Ask Slashdot: Good Low Cost Free Software For Protecting Kids Online?

An anonymous reader writes "I have two kids, 7 and 8. I would love to allow them internet access on a regular basis. The problem is what's out there: I really don't want them to deal with porn ads and such, but making either a blacklist or a whitelist myself would take months. So I figured I would ask you: what free software would you use with preferably prebuilt lists to protect your kids online? What is out there with fairly easy configuration ability (to allow for game servers — they love Minecraft), but secure enough they can't just bypass it using a Google search?"

Comments

Net Nanny

[l810c]

I've used it for the past 2 years. My boy just turned 9.

1 computer $40/year.

Are you really so worried about FREE or are you worried about YOUR CHILDREN?!?!?

Re:Net Nanny

[MagusSlurpy]

You probably aren't a parent. Most people here hold your view (as I did) until they have little ones to protect, then decide that the educational opportunity offered by /b/tards and Goatse is pretty much zero, and decide to restrict educational opportunity to the books available at home and in the library.

Re:Net Nanny

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Your boy's not old enough to have hormones going wild and informing him that boobies are the greatest invention ever, so that software makes sense to avoid inadvertent stumbling upon. For the parents of kids just a bit older though, it's use is likely both useless and a symptom of bad parenting. As soon as they're physically able to reproduce, they need to be able to make decisions about it as a responsible adult; they will be in situations where they have the final say on the matter.

Me, I'd say both he and society are better off if he's wanking to a porn tube site and not knocking up the thirteen year old girl down the block. So, drop the net filter subscription and invest in either a damned good anti-virus or teach him to use Linux. Before it becomes an issue, because you've no idea when he's going to talk his way into his first set of panties.

Re:Net Nanny

[RJFerret]

*snickers

First porn I saw? Elementary school (black and white photos)

Second naked pics? Library (color, woohoo!)

Third naked pics? Home

First information about hardcore sexual practices? Psychology section of school library.

It works best to guide our children, we instill values in them a far earlier age than most realize, then they make their own decisions. But if you decide to make them work around your efforts to thwart their curiosity, such sites can easily be included in the Hosts file provided above.

Re:Net Nanny

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.

It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7. It is not unreasonable to want them to learn about sex and sexuality from a source that won't teach your daughters that slutty is what men like, and that their bodies are all wrong, and need silicone, and botox, and collagen, and liposuction and thousands of dollars of other cosmetic surgery to be attractive to men; or from a source that will teach your sons that women are sluts, bitches, and whores to be used as nothing more than a willing hole, and that "real" women have bodies like porn stars.

They are not old enough to understand the nuances of sexuality at that age. Their minds are still developing, and it is not unreasonable to want to make sure that their minds are not being filled with garbage. Looking at a black and white pair of tits is a LOT different than a 30 minute high-def, full color video showing everything in brutally clinical detail. It's natural that they will be curious about sexuality as they begin to mature - and that's why a responsible parent will make sure they HAVE resources to satisfy their curiosity - but if you think that the hardcore porn being produced today has educational value in teaching children about their sexuality, you are way, way, way off base.

Re:Net Nanny

[cheekyjohnson]

Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.

And speaking as someone with an almost irrational fear of everything for the sake of their children is better? But all of this is irrelevant, because whether or not you have children, your conclusions could be correct.

It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7.

Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.

It is not unreasonable to want them to learn about sex and sexuality from a source that won't teach your daughters that slutty is what men like

You can guide them without censoring them. If your children are truly that foolish, of course. I know I, at least, was able to differentiate between fantasy and reality (or in this case, not take everything seen on television or in pornography at face value).

Re:Net Nanny

[cheekyjohnson]

At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".

So basically... you've linked me to a few examples. Kind of like blaming Doom for Columbine. What idiotic 13 year olds are these? And assuming they take everything at face-value, why aren't the parents there educating them? It's not porn's fault.

I looked at porn when I was a kid and when I was a teenager. I suspect most people do. Now, how many go out and rape others because of it?

Re:Net Nanny

[silentcoder]

>I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it. So we're even there.

No, you're not. See you're the one who is making a prediction. In scientific terms - that makes you the one who has to provide proof. He is denying that there is any grounds for your prediction.

Of course, the real truth is, most parents define "their children will become sexual beings who are ultimately sexually active with their own natural kinks and pleasures" as "harm".

Here's my advice dude - go stand in the mirror and say to yourself: "One day my little angel will have a great time being somebody else's dirty, dirty girl... or possibly his/her mean dominatrix"

Then say it until you make peace with the fact and stop being scared of it. You'll be a much better parent afterward.

Re:Net Nanny

[silentcoder]

> Notice that they end with ".UK", I'm in Europe too.

UK is really not representative of European culture in general. I don't live in either but I've visited both many times for extended periods.

> What is a problem is when outside influences (pornography, media, etc) normalise certain behaviours, which pressures teenagers into doing things they don't want to do.

So teach your kids about body-ownership. Teach them that conformity is evil and it's important to be true to yourself. Then if your daughter WANTS her ass spanked then she will do so without spending years feeling guilty about it - and if she doesn't want it (or maybe wants to DO the spanking) she'll have the courage and confidence to look her puppy love in the eyes and say so.
That's what I want to give my daughters, I want to raise little Tiffany Achings.

Re:Net Nanny

[Lumpy]

Yet I am sure you are ok with them seeing violence.

I dont understand why people think that a chold seeing a boobie will scar them for life, but watching Elmer fudd unload a shotgun in donald ducks face is perfectly fine.

Nudity is not bad or evil. Stop obsessing over it.

And yes I have raised 3 children.

Watch them

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't

Re:Watch them

[c0lo]

Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't

About to say the same, but under the form of: use same software that protects them offline - it is called parenting.

If you think not only real-life but also Internet is dangerous (a justified concern, I agree), I can't see why what's good for protecting your kids in real-life won't be also good for online one.

Re:Watch them

[mwvdlee]

Also, don't forget to give up your full-time job, dump your friends and drop any sports or hobbies you do.
Your new life is monitoring every waking second of your child's.

Also something about "preventing rather than punishing for something they couldn't prevent".

Re:Watch them

[Torp]

Yes. The kids' gaming computer goes in the living room. And not only for monitoring what they do, but because at that age you don't want them up all night playing Minecraft either. Which is guaranteed to happen if they have a computer in their room.
From personal experience, i didn't have trouble with my kid with naughty sites, but i did have to password protect a laptop because i caught her playing age appropriate games at 2 am in her bed on a school-tomorrow night.

Re:Watch them

[nedlohs]

Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house? And store them in places the kids can access? Just use my parenting skills to watch their every waking moment, rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?

Re:Watch them

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail.

Really? I think the point is that the software gives you a false sense of security. Not to mention that it's rather pointless. I'd say education is a far better solution than treating the internet like a bogeyman.

Re:Watch them

[dissy]

Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't

Wow you got the same tripe in first yet again!

How does your solution prevent porn ads from regular non-porn websites?
How does your solution prevent popup/under ads?
How does your solution prevent drive-by downloads of malware?

A parent watching (or hell, a parent at the fucking keyboard) can't stop these things.

A good web filter is wise even for your own usage, let alone children. It has NOTHING to do with blocking them from seeking out porn. The Internet has a way of forcing these things on you if you want them or not.

If you would have used the Internet for more than a few days you would know this.

Re:Watch them

[h3llfish]

Good point. Drinking poison and exposure to human sexuality are very similar experiences, and have exactly the same type of consequences. To make sure that your children avoid all "inappropriate" materials, be sure to freak the fuck out if anything sexual should should come to their attention. This will help them to achieve a healthy sense of disgust and shame, so that they can be normal and happy.

Re:Watch them

[thesandtiger]

It isn't just human sexuality, and in fact, I will say that human sexuality is the least offensive of the things people try to keep kids safe from online.

There's a video floating around of a couple of Russian teens literally murdering a man on camera. There are numerous videos showing extreme violence to people and animals. CNN had a video of a man having his head sawed off readily available, and another news site showed one being hanged while a crowd cheered.

While I wouldn't want my children exposed to a gangbang video or something, that's so far down on the list of "awful shit children shouldn't see" as to not bear mentioning except in reply to your post.

I don't think a kid catching a glimpse of goatse is going to be scarred for life, but I can assure you, as an adult, I've been unintentionally exposed, with no warning (or by being told a video was something else) to videos and pictures that by the time I realized what I was seeing, it was staying with me for awhile and I can only imagine what some of those would do to a kid.

Further, people use the real-life equivalent of net nanny software all the time: agencies testing food products and medicines to make sure they're safe, regulations about toys and clothing to make them safe, building codes and structural inspections to make sure the home is safe, the list goes on and on.

Adding some software to a machine to reduce the risk that your kids will be exposed to videos of people being mutilated or killed isn't the be-all-end-all of good parenting, but it's certainly not a bad component to add to the picture.

Re:Watch them

[Pigeon451]

What about grotesque images? Most 7-8 year olds are scared of things under their bed or in their closet -- they would be scared shitless of seeing mutilated bodies on the internet. For example, do a search for Porsche girl, a fairly benign phrase, you'll see whats been plastered all over the internet. Then theres images of pets being tortured, something that will likely scar any little child ...

And for sexuality -- seeing a boob is natural no big deal (as a youngin I was exited to come across a Playboy!). Seeing a girl bound and gagged while being gang-banged is not really appropriate for a young child and is easily accessible on the internet.

There's extremes for everything -- don't lump all sexuality into the same group. Some exposure is good, and natural to avoid being a freak later on in time, but no need to scar them at this point.

Protip:

[Squiddie]

If you're looking for software to take care of your children for you, you've already failed as a parent.

Re:Protip:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're looking for software to take care of your children for you, you've already failed as a parent.

... because all of our kids are just like yours.

Until you've spent a month living with someone else's kids, don't assume they can be parented the same way yours can.

Re:Protip:

[DurendalMac]

Spoken like someone who does not have any kids. Newsflash: Even the best kids don't always listen to what mommy and/or daddy tell them. Furthermore, I'd say this is also to prevent unintentional access to nasty stuff. You can't sit there watching over their shoulder ever second they're online. Put the computer in the living room, sure, but it's not just deliberate access to the more visceral parts of the internet that you'd need to be worried about. At that age, it's probably more about the kids not realizing where they're clicking until they're watching 2 girls, 1 cup.

Re:Protip:

[Lisias]

If you are trying to do everything by yourself to you children, you will fail even more as a parent.

You know, you have to WORK in order to be able to FEED your kids. Will you lock the little bastards (man, my childhood memories... X-P) in a safe room in the working hours?

You really think that peeping over their shoulders all the time is a good way to raise them?

Kids *needs* some controlled "freedom" in order to acquire the needed abilities to raise the self control mechanism every adult must have. You need to leave them "alone" (please note the quotes) for some time everyday. You need to give them some room to give them the chance test what can and what cannot be done.

(And so, you need to step back and see what happens)

On the other hand, you should not expose them to things they are not ready (or are incapable) to deal.

When you drive the kids to the local park, you stays in their side every second, of you give the kids space in order to allow them to play with other kids - but stays reasonably near in order to interfere if somethings appears to go wrong?

If you are not a Luddite, you must give the kids some time on a computer. And since you probably have some other things to do in your life (as keep the house clean, cook the dinner, help the other kid on the homework, drive the dog to the vet, etc), and stating again that no kid raises mentally healthy being watched all the time (you are aware that the kids must live on their own after your death, aren't you?), so the FA have a valid question: some kind of parental software is needed.

Relying only on this software would be a failure, granted.

Re:Protip:

[TheRaven64]

It is normal to:
Lock the booze so your kids cannot drink it

Really? My parents left theirs unlocked. I knew where it was, and was allowed to drink small amounts from a fairly early age (in the UK, you can drink alcohol in your own home from the age of 5). I was also taught what would happen if I drank a lot.

Lock the gate, so your kids do not run across the street

There was no gate between my house and the street on the front, and the front door had a yale lock so you just turn the handle to open it. I could do this by about the time I was old enough to run across the street. My parents taught me to always look before running into the street and what would happen if I didn't (i.e. potentially getting hit by a car, not a threat of punishment).

Lock the chemicals (like chlorine) so they do not drink it

Nope, stored in the cupboard under the sink. Easy for me to get to. My parents taught me what the poison and corrosive substance symbols meant by the time I was about 4 or 5.

Lock the medicines

Nope, stored in a bathroom cabinet. Again, I was told what happened if you take medicine for something that you're not suffering from (well, with some exaggerations of the unpleasant effects, but close enough).

I suspect that a lot of the problems in modern society come from children not being taught early on to make informed choices about risk. If I'd wanted to drink a load of booze, bleach, or eat random pills, I was perfectly able to from about the age of 6 or so, but I was taught that the outcome would probably be going to hospital and having my stomach pumped if I was lucky and death if I wasn't. On the Internet, the potential for harm is much lower. No one is actually harmed by seeing some porn (although getting malware installed is a problem for random surfing). The only real danger is if the child agrees to meet random people in person, and that's fairly easy to avoid if you're a moderately attentive parent even if you fail to teach the child that it's a bad idea.

I should add that nothing in the list was particularly unusual for people I knew growing up. Locking up things that might be harmful to children just didn't happen.

Communication

[gehrehmee]

The internet is all about communication, be it with other individuals, corporations, etc.

Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision? No?

Then you may want to consider just making sure that there's a human with your children while they're using the thing, until they're at an age where you choose to trust them on their own for a bit. You'll be there to explain the odd random thing that happens.

Re:Communication

[cheekyjohnson]

Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision?

Why not? Unless you think most people are rapists or terrorists who will magically molest them over the internet, what is the problem? Just make sure they know what they're doing.

Re:Communication

[bug1]

More on that point, its good to have supervision so that kids can be *taught* to recognise things that are bad for them, and/or how to respond to those things.

Education is the best solution to many situations, the reason to have supervision is facilitate that education.

How about being a parent

[Anonymous Coward]

Educate your kids on the "bad" parts of the internet. Most of us went on the bad parts of the internet when we were growing up. You're not going to stop them from finding it. However what you can do is be a GOOD parent and educate them. You should be educating them on sex as well, since kids these days are hitting puberty earlier and finding out from their peers early on. After working in healthcare for so long, I've learned many females around age 12 had sexual encounters for reasons of peer pressure, this is inescapable as a parent. I recommend you also talk to people at family planning which can cover sexual health and prevention.

If you're a dimwitted abstinence only, then I feel sorry for your kids.

Teaching kids the ability to discern

[Taco Cowboy]

I have kids of my own

I love them

I like to think of ways to protect them

But I also know that I simply can't protect them 24/7

Instead, I teach them ways to protect themselves

I teach them how to discern the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and why something are "Right", and others are "Wrong"

Services like "Net Nanny" (and others) can only give an illusion of "protection" - and parents all over, always like the feeling of instant gratification, that "My Kids Are Protected"

Sure, I am worry about the safety of my kids, but I prefer to let them learn, from the real world, rather than creating an artificial green-house so that my kids are insulated from the real world out there

Perhaps my approach is wrong

Perhaps I am a bad dad

But that's what I did, and that's what I do, and what I will do, for my children, whom I adore !!
 

Re:Teaching kids the ability to discern

[Anonymous Coward]

all fully agree that he has Never lied in his life

just .... lol

Re:Teaching kids the ability to discern

[MightyYar]

That's great but there are things a 7-year-old shouldn't have to see, even accidentally. Even YouTube has things like people getting attacked by sharks - nothing a 7-year-old needs to have nightmares over.

I have a whitelist. Sometimes it's a pain (like adding Khan Academy), but I know exactly what they are doing when unattended. It also saves on the amount of malware removal I have to do - wish I could get my wife to use a whitelist :)

I agree with your post when referring to slightly older kids. By 10, I think a kid can handle more violent images without developing a life-long complex. I don't think it is fair to expect a 7-year-old to have mature defense mechanisms and coping skills yet.

Education / Communication

[slippyblade]

I've two kids of my own and, amazingly enough, I was a kid once as well.

Monitoring and Filtering software is rubbish. All it does is create an artificial wall that your kids will see as a "forbidden" area. You are a /. user which means, most likely, you are a smart guy. That means your kids are probably smart too. Putting up a program like this - your kids will see a challenge and go out of their way to break/circumvent it. It's what I would have done as a kid...

Communicate with your kids. Educate them. Explain to them about the internet and life in general. There are things and places that are not good for them now and it's best if they don't go there. But do it in a way that doesn't insult their intelligence. Amazingly enough, education and communication work. Will they maybe end up with a nasty pop-up on screen? Maybe. But that might happen even with NetNanny installed.

Treat your kids like people, tell them of the dangers, explain WHY those things are dangers, and give them alternatives.

PS: No - I am not some, "Think of the children", bleeding heart freak. My kids have been spanked on occasion, they've been grounded, and done plenty wrong. They are kids. Shit happens. But by treating them like people and not pets, the shit that has happened has been minor and far less than most of my "Time-out" peers.

How About "Parenting"? Instead?

[BlueStrat]

There IS NO SOFTWARE SOLUTION that will keep your kids safe on the 'net.

Period.

You'll simply have a *very* false sense of security, a hole in your time/budget, and kids that learn first that you're not very smart, and second, that the game to play is "find ways around limitations my parents set for me". That, and they'll also quickly learn all about "two girls, one cup", "lemonparty", and probably "goatse" as well.

Either be around when they're using the 'net, or turn the damn thing *off*, and tell them to do something else. It's really not that hard.

Sure, you won't be "cool". You might not be your kid's "friend" any more, at least for a while. They might even tell you "I HATE you!!".

Suck it up. YOU are the adult here. YOU set rules & limits. You're supposed to be a parent, not their buddy. Your job isn't being "cool". Your job is doing "parent" things, like make unpopular decisions that they may not understand for years yet, if ever.

Try setting rules that they're not to go online without a parent around. Take a crucial cable with you, or lock it up, when you're not there. Put the computer in the family/living room.

You have to decide whether the time you spend doing things other than supervise your children's 'net use is more important than they are. Software can't do it. It's just there to salve your conscience with illusion, and make money from your guilt.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Strat

The clue is right there in the name, "Net Nanny".

[Gordonjcp]

It's right there, "Nanny". If you're going to pay someone else to raise your children for you, why bother having them at all?

Children aren't some kind of exotic pet that you can stick into kennels when you don't feel like looking after them.