Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
I'm not aware of any Free software in this space, for free software you've got MS Live Family Safety (works with most browsers on Windows and some applications) and OpenDNS content filtering. I use the Live family safety on their laptops and OpenDNS on their tablets.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Try OpenDNS. It's got good granularity for filtering criteria and you can either filter at your router, or on a per-computer basis.
Plus, their founder has a /. UID of 17.
My father uses this software, BSecure Whole Home Filtering. Its great, you can customize the filters to your hearts content. Plus you can cover all the computers in your network by changing DNS servers on your router.
Link: http://www.bsecure.com/
I've used K9 Web Protection for years. http://www1.k9webprotection.com/ It's free and does a pretty good job. I also setup my wireless router to use OpenDNS as an added layer of protection for any of my kids friends who may bring something over and connect to our wireless network. It's not foolproof, but you can setup a filter level and it does a decent job of stopping "accidental" clicks.
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.
Firefox, AdBlockPro, Noscript, and the computer in the living room.
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.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
One possibility is http://dansguardian.org/
It is filtering based and there are community maintained blacklists and whitelists for it for different audiences.
Good luck and as much involvement as you can have in their internet use to teach sensible web use will be beneficial as well.
Wax on, wax off baby!
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 !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
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.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
*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.
I thought the same way you did-- concern over my kids, hands wringing, brow sweating...
Then I had a revelation-- I could just install MY CLEAN PC! and it was truly the answer to all my
-- aaah, f**k it. Nevermind.
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.
I simply don't think that 9 year olds should be using the Internet unsupervised. But I definitely think that children should not have TV sets in their rooms. (In fact, the majority view of my children is not to have TV in the house).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Aaah yes, because fetishism is a sign of mental illness...
No, it's not, the fact that some shrinks haven't caught up to the times is not my problem.
The vast majority of people have fetishest fantasies, many are comfortable expressing it and live happier lives because of that.
The fact that more and more people reach that level of comfort at an earlier age is not a bad thing, it's a GOOD thing.
Let me put it this way - me and my wife are planning to have children, we already decided that our habit of being naked around the house will not change. We will not suddenly start hiding the handcuffs and spanking paddles lying about the house, we will not suddenly put a lock on the play-room door and order them never to enter it - we'll just tell them "when the door is closed, you cannot come in."
Many people think that raises HEALTHIER children. In many cultures, that is how ALL children are raised (most of Europe).
In Dutch culture for example it's common for teenagers to have a sit-down with their parents when they feel ready to have sex and discuss it with them - the young couple asking for advice (not just practical but on the whole thing) before going ahead.
It's also normal practice to get consent, along with good advice.
The Netherlands boasts one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. And get this bit: 70% of American's regret the timing or person with whom they had their first sexual experience according to studies. In the Netherlands, only 15% would like to change anything.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *