If this is happening, first check the changelog for the affected package in/usr/share/doc. If it is out of date or missing, you need to file a severity minor (with the following rationale) against the packages missing the updated changelog. This is not a violation of Debian policy (which would warrant a severity of serious), but it's suggested by policy and trivial to add.
No, but Theora and Dirac are. Theora is from the Xiph open source community (the same people that do cdparanoia, FLAC, Speex, and Vorbis). The FSF has recommended its use along with Vorbis audio for some time now. Dirac is from the BBC.
Imagine a world where rioters and peaceful protesters are separate. Nobody is denying that there were rioters at the RNC. Rioters should be arrested. However, peaceful protesters were caught in the crossfire and arrested. If you think that these people should be exiled because they disagree with you, then you are no true American.
So, the only thing that makes me wonder what country I'm in is that fact that depraved idiots like you are running around lose. People like you are lower than low, defending these tactics and smearing the law enforcement officers...And if you were a participant, you deserve to be thrown in jail, or better yet, exiled to a place like Pakistan, Iran, or Syria. Your kind have no place in a free and peaceful democracy.
Heil Crazy Taco and his ability to judge who is a true American and who is not.
I found out there were patches made to SDL that broke compatibility with many Linux games. It took weeks of "digging them out." to solve the problems.
For SDL: Did a packaging of the pristine upstream source have the same problems? Did you identify which specific patches which caused the problem?
Also, the sound stack for Linux seems overly complicated at the current time. There is some guidance here, but if you need to have a talk at the Linux Plumbers Conference that says, "Application developers, do not write directly to the hardware interface," you have already failed. Of course, there's some controversy about this guide because a bunch of OSS programmers can't accept any opinion of their API different from theirs.
Before computers were strong at playing chess, it was believed that only "intelligent" things could win against an human champion.
Yes, and that belief was wrong. Deep Blue proved that.
But nowadays, everyone knows that playing chess is just what you say, numbers crunching.
Now you're just confused. Nowhere did I say that human players are number crunching machines when they play chess. For example, when a human fills in a bounded area with a paintbrush, they are not crunching numbers. When a computer flood fills a bounded area with a color, it is crunching numbers.
It is likely to be hailed as the most significant breakthrough in artificial intelligence since the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.
I don't understand how this is a breakthrough for artificial intelligence. Deep Blue didn't "think", at least not in the way most people think when they consider artificial intelligence. It did what computers are really good at - it computed.
Deep Blue applied an evaluation mechanism specifically tuned to chess - taking the location of pieces on the board and computing a number telling it how "bad" or "good" this position was and how "bad" or "good" responses to this position would be. Granted, it took this to a depth farther than any other chess computer in history, but it was doing essentially what a small, handheld chess computer does.
Of course a computer is going to be good at computing. That doesn't mean it's thinking.
Early chess computers used AI techniques to try and cut out candidate moves. This was expensive in CPU cycles, but the thought was to get them to play chess like humans. Computer chess since AI Winter has been all about number crunching - let Moore's Law take hold and just brute force our way through the problem - evaluate deeper because we have a faster processor. This is what Deep Blue did.
If Deep Blue were true AI, then it wouldn't be limited just to chess. It's an interesting experiment in computer chess, and an interesting experiment in tuning an algorithm working against a human, and in interesting experiment in making a computer chess opening book, but a huge leap forward in AI it isn't.
With the economy in the shitter and both parents needing to work, it's increasingly hard for you to turn off the TV when you're not there.
That being said, there are plenty of devices out there (anything with a V-Chip in it, cable boxes, cable-company DVRs, TiVo, media center PCs, DVD players, video game consoles) that can do much of this already. While I'm sure other DVRs have this functionality, I know for a fact that TiVo has a feature called KidZone where the parent can set ratings guidelines as well as whitelist particular programs while keeping the programs that are inappropriate for kids but watched by the adults of the household away from the little ones.
Say I marketed the image processing software that I wrote to the vision impaired (near-blind, legally blind, and blind community to be specific). They have problems with image CAPTCHAs because it's hard for them to see, and many sites don't have an alternate, audio CAPTCHA. Would my software be "evil" if fraudsters, posing as vision impaired, bought my software?
I suppose the question is "is CATPCHA breaking software, in and of itself, absent its usage, 'bad'". I've already laid out two examples, systems testing and vision impairment, that are important, good applications of CAPTCHA solving software.
Because I see many people missing the point, let me elaborate on the system testing aspect. It's a sad fact that many people who peddle security solutions are not very good with making secure security solutions. For example, take the recent example of an "AES encrypted" external hard drive that was secured with a RFID dongle. The RFID stored the key with AES, transferred it was AES, but the drive itself used XOR with that key, which is trivial to break if you are serious about recovering the data. Many people either are incapable of doing the research (because they don't understand cryptology) or too lazy to do the research. When someone comes along and proposes a theoretical attack, the snake-oil salesmen laugh and say, "I don't care - you haven't shown me that it's insecure, just that you think it is!" That's where system testing tools come into play. They are crafted to show the maker of a device and the owners of the devices that their devices are insecure, should not be trusted, and that steps should be taken to secure them.
That is the case with my CAPTCHA software. It is to show people who use CAPTCHAs on their site that, in most cases, they are not secure and in all cases that they are annoying. Without a proof of concept, most people wouldn't care. With a proof of concept, it forces them to reconsider their position. Many other auditing tools work this way, such as nmap, Nessus, Wireshark, Kismet, and aircrack. To take a page from your position on the NSA, COINTELPRO, and warrantless wiretapping:
Did the program get misused? Yes it did and I don't defend that. But don't throw out blanket statements about history and expect me to swallow it when it's not completely factual.
I work in the computer security field. I use nmap to portscan my client's network in many different ways and from many different angles. Again, I could probably code something to work by hand, but a tested tool is much better than something that gets thrown together one-off for something like this. Nessus gets used against hosts to see if there are any missing security patches. This is to inform my client that they need to patch their software and work towards a system where patches get applied in a timely manner. Wireshark is used when auditing TLS and IPSec connections to make sure that the connections are actually secured properly. It is also used live if there is an intrusion to log exactly what the attacker did for postmortem analysis. Kismet is used to scan for rogue wireless access points and to determine what information is flowing across them. aircrack is used as a live client demonstration to show clients still using WEP how insecure it is if they don't think an attack is practical. There are about five or six other general purpose tools in my toolbelt, including ettercap, 0phtcrack, and Cain and Abel.
I have several other proof of concept pieces of code that aren't generally available targeting newer exploits to make sure that my clients have protected against them. They are pieced together from vulnerability reports, proof of concept code, and techniques picked up from 'blackhat' exploits. They are more targeted and custom, and if anybody would need them to help secure their systems, I would gladly give them a
After having dealt the last seven years with the anime-obsessed crowd invading Go, and (at least in my limited experience) being nothing but whiny about how much there is to learn, I'd say that engineers, chess players, and heads of state (though to be fair, in this case, he was merely Prime Minister and was assassinated trying to avoid the militarization of Japan pre-WWII) would be welcome back into the fold.
On that note, I wouldn't say I'm an arrogant Go player. I've played chess at the local club level for awhile, but then I realized that I'd rather enjoy a game of chess with a friend over a beer out at the park than several hours of study to keep my opening and endgame up. I picked up Go about a year after that, and while I'm not very good, I enjoy it and enjoy teaching it to others.
So let me get this straight. They right image (and logic) recognition software with the express written purpose of breaking captchas and then they are magically surprised when it is used to break captchas?
So let me get this straight. They make handguns (and bullets) with the express written purpose of shooting people and they are magically surprised when they are used to shoot people.
So let me get this straight. They make lock picks (and other tools) with the express written purpose of picking locks and then they are magically surprised when they're used to pick locks.
I've written an image processing tool to CAPTCHAs to show that they're irritating in all cases (especially if you're blind) and ineffective in most cases. Does that mean that my software is the "good" CAPTCHA breaking software and the software that was written by others is "evil"?
I'll agree that the word "wiretap" does not appear in the constitution. That doesn't matter. I have no problems with this logically or truthfully. I think you missed the point though. Take a look at the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. You know, the ones that the framers of the Constitution were around to argue about:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the Federal Government, under the Constitution, does not have the right to wiretap anybody, if we are going to be literal and reject the common legal theory that the Fourth Amendment would prevent them from doing so.
So, given their secrecy and refusal to play ball with the courts, and the evidence that they keep of their own wrongdoing, away from public view, I'm not willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt.
If you don't like how the Government is then VOTE.
I have, and many others have. We still do. That doesn't mean we can't disagree and distrust. That doesn't mean we should just hang back and accept.
The NSA program was designed to listen in on US citizens talking to people on a known terrorist list. One part of the conversation was always international and one part was domestic.
Care to show me all of the national security letters that document this? Oh, wait, that's right, they're classified and impose an immediate gag order on anybody who receives one.
Of course there are appropriate boundaries for a 16 year old. Curfew is one. Knowing who they are hanging out with is another. Keeping track of their grades and making sure that they are doing the best that they can in school is another. Expecting them to keep a part time job so long as it does not interfere with those grades is another. I don't see how this is any different across the Internet. Again, I'm not saying that I would pick up the phone and listen in on a conversation that they are having just because they're having a conversation, but if I think they're making plans with a friend to sneak out and vandalize property (after all, kids are kids), then I need to know. If they don't like these restrictions, they are free to move out. These are part of the rules of my household.
I'm not saying that I should be present (in person or digitally) for every conversation. I'm not saying that my kids shouldn't be allowed to have private conversations. What I am saying is that, if I think they are doing something that violates those boundaries, that I need to know. If they can't follow my rules, what makes you think that they'll be able to set appropriate rules for themselves when they are no longer in my house?
You, sir, are an intelligent customer who is willing to take a stance on an issue and back that stance with action (or, in this case, in-action). Not a consumer. Thank you for destroying my belief that intelligent customers did not exist.
They could have the camera do something similar, leak the serial number of the camera in the last bit of each pixel. It would take a few pixels, but since we're likely talking on the order of 2 megapixels, this would be trivial. Apply this after the JPEG compression has taken place. Sufficiently spread out, I doubt that the human eye could notice such minute differences in shade. Very possible, and not easily stripped...unless you resize the picture, of course.
Re:A tool every parent needs...
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, but that doesn't make you any less of an obsessive control freak asshole.
Yes, because setting appropriate boundaries for your children based on their maturity is the true sign of a fascist overlord.
Nowhere did I say that I would ban viewpoints that I didn't like or agree with. Nor did I say I would brainwash my kids. Nor did I say I would implement any sort of blacklist. Stop putting words into my mouth and sounding like a spoiled 15 year old at his daddy's computer.
I am saying that I would keep an eye on what they are doing. I didn't say that I would obsess over the logs, crawl them nightly, and start blocking on them. Just keep an eye on them. Use them to see if anything out of the ordinary is going on.
More than likely, I'd ignore them unless I suspected something weird was going on, but if I'm financially and legally responsible for their actions, then I need to be able to see what is going on if necessary.
And if a 16 year old is going to MySpace or Facebook or something like that and chatting with their friends, then that's fine. But if this same 16 year old is hanging around on the "Erotic Services" section of CraigsList, then maybe it's time we had a little talk and I find out exactly what is going on. It might be nothing other than a little curiosity and exploring. If so, that's a good thing, but if it's something more than that, I need to know.
(I am the person who wrote the GP post, and as it says, I am not a parent either.)
I agree. It's wrong to use it as sole justification, but there's nothing wrong with using it as part justification. My house, my rules, my money. Ideally, my goal is to help my children to grow into adults and learn about the world. My actions may look petty or arbitrary to you, but I'm doing what I'm doing for a reason.
My house, my money, my rules. Don't like it? Don't use the Internet. Trust, but verify. Children make mistakes. That's how they learn. As a parent, I am financially and legally responsible for their mistakes until they are 18. That's the breaks.
(I think logging all packets is a bit absurd, but you can bet your butt that there will be a transparent proxy server that has access logged (including SSL) and IM service logging (again with SSL) to boot.)
(If it weren't obvious, I was OP above who is being called an "asshole".)
Meh, if I can't handle being called an asshole by some anonymous coward who is clearly either a troll or an entitled kid, then I have no business being on the Internet. Like I said in the original post above, my house, my money, my rules.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is happening, first check the changelog for the affected package in /usr/share/doc. If it is out of date or missing, you need to file a severity minor (with the following rationale) against the packages missing the updated changelog. This is not a violation of Debian policy (which would warrant a severity of serious), but it's suggested by policy and trivial to add.
No, but Theora and Dirac are. Theora is from the Xiph open source community (the same people that do cdparanoia, FLAC, Speex, and Vorbis). The FSF has recommended its use along with Vorbis audio for some time now. Dirac is from the BBC.
Imagine a world where rioters and peaceful protesters are separate. Nobody is denying that there were rioters at the RNC. Rioters should be arrested. However, peaceful protesters were caught in the crossfire and arrested. If you think that these people should be exiled because they disagree with you, then you are no true American.
So, the only thing that makes me wonder what country I'm in is that fact that depraved idiots like you are running around lose. People like you are lower than low, defending these tactics and smearing the law enforcement officers...And if you were a participant, you deserve to be thrown in jail, or better yet, exiled to a place like Pakistan, Iran, or Syria. Your kind have no place in a free and peaceful democracy.
Heil Crazy Taco and his ability to judge who is a true American and who is not.
I found out there were patches made to SDL that broke compatibility with many Linux games. It took weeks of "digging them out." to solve the problems.
For SDL: Did a packaging of the pristine upstream source have the same problems? Did you identify which specific patches which caused the problem?
Also, the sound stack for Linux seems overly complicated at the current time. There is some guidance here, but if you need to have a talk at the Linux Plumbers Conference that says, "Application developers, do not write directly to the hardware interface," you have already failed. Of course, there's some controversy about this guide because a bunch of OSS programmers can't accept any opinion of their API different from theirs.
To keep doing it looks more like masturbation than leading.
Whereas staying in Iraq is "staying the course" and "not blinking". At least his fixation isn't getting people killed.
Before computers were strong at playing chess, it was believed that only "intelligent" things could win against an human champion.
Yes, and that belief was wrong. Deep Blue proved that.
But nowadays, everyone knows that playing chess is just what you say, numbers crunching.
Now you're just confused. Nowhere did I say that human players are number crunching machines when they play chess. For example, when a human fills in a bounded area with a paintbrush, they are not crunching numbers. When a computer flood fills a bounded area with a color, it is crunching numbers.
It is likely to be hailed as the most significant breakthrough in artificial intelligence since the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.
I don't understand how this is a breakthrough for artificial intelligence. Deep Blue didn't "think", at least not in the way most people think when they consider artificial intelligence. It did what computers are really good at - it computed.
Deep Blue applied an evaluation mechanism specifically tuned to chess - taking the location of pieces on the board and computing a number telling it how "bad" or "good" this position was and how "bad" or "good" responses to this position would be. Granted, it took this to a depth farther than any other chess computer in history, but it was doing essentially what a small, handheld chess computer does.
Of course a computer is going to be good at computing. That doesn't mean it's thinking.
Early chess computers used AI techniques to try and cut out candidate moves. This was expensive in CPU cycles, but the thought was to get them to play chess like humans. Computer chess since AI Winter has been all about number crunching - let Moore's Law take hold and just brute force our way through the problem - evaluate deeper because we have a faster processor. This is what Deep Blue did.
If Deep Blue were true AI, then it wouldn't be limited just to chess. It's an interesting experiment in computer chess, and an interesting experiment in tuning an algorithm working against a human, and in interesting experiment in making a computer chess opening book, but a huge leap forward in AI it isn't.
Considering they were started in 1991 and have now only gotten to 500,000, this is significant.
With the economy in the shitter and both parents needing to work, it's increasingly hard for you to turn off the TV when you're not there.
That being said, there are plenty of devices out there (anything with a V-Chip in it, cable boxes, cable-company DVRs, TiVo, media center PCs, DVD players, video game consoles) that can do much of this already. While I'm sure other DVRs have this functionality, I know for a fact that TiVo has a feature called KidZone where the parent can set ratings guidelines as well as whitelist particular programs while keeping the programs that are inappropriate for kids but watched by the adults of the household away from the little ones.
Say I marketed the image processing software that I wrote to the vision impaired (near-blind, legally blind, and blind community to be specific). They have problems with image CAPTCHAs because it's hard for them to see, and many sites don't have an alternate, audio CAPTCHA. Would my software be "evil" if fraudsters, posing as vision impaired, bought my software?
I suppose the question is "is CATPCHA breaking software, in and of itself, absent its usage, 'bad'". I've already laid out two examples, systems testing and vision impairment, that are important, good applications of CAPTCHA solving software.
Because I see many people missing the point, let me elaborate on the system testing aspect. It's a sad fact that many people who peddle security solutions are not very good with making secure security solutions. For example, take the recent example of an "AES encrypted" external hard drive that was secured with a RFID dongle. The RFID stored the key with AES, transferred it was AES, but the drive itself used XOR with that key, which is trivial to break if you are serious about recovering the data. Many people either are incapable of doing the research (because they don't understand cryptology) or too lazy to do the research. When someone comes along and proposes a theoretical attack, the snake-oil salesmen laugh and say, "I don't care - you haven't shown me that it's insecure, just that you think it is!" That's where system testing tools come into play. They are crafted to show the maker of a device and the owners of the devices that their devices are insecure, should not be trusted, and that steps should be taken to secure them.
That is the case with my CAPTCHA software. It is to show people who use CAPTCHAs on their site that, in most cases, they are not secure and in all cases that they are annoying. Without a proof of concept, most people wouldn't care. With a proof of concept, it forces them to reconsider their position. Many other auditing tools work this way, such as nmap, Nessus, Wireshark, Kismet, and aircrack. To take a page from your position on the NSA, COINTELPRO, and warrantless wiretapping:
Did the program get misused? Yes it did and I don't defend that. But don't throw out blanket statements about history and expect me to swallow it when it's not completely factual.
I work in the computer security field. I use nmap to portscan my client's network in many different ways and from many different angles. Again, I could probably code something to work by hand, but a tested tool is much better than something that gets thrown together one-off for something like this. Nessus gets used against hosts to see if there are any missing security patches. This is to inform my client that they need to patch their software and work towards a system where patches get applied in a timely manner. Wireshark is used when auditing TLS and IPSec connections to make sure that the connections are actually secured properly. It is also used live if there is an intrusion to log exactly what the attacker did for postmortem analysis. Kismet is used to scan for rogue wireless access points and to determine what information is flowing across them. aircrack is used as a live client demonstration to show clients still using WEP how insecure it is if they don't think an attack is practical. There are about five or six other general purpose tools in my toolbelt, including ettercap, 0phtcrack, and Cain and Abel.
I have several other proof of concept pieces of code that aren't generally available targeting newer exploits to make sure that my clients have protected against them. They are pieced together from vulnerability reports, proof of concept code, and techniques picked up from 'blackhat' exploits. They are more targeted and custom, and if anybody would need them to help secure their systems, I would gladly give them a
After having dealt the last seven years with the anime-obsessed crowd invading Go, and (at least in my limited experience) being nothing but whiny about how much there is to learn, I'd say that engineers, chess players, and heads of state (though to be fair, in this case, he was merely Prime Minister and was assassinated trying to avoid the militarization of Japan pre-WWII) would be welcome back into the fold.
On that note, I wouldn't say I'm an arrogant Go player. I've played chess at the local club level for awhile, but then I realized that I'd rather enjoy a game of chess with a friend over a beer out at the park than several hours of study to keep my opening and endgame up. I picked up Go about a year after that, and while I'm not very good, I enjoy it and enjoy teaching it to others.
So let me get this straight. They right image (and logic) recognition software with the express written purpose of breaking captchas and then they are magically surprised when it is used to break captchas?
So let me get this straight. They make handguns (and bullets) with the express written purpose of shooting people and they are magically surprised when they are used to shoot people.
So let me get this straight. They make lock picks (and other tools) with the express written purpose of picking locks and then they are magically surprised when they're used to pick locks.
I've written an image processing tool to CAPTCHAs to show that they're irritating in all cases (especially if you're blind) and ineffective in most cases. Does that mean that my software is the "good" CAPTCHA breaking software and the software that was written by others is "evil"?
I'll agree that the word "wiretap" does not appear in the constitution. That doesn't matter. I have no problems with this logically or truthfully. I think you missed the point though. Take a look at the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. You know, the ones that the framers of the Constitution were around to argue about:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the Federal Government, under the Constitution, does not have the right to wiretap anybody, if we are going to be literal and reject the common legal theory that the Fourth Amendment would prevent them from doing so.
This, of course, is bullshit. Look at the relevant part of the law, in this case, FISA. FISA says that you can have 48 hours of wiretapping for free without filing a warrant. After that, you either file a warrant or you're breaking the law. This is black-letter law.
Secondly COINTELPRO targeted organizations such as the Klu Klux Klan and the Weatherman. Both of those organization were actually terrorist.
COINTELPRO also targeted the following non-violent groups:
They were also investigated by Congress by the Church Committee, which talked about COINTELPRO and drug experiments and mind control experiments.
So, given their secrecy and refusal to play ball with the courts, and the evidence that they keep of their own wrongdoing, away from public view, I'm not willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt.
If you don't like how the Government is then VOTE.
I have, and many others have. We still do. That doesn't mean we can't disagree and distrust. That doesn't mean we should just hang back and accept.
> The constitution specifically forbids it.
It also forbids warrentless wiretapping. Great job on following the Constitution the government has done since 9/11, wouldn't you say?
The NSA program was designed to listen in on US citizens talking to people on a known terrorist list. One part of the conversation was always international and one part was domestic.
Care to show me all of the national security letters that document this? Oh, wait, that's right, they're classified and impose an immediate gag order on anybody who receives one.
As we all know, the government would never lie to us, especially to go to war, and especially not the NSA. Of course, when caught red-handed in their own documents, they claim that "The opinions expressed within the documents in both releases are those of the authors and individuals interviewed. They do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Security Agency."
Please tell me why I should trust anything that the NSA says at face value.
Of course there are appropriate boundaries for a 16 year old. Curfew is one. Knowing who they are hanging out with is another. Keeping track of their grades and making sure that they are doing the best that they can in school is another. Expecting them to keep a part time job so long as it does not interfere with those grades is another. I don't see how this is any different across the Internet. Again, I'm not saying that I would pick up the phone and listen in on a conversation that they are having just because they're having a conversation, but if I think they're making plans with a friend to sneak out and vandalize property (after all, kids are kids), then I need to know. If they don't like these restrictions, they are free to move out. These are part of the rules of my household.
I'm not saying that I should be present (in person or digitally) for every conversation. I'm not saying that my kids shouldn't be allowed to have private conversations. What I am saying is that, if I think they are doing something that violates those boundaries, that I need to know. If they can't follow my rules, what makes you think that they'll be able to set appropriate rules for themselves when they are no longer in my house?
You, sir, are an intelligent customer who is willing to take a stance on an issue and back that stance with action (or, in this case, in-action). Not a consumer. Thank you for destroying my belief that intelligent customers did not exist.
They could have the camera do something similar, leak the serial number of the camera in the last bit of each pixel. It would take a few pixels, but since we're likely talking on the order of 2 megapixels, this would be trivial. Apply this after the JPEG compression has taken place. Sufficiently spread out, I doubt that the human eye could notice such minute differences in shade. Very possible, and not easily stripped...unless you resize the picture, of course.
And we all know since there's no specification for EXIF data that someone who has a vested interest in removing it would be unable to figure it out.
Yeah, but that doesn't make you any less of an obsessive control freak asshole.
Yes, because setting appropriate boundaries for your children based on their maturity is the true sign of a fascist overlord.
Nowhere did I say that I would ban viewpoints that I didn't like or agree with. Nor did I say I would brainwash my kids. Nor did I say I would implement any sort of blacklist. Stop putting words into my mouth and sounding like a spoiled 15 year old at his daddy's computer.
I am saying that I would keep an eye on what they are doing. I didn't say that I would obsess over the logs, crawl them nightly, and start blocking on them. Just keep an eye on them. Use them to see if anything out of the ordinary is going on.
More than likely, I'd ignore them unless I suspected something weird was going on, but if I'm financially and legally responsible for their actions, then I need to be able to see what is going on if necessary.
And if a 16 year old is going to MySpace or Facebook or something like that and chatting with their friends, then that's fine. But if this same 16 year old is hanging around on the "Erotic Services" section of CraigsList, then maybe it's time we had a little talk and I find out exactly what is going on. It might be nothing other than a little curiosity and exploring. If so, that's a good thing, but if it's something more than that, I need to know.
A non-bad analogy post at the right time. I knew there was a reason you were awesome.
(I am the person who wrote the GP post, and as it says, I am not a parent either.)
I agree. It's wrong to use it as sole justification, but there's nothing wrong with using it as part justification. My house, my rules, my money. Ideally, my goal is to help my children to grow into adults and learn about the world. My actions may look petty or arbitrary to you, but I'm doing what I'm doing for a reason.
My house, my money, my rules. Don't like it? Don't use the Internet. Trust, but verify. Children make mistakes. That's how they learn. As a parent, I am financially and legally responsible for their mistakes until they are 18. That's the breaks.
(I think logging all packets is a bit absurd, but you can bet your butt that there will be a transparent proxy server that has access logged (including SSL) and IM service logging (again with SSL) to boot.)
(If it weren't obvious, I was OP above who is being called an "asshole".)
Meh, if I can't handle being called an asshole by some anonymous coward who is clearly either a troll or an entitled kid, then I have no business being on the Internet. Like I said in the original post above, my house, my money, my rules.