Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
They will sacrifice all the dignity, freedom, and independence that child once had.
There is no -1 Disagree.
...I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children...
Great argument there, really supporting your cause.
And then he arrests them all when pictures of said kids pop up on the computer. Easy felony busts to fluff up a record.
'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.
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?
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).
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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).
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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
--- Need web hosting?
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"It is better, and easier, to try to worldproof your children than to try to childproof the world."
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
"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:
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
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.
What are some good rules of the thumb:
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.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
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."
Edith Keeler Must Die
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...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Show them the very worst 4chan has to offer. They'll be so scarred they'll never go near the internet again
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
"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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
There will be many, many kids who will never, ever trust their parents again.
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.
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.
#DeleteChrome
A parent may have one or more beliefs:
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK, but who decides what is a danger? IOW, who decides what is potentially harmful? what is actually harmful?
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
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.
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.
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?
Walk into work tomorrow then, and threaten to quit unless they turn off the surveillance cameras.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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?
Why do people have their own children?
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
This could be seen two ways:
"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.)
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.)
Little Brother, watching the watchers
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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 everybody decided that everybody else wanted to fuck our kids???
"Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
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.
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'.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
This could be seen two ways:
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Is our children Facebooking?
> 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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
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?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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?
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.
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.
http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
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.
Security key fob & password. Good luck kid.
Granted, part of my job is network security, so I might not be the typical parent.
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.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
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.
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.
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?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
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.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.
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.
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?
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
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
tl;dr Both. Which is what I said.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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?
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.
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.
All cows eat grass!
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.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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".
"Mom, why those guys call each other neckbeards and basement dwellers, and post pictures of a cat on fire?"
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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?
Currently hooked on AMP
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!
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.
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Such people are still alive. They just aren't ignorant and know the consequences of mindlessly having children like an imbecile.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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).
#DeleteChrome
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
...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...
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.
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.
Ocean is land, covered with water.
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?
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yes
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
In the long run, yes.
Mission accomplished, then.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
-Styopa
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg
(Philip Zimbardo on the secret powers of time.)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
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.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.