outcome. This is not some "bogeyman" this is reality.

When I was 13 if I had pulled some nonsense like that, the principal would have called my mom, then my dad, parked my little ass in his office, had a quick chat with my mom, who would have taken me home and given me the beating I would have so richly deserved. My dad would have then kicked my ass again when he got home.

Are their kids who just need a little more attention and nurturing, yes there are. Are there kids who should be trusted more, yes there are. Are there kids who's activities deserve intense scrutiny because they have demonstrated that their judgment is unsound, yes there are.

Every parent has to make that call because every kid is different and each reach a level of maturity and trust at different ages. Your blanket statements and those of the others on /. are really useless and pointless because you are not walking in their shoes.

Re:Yet Again...

[niftymitch]

It never ceases to amaze me how many apparently well educated people ( I am assuming of course that most people on /. are well educated either formally or informally ) just don't get it.

There is a razor fine line a parent walks between giving a child the freedom to express themselves and explore and grow and.....snip...

+1 yet it should be known that as the current laws read the risk of ending up on the wrong
side of the law is getting more and more real.

When a husband is prosecuted for 'spying' on his wife because he discovers her infidelity
on their shared computer the handwriting is on the wall.

Be warned we have elected some IDIOTS establishing our laws -- to whit
"Christopher Lee resigns from Congress amidst Craigslist sex scandal"
Continue reading on Examiner.com

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[Anonymous Coward]

And this works, I believe, for the simple fact that mother and father took interest in what she was doing online.

If parents don't ask about what their kids are at, how is the kid supposed to know if they shouldn't be doing something...

Wouldn't Work

[Arch_Android]

Yeh. That wouldn't work for me. First, they'd need to find a Linux keylogger. Then install it across all of my operating systems, and virtual machines, without me noticing. Good luck with that. I'm 13 for any curious.

Re:Wouldn't Work

[FlyingGuy]

You and you are more then likely a 13 year old that doesn't do much that ranks right up there on the "Does Stupid Shit" O' Meter.

I am 51 and have a boy that will be turning 10 here soon. Lemme tell ya if he starts doing things that rank right up there on them "Does Stupid Shit" O'Meter, he is going to get a locked down Linux box with a bios password, user privileges only, sign on windows that we define and it will be sitting in the kitchen where mom and dad can keep and eye on him.

Oh and if you are a 13 year old and you think you are "l33t" or whatever other gibberish and you DO stupid shit, guess who gets to pay for your "l33tness"? Not you innocent little minor if will be your parents, you know those nice people who pay your way in this world?

Wouldn't it be so "l33t" to watch your parents have to defend your "l33tness" in court to the tune of many thousands of dollars?

Kid, no one wants to stifle you, no one wants to hold you back, repress you or any of that other bullshit you might here. Parents, believe it or not, really want you to excel and whatever it is you decide to do in your life as long as it does not hurt you or others, or them. But here is the problem, in all your "l33tness" you like any other kid sometimes lose sight of what the consequences of your actions are when you are just having a blast and being all "l33t" and forget that if you do something, even by accident, then your parents, not you, are going to be dealing with those consequences.

Re:Wouldn't Work

[Arch_Android]

Then, I suppose it's a rather good thing that I'm not some l33t crazed idiot. Only l33t thing I do is some programming. Also, my parents have reason to do that anyway. Thank you for your opinion.

Tell them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Install the keylogger. Then tell them its installed. I want to prevent the action, not have proof after the fact that it was needed.

A Parents Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

My son is 10 he has been using the computer since an infant. Obviously becoming more autonomous along the way. Our computer is in a common area and he can go on it anytime he likes, "unsupervised". I have explained to him the dangers and use any opportunity I can to re-enforce the lesson. However he is a child and will explore on his own. I do not want to spy on him, but do want to be aware of what he is doing. If I find out he is visiting sites I do not approve of I tell him and explain why I do not approve. I have not got to the point of having to lock him out of any site. However if I did I would lock him out at the router. Spying on him connotes distrust and if I cannot trust him it is a failure on my part not his.

Poor choice of words...

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm not quite sure what they meant, or what you meant, but the way I read this, the problem is that the parents are sacrificing too much. They're sacrificing their own integrity, their relationship with their child and any trust there, and their responsibility to prepare their children for when this stuff will be unsupervised.

And I think this is a nice summary:

Edi Goodman, chief privacy officer for Identity Theft 911, expressed mixed feelings about this high-tech parenting method. He called it an updated version of rifling through kids’ drawers and closets.

Only, of course, it's a good deal worse than that. Would you bug you child's room, or make them wear a wire to school?

Re:Poor choice of words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust but verify. You can trust a few kids fully, but not most. This is just another tool. Isn't this better than having silly parents voting for a Gov that forces ISPs to nanny their children?

What would you have the parents do? In the old days when kids play in the garden, you know what they are playing. When they read books, you know what they are reading. Sure they sneak in some playboy "reading", big deal. Now how do you do the equivalent of watching them play in the garden?

Anyone who lets their child do whatever he/she wants is doing their child a great disservice and is not a parent. It's better for parents to "brainwash"/domesticate/bring up their children instead of Corporate America and Hollywood doing it first.

And anyone who thinks a good family is some form of Western Democracy is a fool. You do not have freedom of speech, nor is the Boss decided by popular vote.

Having parents snoop on kids should also prepare them for adulthood where their employers, Gov and random organizations will snoop on them - and in these cases hardly for their benefit.

Re:Poor choice of words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does *anyone* here even recall their childhood? I wouldn't trust 90% of the cretins I went to school with to tell me the correct time of day, and I went to some of the supposedly "good" schools in a "good" area. The teen years are where you see some of the most venal, sociopathic behavior in your life. Every day I saw something that, in an adult workplace, would result in the perpetrators arrest and probably jail time, but it was generally ignored by the power structure at the school. I was considered a good kid, but even I pulled some amazing shit that I don't like to think about.

Trust kids? Are you fucking kidding? Oooo! Sacrificing trust and integrity with their kids! Jebus, someone watched too many Disney family films at some point.

Re:Poor choice of words...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Isn't this better than having silly parents voting for a Gov that forces ISPs to nanny their children?

That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy -- I know of ISPs which already offer that service, but the parents have to turn it on. This is already an issue with game consoles -- all major consoles have parental controls, but the kids generally know more about them than the parents.

In the old days when kids play in the garden, you know what they are playing.

Oh? Did every parent know their child was playing doctor?

Anyone who lets their child do whatever he/she wants is doing their child a great disservice and is not a parent.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. However, there does need to be some privacy for the child, at least.

And anyone who thinks a good family is some form of Western Democracy is a fool. You do not have freedom of speech, nor is the Boss decided by popular vote.

It's actually much more like an anarchy, once the kids get to be teenagers. At that point, it's irrelevant what the Boss says. They're likely bigger, smarter, and stronger than you, and the hours you can actually supervise them are much, much less than before.

I'm not saying let them do drugs. I'm saying at this point, it is their decision, whether you want it to be or not, and you'd better hope you've done your job and they know better by now.

I'm not saying let them meet pedophiles, but the same applies -- short of grounding them from the ages of eight to eighteen, this is going to be their decision. You can forbid it, you can set consequences -- raise the stakes, so to say -- but ultimately, it's their choice, whether you want to admit it or not.

Having parents snoop on kids should also prepare them for adulthood where their employers, Gov and random organizations will snoop on them - and in these cases hardly for their benefit.

What, by teaching them that this is a normal situation that they should just accept?

Re:Poor choice of words...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Does *anyone* here even recall their childhood?

I do. Vividly.

The teen years are where you see some of the most venal, sociopathic behavior in your life.

And if your kid's acting that way, something like this is appropriate. But if you make the first move by breaking their trust and violating their privacy, you pretty much guarantee that's what you're going to see.

To put it another way, suppose you're working for a company which supposedly doesn't track their employees' Internet behavior. You later discover they've installed a keylogger on your work machine and have used it to deliberately gain access to your personal GMail account and such, as a way to prevent leaks, to try to detect disgruntled employees early.

I don't know how many actual disgruntled employees they'd catch that way, but I do know that if I discovered that kind of thing happening, I'd instantly become exactly the sort of disgruntled employee they're worried about.

Yes, teenagers tend to be emotional, impulsive, and ruled by hormones. They're also not entirely irrational -- the answer to every question is not always "because I said so", they actually are capable of understanding and empathizing with your position. The surest way to push them the other direction, into acting like children, is to treat them like children.

Jebus, someone watched too many Disney family films at some point.

As long as I'm recalling my childhood, I suppose I have to admit to that. It's also beside the point, because my family really was like that. My parents actually did trust me, for the most part, and as I demonstrated that I could be trusted, they rewarded me with more trust -- more privacy, more independence, and more responsibility.

He should be thrown out

[Gonoff]

Any police officer that encourages parents to spy on their kids they way is encouraging them to continue not educating their kids making them easy meat for any scumbag they meet on the internet after figuring how to bypass the spyware.

I am older than many here. I have 2 kids 16 and 21. They grew up with computers around the house. My daughter took a poster of her email address to a Show & Tell. They were ahead of their friends with this and now just consider all this stuff part of life.

All the time, I told them what to do & not to do - exactly the same as I told them about strangers, roads etc. I had various people ask me if I knew what I was doing them letting a 15 year old girl have unsupervised access to a computer. I did not have teachers ask me because they had heard her telling her friends the stuff I had told her. She is now at university (not doing IT) and never ran away with anyone she met online and as far as I know is well adjusted and sensible.
If her little brother has a porn collection on his PC, he has kept sensibly quiet about it. If he accesses unsuitable websites, he has got round the fairly basic OpenDNS filtering I run on our home network. He is aware of that because I told them both about it years ago. Either it will keep them off, or it will give them some mental exercise in getting round it.

Re:He should be thrown out

[Mal-2]

What you have revealed to them was where your comfort zone was. I would bet dollars to donuts your son has at least a minimal porn collection stashed away -- I know I did at that age, even if the majority of it was on paper (computer porn sucked in 1987). Now he knows what he can share with you and what he can't -- not necessarily a bad thing, but this is a somewhat convoluted way to go about it.

The only way porn is a problem for kids is when they're too young to understand what's going on -- and grasp that it's as fake as professional wrestling. If they encounter something distasteful, they may run away screaming, investigate further, or find out they LIKE IT, and there's not a whole lot you can do about any of these three cases.

Incidentally, what stops him from setting the DNS servers on his connection to 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2? Are you blocking the port, or did you choose to let the workaround be that trivial?

Re:He should be thrown out

[Gonoff]

To a large extent, I wanted to show him what I liked - yes, comfort zone as you describe. In the same way that we all learn that there are different languages for class, playground, home, grandma and so on, I wanted him to learn discretion. He has done so.

The DNS thing is now entirely open for him to change. When I supplied the computer in the past, he did not have admin access. He bought this one with money he earned, saved from Christmas etc. I helped him set it up in the first place and set up the DNS then when I networked it. He now has the administrator password. If he figures out changing the DNS, he will have done it himself. Like his phone, I told him that the stuff on it is now his responsibility. Whatever he has on there, I respect his privacy until something comes to my notice. I won't go looking.

Won't somebody please...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an easy and cheap (even free). There's really no excuse NOT to do it.
Are you willfully so uninvolved with your children's safety that you can't be bothered to look out for the hazards you know are out there?
Get back to us when you have it set up, won't you? Just enter this address when you configure the software.

Of course this is strictly voluntary.
But, please--any fit parent would take time away from pursuing political idealism for just long enough to protect their children.
Of course it's not for us to decide who is a fit parent; that's another agency. We're just asking the question, and that you consider your children when you make your decision.

!poe

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[swillden]

I'm very glad that worked well for you. You should keep in mind, however, that not all kids are the same. I have four children, all of them raised in the same environment, with the same rules and in basically the same way. With one of them, I'd have no qualms about giving him his own, unmonitored, laptop and letting him use it anywhere he likes (in deference to issues of perceived fairness, I haven't done this -- he has to use the computer in the living room just like the other kids). With another, the approach you mentioned plus some software-enforced time limits (using timeoutd) is adequate. For a third, filtering and basic oversight have proven to be necessary and sufficient; as long as he knows there's a decent chance he'll be caught misbehaving, he doesn't.

For the fourth, I have configured vino on her account so that I can use VNC to watch her screen basically 100% of the time that she's on the computer (without her knowledge), we have full access to her Facebook and other on-line accounts, we read all of her texts and IM logs, etc. All of this very deep and invasive oversight is a condition of her right to use the computer, or the phone. Why? Because it's proven to be necessary. Without such intense oversight and frequent correction she gets herself in trouble. Granted that my daughter isn't a normal case; she struggles with severe clinical depression and an emotion disorder which often leads her to do self-destructive things.

But the point is that there is no one "right" approach to managing your children's computer use. Children are individuals, every one is unique and must be treated as such. Good parents strive to understand their children's needs and strike the appropriate balance between privacy and freedom on the one hand and oversight and control on the other. This is hard to do. In fact, it is almost certainly the hardest thing any parent EVER ever does in his or her life, and every parent gets it wrong, frequently. But parents who care and who work at it learn from their mistakes and adjust their approach.

Tools like keyloggers, VNC, chat logs, phone and text logs, etc. are all just tools. Good parents look for good tools and find the appropriate way to employ them. Good parents also weigh the pros and cons of full disclosure to their children of the degree of oversight being applied. In general, honesty and full disclosure is the best approach -- but there are exceptions to every rule.

The key is to understand your kids, as best you can, and then exercise good judgment, because you know their judgment is lacking. The best definition of wisdom that I've ever heard is "applied experience", and children do not have experience.

No... Cut them off from the world...

[Anonymous Coward]

All kids should just be home-schooled, and not allowed on the Internet. They should be allowed to have visitors and to visit other kids. If a kid is molested by a MAN, he should be shot dead as soon as law enforcement finds him.

Isolate the kids, and kill all the child predators. Let's return to the world to the "Leave it to Beaver" days.

Read your own post...

[fuzznutz]

You have so many missteps in logic, I don't know where to begin:

Kids are sexualized at a very young age by both society and hormones. We used to marry 'em off around that age as SOP because hormones are hazardous

Kids are sexualized today/We used to marry 'em off young because of [the same damn reasons] Kids are no different today. Your harmless twittering was as common 40 years ago as it is today. That is what girls do when learning the "flirting" process. THEY ALWAYS DID IT! Have you never heard of a girl having a crush on her male teacher? Both of my sisters did growing up. And you want to alter societal freedom because it makes you nervous?

When I grew up I was the computer expert explaining stuff to my mom...

And yet you managed to grow up just fine back in the "freewheeling" days of yore before cops set up pervert stings and parents used whitelisting. How on Earth did you manage to avoid becoming a FidoNet statistic? You were 15 when you met an online stranger in person. Up until the eve of your eighteenth birthday, you could have been a pedophile victim. Then you are safe because you see, pedophiles all lose interest after midnight that day.

I blame all this hysteria on small families. I have four children from age eight to nineteen. I was just as overbearing and overprotective as all the other nutjobs when I had my first. By the time the last one came alone, I was a little more rational. You see, the younger ones survived just fine. After a few years and a few kids, you realize that the hysteria is irrational paranoia. I worry more about my kids being hit in a parking lot because they are only paying attention to the DS.

My kids know the rules. And if there is no way I can keep them out of anything they seriously want to find, unless I watch them 24/7 and keep them away from friends. Whitelisting my ass. You are insane if you think you can whitelist and keep them away from anything they genuinely want to discover. You can no more do that than your mother could keep you away from your neighbor friend's Penthouse when you were young.

I caught my 11 year old last fall doing a Google search for "naked girls with big boobs." Did I flip out? No. We had a talk and he has been behaving himself. If you whitelist your home and think you have solved your problem, you kid will be searching for much worse outside your home. And you will never know it.

As for Facebook and its kind, block it if you want to. The high school does. And the kids know how to proxy around it. You are NOT going to stop them. You are better off making sure they know how to use it safely than wishing it away with some half assed software block.

Re:Read your own post...

[Jurily]

As for Facebook and its kind, block it if you want to. The high school does. And the kids know how to proxy around it. You are NOT going to stop them. You are better off making sure they know how to use it safely than wishing it away with some half assed software block.

OTOH, learning to get around half-assed technical limitations might be a real useful skill against certain governments in the future. Just make sure not to set the bar too high for them.

Like how Vodafone UK's content filter can be circumvented by changing DNS servers. I'm over 18, but I don't think I should have to prove it to anyone. It's a modem, not a gun.

Re:Read your own post...

[drinkypoo]

You have so many missteps in logic, I don't know where to begin:

As it turns out, you will begin with a failure in reading comprehension:

Kids are sexualized at a very young age by both society and hormones. We used to marry 'em off around that age as SOP because hormones are hazardous

Kids are sexualized today/We used to marry 'em off young because of [the same damn reasons] Kids are no different today.

You actually went so far as to quote me saying nothing about kids "today" and then went off half-cocked into a rant about how I said kids were different today. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. You are an idiot.

And yet you managed to grow up just fine back in the "freewheeling" days of yore before cops set up pervert stings and parents used whitelisting. How on Earth did you manage to avoid becoming a FidoNet statistic?

The point of that story was that I did manage to avoid becoming a statistic, so clearly I am not a hysterical idiot who argues against a point that was not even made, like yourself.

If you want to go back and try again by addressing some point I actually made in my comment, you are more than welcome to not be an idiot.

Re:Read your own post...

[HungryHobo]

"learning to get around half-assed technical limitations might be a real useful skill "

++

I don't really think blocking teenagers from porn should be any kind of priority and isn't going to make any difference but I actually do think putting a half ass block in is a good idea: it teaches them to get around such blocks.

Arse-end of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

If boards.4chan.org/b/ appears in their browsing history frequently then all bets are off.

Re:Arse-end of the internet

[Alex Belits]

"Mom, why those guys call each other neckbeards and basement dwellers, and post pictures of a cat on fire?"

Only just learned telnet in plain text

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

This Police Chief needs a slap like. I will keylog and wipe your arse with your copy & paste stuck to your clipboard. Idiot does not understand who twated his bank account, stole cookies, LSO's JavaScript etc, etc, etc.

when discovered

[Anonymous Coward]

You know when he/she is old enough they will discover it and will never trust you again. Then he/she will get advice from friends and install or have a friend install a free operating system, switch to usb key booting or other recommended options(friends, phones, cafes), and lock you out of their real life. I've already watched it happen. You won't know about it until the cops call. I didn't figure it out how until I noticed her computer data didn't match the router logs. And since most parents are living their own life as well, many just don't notice, are lulled into complacency, or are easily fooled.

Trust and respect your kids. That way when they screw up, own up to the it as you chose to have them, you can help them learn from it.

As Bender says

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried just turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

What cops are/are not good for...

[Shoten]

I can understand why parents would turn to police officers for some description of the threats out there. I get why they would want the people who deal with criminals to talk about the nature of the bad guys and how they operate. What I don't get is why parents would accept OPERATIONAL advice on how to behave towards their kids. The police are (duh) charged with the investigation of crimes and criminal suspects. This is a model for behavior which is unbelievably ill-suited for parenting.

Re:What cops are/are not good for...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought cops where there to "serve and protect"?

Not every one is ready

[Anonymous Coward]

With great power, comes great responsibility.

Another way of saying

[Dishwasha]

Feel free to replace "parents" with "US Government" and "children" with "citizens" in any of those statements. Also feel free to replace "police" with "FBI".

I don't think that sentence means what you think

[wealthychef]

I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children

Am I the only one that read this with my eyebrows raised?

Holy shit, Palin has you by the balls!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand the bitch, but to sit around and work here into unrelated Slashdot topics is the sign of a fetish. It's hilarious how some of you just seethe with hate over the silly woman. Look at the multiple "LOL MOD PARENT UP" responses you got. Maybe you should all get a room together. Yeesh!

Those of us who are sane just ignore her.

Splitter!

[Quiet_Desperation]

What? How *dare* you argue with the Good Parenting Brain Trust of Slashdot! They are all perfect parents who know what is best for every single situation out there! Humph!

Not immoral, but perhaps irresponsible

[cypherdtraitor]

Every parent has a right to raise their child as they see fit.
While perhaps it would not be immoral for a parent to spy on their child, I do think it would be irresponsible to raise a child to see a lack of privacy as the norm.

Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[bussdriver]

Parents can do almost anything to their kids within the law and even in the criminal situations they rarely get caught and when they do I bet the majority of them do not get a proper response.

There is nothing wrong with keyloging YOUR kid. The other issues are just that-- OTHER ISSUES. It may prove useful to have a log of the kids messages if something goes wrong later. The only real big related issue is the privacy rights of the child, including the use of such info by police to nail your child for something... we are not intelligently handling children in the legal system anymore.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[JustNilt]

Parents can do almost anything to their kids within the law and even in the criminal situations they rarely get caught and when they do I bet the majority of them do not get a proper response.

There is nothing wrong with keyloging YOUR kid. The other issues are just that-- OTHER ISSUES. It may prove useful to have a log of the kids messages if something goes wrong later. The only real big related issue is the privacy rights of the child, including the use of such info by police to nail your child for something... we are not intelligently handling children in the legal system anymore.

The GP is correct you have th be careful but you can do pretty much anything you wish to a computer you own. Since minors have no property rights, their computers are yours to do as you wish with. I agree there's nothing wrong with keylogging your kid, although there are better ways to deal with most kids. I think keylogging is a last resort, though. My children have been told they have no expectation of privacy; at any time I can and will look at anything and everything on their computers or cell phones. While I rarely do, the fact that they don't ever expect privacy makes them think twice before doing risky things.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Chaonici]

> My children have been told they have no expectation of privacy; at any time I can and will look at anything and everything on their computers or cell phones. While I rarely do, the fact that they don't ever expect privacy makes them think twice before doing risky things.

It also teaches them to fear (not respect) Big Brother-esque authority figures. Is that the lesson you want your children to learn?

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[cheekyjohnson]

There is nothing wrong with keyloging YOUR kid.

So you say. The laws may be conveniently written to be ageist, but that does not mean that they are somehow 'right'.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Therilith]

My children have been told they have no expectation of privacy; at any time I can and will look at anything and everything on their computers or cell phones. While I rarely do, the fact that they don't ever expect privacy makes them think twice before doing risky things.

That sounds like an absolute nightmare. I'd probably go insane in a matter of weeks, so I can only imagine what an entire childhood will do to them...

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Aryden]

It also teaches them to be invasive little shits that believe it is their right to look in and spy on anyone and anything around them, similar to the asshats that are in power now trying to do the same with the internet. Children are people, and as such, are deserving of respect and privacy. I treat my daughter with the utmost respect and I provide her with the privacy she as a human being deserves. In return she provides me with respect and privacy. I have taught her the rights and wrongs of civilized society, the internet etc and because of that, she is capable of not only avoiding hazardous situations, but making sure that I know about it if one comes up. I want my daughter to experience life and reality so that when she is an adult, she will not be living in some falsified, dreamed up utopian reality.

I know first hand what it is as a child to not have any rights and as an adult, as well as when I was a child, it infuriates me. Providing a prime example, denial of due process to teens and children. I was sent to the store by my father one night at around 2am to get a refill of his insulin medication. He sent me because he had lost the feeling in his leg and was not able to drive himself. I was 16. On the way to the store, I was pulled over by police and ticketed for "exceeding the speed limit" when in reality, I was at a dead stop at a traffic light. The officer even told me when he ticketed me that "it's 2am and you should not be out driving, but I know at some point you were speeding and you deserve this." When I went to court for the ticket, the judge called my name and docket number. When I approached the podium, the judge stated: "Your fine is $550, due by 5pm today. Next case." When I raised an objection, the judge told me that because I was under the age of 18 in that county, I was not allowed to enter a plea of not guilty and fight the ticket.

So please, continue raising your children with no rights to privacy or any others and watch them turn into the spying, peeping tom types that we already have in the establishment.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[flowwolf]

Yes. Kids don't listen to authority if there aren't any consequences for not. Kids are smart. It's fear of getting caught that leads them to get into trouble where you're not looking in the first place. If they're able to get caught and punished in ANYTHING they do... then you better believe they'll learn to be smart about things before doing them.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[monkyyy]

i wouldnt say nothing, it turns more grey as they get older; at some point it gets strange and people ask why(or at lest should)

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Chaonici]

> Kids don't listen to authority if there aren't any consequences for not.

Are you serious? Kids should listen to authority because authority figures are just, respectful, and trustworthy, not because authority figures say to listen to them "or else." The former is fair; the latter is authoritarianism and tyranny, and will breed spineless adults who obey anyone official-sounding.

> If they're able to get caught and punished in ANYTHING they do... then you better believe they'll learn to be smart about things before doing them.

Translation: "When they grow up, they'll learn to follow the law, no matter what, and never question the system." Because laws are never unjust, right?

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[penguinchris]

You might also say it teaches them to hide things properly (they will always find a way), and to keep track of their private information. It's a real-world lesson - the way most people handle their data, there's essentially nothing stopping the government or corporations or identity thieves or whoever from knowing absolutely everything about them. Probably not that poster's kids, though.

If the kid learns that lesson in a safe way (only the parent finds their incriminating data), then they don't have to learn it the hard way, which is what everyone else will do. And it doesn't have to be super sinister stuff - it will also teach the kids not to be stupid about what they post on facebook or elsewhere online.

To be clear - I think the fear/respect choice regarding Big Brother is false... you must both fear and respect them, and then you'll be able to subvert them when necessary.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Meski]

Hopefully they learn how to circumvent keylogging devices and software. It'll stand them in good stead for later in life with their employers. :^)

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[flowwolf]

I am serious. The only way they learn respect is if you punish them when they test those lines. I'm not talking about tyranical fear. This is just you taking what I said to an extreme position.

Consequences are a fact of reality. Without fear of consequence there is no respect. I guess you just want to protect every child from ever once having a bad feeling :( Aww the children. So sad for them.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Chaonici]

> The only way they learn respect is if you punish them when they test those lines.

What is there to respect about someone who antagonizes you? You do not demand respect, or force it from someone; you earn it.

> Without fear of consequence there is no respect.

Bullshit. Be a nice person, don't abuse your parental authority, actually take your kids' feelings into account, and you earn respect.

> I guess you just want to protect every child from ever once having a bad feeling :( Aww the children. So sad for them.

Cool strawman, bro.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[oldmac31310]

Hmm. Try NY where all anyone has to do is make a wrongful accusation to the ACS to get a parent hauled through court for up to two years based purely on the accusation. In my case - case dismissed, family torn apart. Now this key logging nonsense is just that. Parents need to get off this paranoid trip they've been on for the past several years. these incidents of child abduction etc. are so rare that it makes no sense at all to protect your children from it. Just try to teach them to be smart about the things they do and the choices they make and they'll turn out fine. Just do normal parent stuff, like spending time with your kids and talking sensibly to them. My STBX thinks she has to protect my kids from me because I talk to them with respect, like people, not babies. It will backfire on the psycho eventually. She is the sort of nut-job that would look into this key logging thing but because she is such a retard she would never be able to figure out how to do it. i often despair at the apparent lack of plain old common sense in the world. Why are people so frigging stupid? And it is these clowns like the sherrif in this story that prey on that ignorance and stupidity. I am personally more in fear of the idiocy on my children's teachers and the harm that they can cause than some fictitious lurking boogey man on the evil internet.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[Requiem18th]

In a way though, that's good, it teaches them that there are people who deem their betters who won't treat them with the same respect than they demand. Kinda like how Santa Claus teaches that your parents are lying bastards.

Your kids will ask around, how can I by pass my parents total invasion of privacy? They'll learn about usb linux distros, root kits and of course, key logging. Etc.

Well that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that living in a no privacy world will numb them to invasion of privacy to the point that they'll tolerate having a camera installed in their skull by the government. Kinda like all the slashdoters screaming "privacy is dead, give up" everytime Google or Facebook screw up. But they might just be employees.

Re:Hogwash! Kids don't have the rights

[flowwolf]

You're still taking these words to their extreme positions. Consequences and punishment doesn't have to mean use of force or these shady methods you're talking about. I'm not the one whose talking about parenting their child in this way.

Make the kid do the dishes. Take away their video game. These are punishments and when dealt out with wisdom and fairness will earn your child's respect more than just letting them decide what's best for themselves. Kid's don't know anything about what's best for themselves. It's a parent's responsibility to teach them these things. Consequences are a a necessary tool for the job. Sometimes a kid is going to feel like he wants candy at 10pm. It'll make him feel really bad if you say no. Sucks to be him I say. Welcome to life kid! Sorry you feel bad

Fun fun fun!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Ah, parenting articles on Slashdot! Pass the popcorn.

I love the false dichotomy that always emerges- monitor your kids and they become helpless bunnies in adulthood who will fall victim to every scam artists from here to Ulan Bator, or let them live free to make mistakes and they'll be lucky to even reach adulthood.

Fear is the forerunner of failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Be afraid. Something might happen. You may now stop doing things forever.

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[Anonymous Coward]

"Be honest with your kids." This cannot be stressed enough. I don't believe in all that bunk about sheltering your children from the world, censoring what they're exposed to, etc. The best way to raise your children is to lead by example, and that includes complete honesty. If you want a bit of privacy in your life, then your children deserve privacy in theirs. Unless you willingly share every gritty detail of your life with your kids, then they don't deserve to have theirs monitored at all times.

Trust is paramount to a healthy parent/child relationship. Without it, a parent is simply a prison guard who is held in contempt by his/her prisoners.

Don't keylog, secure the computer.

[Murdoch5]

Key logging software is not the solutions to kids being in danger on the computer. I don't want to make a percentage but I'm sure the number of computers under secured is above 70%. Key logging does not keep kids safe and it does no prevent any issue. What parents need to do is to use high level security firewalls and filters to block kids from being able to get to far on the Internet.

On more then 1 occasion I've been told by family member that there computer is secure because they have norton. When you end up looking at there setup it's so sloppy and grade 8 hacker could reroute it, which also means that a click kid on a mouse can get around it. What really needs to happen is parent have to be taught about how computer security really works and how to setup security so it's effective. The key logger is just the icing on the cake, but its in no way a prevention method.

think of the children is the wrong angle

[metalmaster]

What happens when this keylogging software catches spouses, roommates, guests, and others who expect a bit of privacy? that entry for adultfriendfinder might not be your kid, but instead it could be your spouse. Do you have the right to spy on them? A court would probably say no.

Unless this software has a status icon that shows its recording, and an easy way to disable it(which is the opposite of a good keylogger) the officers shouldnt have the rights to distribute and educate people on the uses of tools that violate privacy.

Sex predator on the net : LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

The crushing majority of sex predator get their victim in their neighborhood, they don't trawl the net for potential victim, knowing how much the media pumped up the sex predator FUD on the net, they know it is quite well watched over. No they go quite much nearer, and sometimes even in the family. Read the fragging FBI statistic. There is a much greater chance that that touchy uncle/neighbor will turn out to be a bad apple, than your kid getting attracted in a trap by a net sex predator. It is always a good thing to tell your children not to disclose location on the net or accept an invitation to meet somewhere without involving their own parents. But the chance that your kid meet a net sex predator is lower by order of magnitude than your neighbor or local catholic priest diddle them in the ass.

Not long at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Today's lesson is parents keylogging kids with the aid of the police. How long will it be before the computer savvy among the kids keylog their parents or teachers? Kids learn things quickly. Teach them that spying and dishonesty is the way to treat people and they'll learn the lesson and apply it.

If this commenter at techdirt is to be believed.

How to Monitor Your Children - For Bad Parents

[kyrio]

Maybe, instead of installing software that's has potential to cause security issues, you could actually monitor your child when he is on the computer. You know, like a good parent.

Although, I guess when your child is what you make it, and you can't trust yourself to make intelligent decisions, how can you trust your child to do so? This also comes from not knowing a single thing about your child because you ignore it as much as you can.

Human Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I forgot children are not human until they're 18 years old.

Big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents taught me a long time ago that when I was living under their roof, it was not a democracy. Not every issue is open to discussion and there were rules to be followed even if I didn't agree with them. Privacy was respected, but it was not a right.

Talking to your kids only goes so far. And I'd rather have parents being educated on knowing how to watch their kids if they need to than relying on a "birds and bees + the internet" conversation and hoping they get it right.

Kids are dumb, parents are dumber. How can a parent steer the conversation to what needs to be talked about if they don't have any way of watching what their kids are doing online?

Re:Big deal?

[Chaonici]

My government taught me a long time ago that when I was living within their borders, it was not a democracy. Not every issue is open to discussion and there were rules to be followed even if I didn't agree with them. Privacy was respected, but it was not a right.

Talking to your citizens only goes so far. And I'd rather have governments being educated on knowing how to watch their citizens if they need to than relying on a "birds and bees + the internet" conversation and hoping they get it right.

Citizens are dumb, governments are dumber. How can a government steer the conversation to what needs to be talked about if they don't have any way of watching what their citizens are doing online?

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[93 Escort Wagon]

But the point is that there is no one "right" approach to managing your children's computer use. Children are individuals, every one is unique and must be treated as such. Good parents strive to understand their children's needs and strike the appropriate balance between privacy and freedom on the one hand and oversight and control on the other. This is hard to do. In fact, it is almost certainly the hardest thing any parent EVER ever does in his or her life, and every parent gets it wrong, frequently. But parents who care and who work at it learn from their mistakes and adjust their approach.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm aware that the approach has to be tailored to the kid. But I do believe that - especially in those situations where a parent feels this level of intrusion is necessary - the kid should still be told about it, and the reasons you feel it necessary should be explained (and in your case, you seem to strongly imply that you've indeed done exactly that).

Not bad.

[QuantumBeep]

I can't see a damned thing wrong with keylogging your kid's computer.

The place where it would go wrong is if you act on every little thing. And many dumbass parents would.

A keylogger that got filtered through some software that would alert the parent if their 11-year-old was cybering on IRC or their 15-year-old was making travel plans to Russia would be useful.

Re:Not bad.

[Asic Eng]

"I can't see a damned thing wrong with keylogging your kid's computer."

Among other points: It's useless and it produces too much data. You are welcome.

these fuckers

[TehZorroness]

I'll warn ahead of time, this is going to be a serious rant.

As a young citizen of New Jersey living no farther then 15 minutes away from mahwah, I have got a thing or two to say about the police in my area. Real Estate in this area is expensive as hell since NYC is not a long drive away. The area consists of infinite sprawling suburbs filled with middle class families living off of jobs in the city (where the money is). These are hardworking people who have a lot to loose and a little to gain from the forms of crime that the municipal police usually deal with. This makes Police work in the area rather dull, compared to cities like Hackensack and Paterson (or Camden...). It would make sense then for Police resources to be allocated to areas with higher levels of violent crime, but instead, these quiet suburban communities feed their pigs on the absurdly high property taxes levied on the absurdly expensive properties. Since the Police are given such a high budget they need to show that it is going to use. My town was one of the first in the area to replace their crown vics with dodge chargers, as well as acquiring several hybrid SUVs. They also need to catch enough "criminals" to show that they are needed.

Throw an over-paid pig in a new car with a new laptop which he can use to look up anyone's criminal record in seconds and they feel like they are ready to push crime to extinction. Every minor traffic offense, every 0.7 gram marijuana deal, every underage party, and every case of loitering must be eliminated. Since the police have eliminated all entertainment (that comes at a cost my generation can afford) from an entire county, we sit around and do nothing but smoke cigarettes. Apparently this looks too much like drug dealing to ignore so the police will use any shred of probable cause they can find to invade your life and look for the weed. When they don't find it, there is always something they can write you a ticket for.

its fucking bullshit

Re:these fuckers

[oldmac31310]

Yeah verily. Fuck the police and the Dodge Charger they rode in on brother...

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[AthanasiusKircher]

Thank you. This is one of the few insightful posts in this entire thread.

But the point is that there is no one "right" approach to managing your children's computer use. Children are individuals, every one is unique and must be treated as such.

To which any actual parent who has thought a bit should say, "Duh." And any Slashdotter who argues about how kids need to find their own way should also say, "Duh," once they realize what that implicitly requires in terms of recognizing individuality.

I learned this before my first kid was even a year old. Even then, babies have personalities, and advice is never "one-size-fits-all." Some parents are horrified by those who would let a child cry for even a minute; others are horrified by parents who supposedly "spoil" their kids by carrying them around constantly and respond to their every need. I could easily look around to friends who had young babies and see how different behavior and personality might require different management strategy, and at that moment, I decided that as long as a parent isn't actually abusing a kid, I'm not in a position to judge parenting style or to dictate what should work for everyone.

The fact is -- different strategies work for different kids. And that is certainly as true when they are teenagers as it is when they are infants. Some kids lack maturity, emotional stability, or even basic intelligence to figure things out about internet issues by the time they are (pick an age). Others can manage things fine and need little oversight from a much earlier age.

Being a good parent and supporting your child's individuality and development in part requires attention and adaptation to help your child as an individual. Many here seem to have their opinion over how to raise the perfect kid -- but no strategy is perfect and will be successful with every individual kid or in every parent-child relationship. So, I'm not willing to say it's okay to set up a keylogger for every kid in every circumstance, nor am I willing to say it violates a kid's privacy a priori. It depends on the kid, it depends on the parent, and it depends on the circumstances.

I would have thought that should be obvious to anyone who is a parent of multiple kids or has even observed different kids and different parent-child relationships.

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[swillden]

Yes, my daughter knows about nearly all of the oversight, and she understands why -- which isn't to say she's happy about it, but she's unhappy about many things that are necessary to protect her from herself. There are specific reasons for the parts that she doesn't know about, too.

First, my daughter goes into occasional downward spirals of increasing negativism that eventually lead her to dangerously self-destructive actions. By "dangerously self-destructive" I mean "If unchecked would likely result in her death". But she's quite good at hiding it from us. When she's in a good place she recognizes that she needs to talk to us about those feelings, but when they actually come, she hides them. So, we watch her on-line activities for clues, and we also have many of her friends reporting to us when they see red flags.

In addition, she often blows off steam on-line in ways that are actually very helpful to her, but she'd hold back there if she knew we were watching as well. So by not telling her that we're looking over her shoulder, we both provide her the freedom to keep herself healthier and we gain insight about her mental and emotional state.

But discussing her is really something of a red herring, because she's mentally ill, not a normal case. The better examples from my post, I think, are the variety of approaches we use with her brothers. They're all different and different levels of oversight are appropriate.

One thing to consider...

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

...is that most parents kids know more about computers than they do. Once they detect the keylogger, they aren't going to be impressed, and a kid with a packet sniffer, deep packet inspection tools and access to your household router logs can potentially put you in an embarrassing position. Just sayin...

Another thing

[nickb64]

My friend and his brother both have monitoring software on their computers and another program that puts their machines to sleep at around 9PM. The one brother is over 18, the other is around 15-16. It sucks for them. I guess you get used to it when you can't call your dad "dad", but have to refer to him as Dr. (insert last name here) all the time, and he's the principal of you High School. I feel sorry for them. The parents couldn't figure out how to lock anything down to save their lives, but installing some mediocre software that is a slight system hog was not beyond their capability, unfortunately. Pretty sure they leave their WiFi wide open.

hmm

[tivoKlr]

Hadn't really considered this vector, as my kids are not old enough to have phones but when the time comes this will introduce a signficant wrinkle. At least I have the next few years to think about how to handle it. TY.

Re:hmm

[budgenator]

Well I'm 56, my oldest stepson is 42, so we just throw the porn up on the big-screen anyways, but the youngsters are phone-freaks now. Take a way my granddaughter's phone and she wails like she'd just been redacted to Gitmo, she's rather be beaten with a stick than have her phone taken.

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[oldmac31310]

Yes

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[oldmac31310]

Are you saying that your daughter needs more protection than boys, or did I pick that up wrong? Sounds like over protection in any case.

Slashdotters are hopelessly naive abut this

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the opportunity to get into trouble went up at least an order of magnitude (maybe more) over the last decade. Why would any responsible parent not want to know what's going on on a computer that they have paid for - not to mention the home that the kid lives in and the food s/he eats. I am in full support of spying on a kid who is not fully mature. In spite of all the nonsense I've see in this thread, many well-meaning, well-brought-up kids do get into trouble on the Internet. In addition, a lot of them are pathologically stresses and depressed. Do I want to know about that before a tragedy happens? You bet I do. There is *nothing* wrong with knowing your child's "secrets on the Internet. Just keep your knowledge secret unless you see something that's seriously troubling to the positive outcomes you want as a parent - i.e. a happy,, healthy kid who is not into heavy drugs, who is not having unsafe sex, who is not stealing or doing other nefarious things in the home that you are paying a mortgage on. Sorry, there's even good brain science that says judgment is "suspended" by most young brains, until their early 20's. I'd like a little insurance against that lack, thank you. So please cut the self-righteous crap about "trust" and all that. THis isn't 1841 when we all lived in small farm villages and everyone knew everything about everyone else. This is a hugely complicated and highly nuanced society, where harm can befall a person who is well-meaning, but naive. Keystroke your kid's computer; it's the right thing to do.

Re:Slashdotters are hopelessly naive abut this

[cheekyjohnson]

Why would any responsible parent not want to know what's going on on a computer that they have paid for - not to mention the home that the kid lives in and the food s/he eats.

Why would any responsible parent resort to such crude methods? Why would any responsible person have children if they don't have time to actually educate them and be by their side?

In spite of all the nonsense I've see in this thread, many well-meaning, well-brought-up kids do get into trouble on the Internet

Trouble? Such as? There are few things that cannot be solved through education. I don't mean secrecy. I mean education.

Do I want to know about that before a tragedy happens?

Don't let them leave the house, then. Ever. That is the only way to ensure a tragedy won't happen to the best of your ability. Bad things happen. Most of the time they aren't terrible.

Sorry, there's even good brain science that says judgment is "suspended" by most young brains, until their early 20's.

Most? I'd have taken your statement more seriously if you used "some," but you didn't. I'll need a citation that proves that most young people don't have any judgement. Sure, their brains are still developing, but people underestimate them far too often. Keeping them in a bubble will, however, only hurt them.

Keystroke your kid's computer; it's the right thing to do.

Be an actual parent by educating your child and being there for them. However, don't be a paranoid, overprotective idiot, either. If you don't have time to do that, don't have children. Very simple.

lol at all the comments

[argStyopa]

Ah, the wave of righteous anger from the (mostly childless) crowd of commenters.

I entirely agree that it's legitimate to keylog your kids. As long as they're minors, it's your responsibility, it's also simple good sense.

I have no problem with an 8- or 9-year old using email, fb, etc to communicate with their friends (or whatever age you feel your child is reasonably able to be "in the world" to some degree). They have one email they use for friends and relatives and school, and another junkname account to use to sign up for disney.com or whatever sites need logins.
Nevertheless, there are lots of ways to make trivial safety mistakes that can end up exposing one to all sorts of ugly stuff on the web.

The question (and what so much righteousness in \.'s comments seems to be getting at, in reality) is what you do with this information. If you *freak* out at reasonable conduct - a 10 year old looking at boobs, or some tweeners emailing back and forth about penises - then the issue isn't the keylogging, it's your unrealistic understanding of the normal sexual development of humans.
However, if your 8-year-old stumbles into some of the sicker fetish crap, or you see emails from someone supposedly their age that are suspiciously interrogative or trying to arrange a contact? Then you're absolutely entitled to intervene.

To suggest that a 5-minute talk with a kid about "here, honey, is what you shouldn't do on the web" is sufficient to allow your child unsupervised access to the web, or to believe that 'checking every hour' or some nonsense is enough, is so obviously advice from sophomoric ignorance it's laughable.

I agree that putting the computer in a 'public' area is a good idea, but imo some of the more seriously dangerous stuff on the web can happen in emails and text, without a giant obvious goatsex pic on the screen.

good job, about time

[hesaigo999ca]

It is about time cops became a bit more pro active with the parents about the security of their child....it is so easy these days to post things...
I had a niece who supposedly had her login for facebook hacked, and had a friedn change her status to "gives the best bjs"
Much to her aunt's dismay, who told the parents imm., her aunt saw the post and thought why would someone put this on their profile....I would tend to think that it was more of a "look how lost my parents are, I can say whatever I want on my facebook and they know nothing..." style attitude.

I did not voice my opinion, but I know these things, and razzing, and initiations are all things still very present in our education system today.
With a bit more "GOOD" parent interest in their kid's lives, without being too intrusive, you can get a better kid in the end...who knows the diff. between respecting her privacy, and just not caring.

Time perspective has a lot to do with behaviour

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg
(Philip Zimbardo on the secret powers of time.)

Children Do Face Dangers

[MoriT]

Like abusive parents, the inability to get accurate information at school or the library about specific topics, and laws designed to remove their privacy everywhere else in the world. When a kid beat up by their parents, fellow school children, ignored by teachers afraid of loosing their own jobs or who simply feel helpless when faced with a broken system, the internet browsed in anonymous mode with all cookies rejected may be the best possible way to find support, or at least hope.

Our society goes out of its way to make children the property of their parents in all but the most extreme cases. The internet has provided a small chink in that total ownership. No wonder law enforcement is now encouraging parents to remove that outlet as well.

what spying on parents too

[Anonymous Coward]

What about getting children to spy on their parents with this software? Maybe they are engaged in some unamerican activities like promoting socialized healthcare. Or maybe they are discussing the last time they smoked pot with their friend on facebook. Children could be used to help the police.

Please, let's Nerf the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thought of monitoring my children's activities online is something that I am not going to do unless ordered to by the courts. Growing up, my parents let me know where the line was drawn, and let me know what the consequences would be for stepping over it. Was I perfect? No. Did I do things that came close to crossing over? Yes. Did I cross over it without their knowledge? Yes. Did I ever get caught? Yes. Did I get punished? Yes.

The fact is, they knew they had to let me grow, make mistakes, and learn from them. Providing it wasn't anything egregious, they let me get the bumps and bruises needed to survive in the real world. What choice did they have with a highly intelligent kid that was determined to find out what their limits were? Very few. (While I'm at it, screw the nanny-state, helicopter parents and agencies that try to Nerf the world in "our own best interests".)

The fact is monitoring is only a feasible option if:
1) You own the device (This will become difficult going forward)
2) You control the device (Big emphasis on that part)
3) There are no alternative side-channel or covert-channel communications available to the end-user (This is the tricky part)

Fact is, once my children get old enough to want to do things without my knowledge online, 8G networks will be everywhere, tethered Internet is going to be a bygone relic like dial-up Internet is now, tablet/pad computers will be cheap and pervasive, and they'll be able to afford to buy them and pay for them using money from a part-time job. So, if little Johnny or Sally wants to go and look/do things they can't do at home, they will. And if not on those devices, someone else's. Just because your parents locked up the liquor cabinet didn't stop you from going to your buddy's house where it wasn't, right?

I'd rather spend what my parents did with me, or as was so eloquently said previously: worldproofing my children, than attempt to childproof the world. It will serve them better in the long run.

Re:Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your k

[swillden]

Are you saying that your daughter needs more protection than boys, or did I pick that up wrong? Sounds like over protection in any case.

Yes, she needs more protection than my boys. This isn't a boys vs girls thing, this is a her vs them thing, because she is mentally ill and they are not.