Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Child-Suitable Alternatives To Passwords?

Posted by kdawson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:48 AM
from the you-must-remember-this dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Two months ago I donated my old PC to my little sister, who is 7 — I had promised she would get her own computer as soon as she can read and write properly. I then proceeded to answer her questions about how it works, as far as she inquired, and tried to let her make some choices when installing Debian (she can already use GNOME). As I explained password protection and encryption to her, I was pleasantly surprised when she insisted on protection measures being as strong as possible, so that no one else can screw with her computer. She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent. The significant problem is that she cannot permanently memorize abstract passwords, even if they are her own creation. I talked with a teacher who assured me that this is common at her age. My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords. What mechanism of identifying herself does the Slashdot crowd suggest?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2008, @11:51AM (#22516118)
    Would a fingerprint reader be suitable?
    • by youngerpants (255314) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:18PM (#22516694)
      A fingerprint reader wouldn't work. Fingerprint reader software (such as the wonderfully open source ThinkFinger) map out a fingerprint by locating easily identifiable marks, such as swirls or dead-ends, and map their proximity to other easily identifiable marks. As this girl is seven its fair to assume that in a few more years her fingers will be twice their current size.



      The fingerprint will be the same, but scaled up so all proximity will be lost.

      • by KillerBob (217953) on Friday February 22 2008, @01:10PM (#22517666)

        A fingerprint reader wouldn't work. Fingerprint reader software (such as the wonderfully open source ThinkFinger) map out a fingerprint by locating easily identifiable marks, such as swirls or dead-ends, and map their proximity to other easily identifiable marks. As this girl is seven its fair to assume that in a few more years her fingers will be twice their current size.

        The fingerprint will be the same, but scaled up so all proximity will be lost.


        The fingerprint readers we use in our computers at work read by proportional distance, not physical distance. If you define the distance between two key points at opposite ends of the finger as a distance of 100% and an angle of 0 degrees, the rest of the points are defined using those terms. So Point C may be at 23 degrees left, 15% distance, point D may be 16 degrees right, 4% distance, etc.

        In that case, the fact that the finger grows larger over time makes no distance, because the points it's measuring are still in the same position, proportionally, just with a different scalar multiplier.
      • by snowraver1 (1052510) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:41PM (#22517148)
        Wow... Are we talking about the DoD here or a 7 year old girl's computer... IMO a seven year old does not require digital privacy in thier home.

        That being said just use a sticky note hidden somewhere or something. Or use a non-abstract password, like her favourite food, or least favourite food. How long would it take you to guess "fudgeicle"?

        And, it's already been mentioned that the parents persumabally have physical access to the computer, and if they have the know-how and confidence to install some sort of parental control into a linux distro, then the password is not going to be a problem for them to bypass.
      • So, the first time that happens, you walk over with her, and retrain it for her thumb. BIG DEAL. Until she cuts her thumb, then you help her train it for the other thumb, etc.

        If you have a fingerless daughter, train it to her toes (and retrain as above, when Strawberry Shortcake makes her rounds amongst the little piggies).

        If you have a fingerless, toeless daughter who wants to use the computer anyway, for fucks sake, memorize her password for her, you heartless clod!
  • passphrase (Score:5, Informative)

    by moderatorrater (1095745) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:51AM (#22516120)
    Teach her to use passphrases, something like 'My favorite food is steak'. This is something that's easy for her to remember and also hard to break just from the sheer size of the password. When she's old enough, she'll figure out how to make hard passwords on her own; just give her a few suggestions about capitalization, numbers and symbols.
    • Naturally as humans, we are very capable of memorizing lyrics, poems, quotes & the like from our favorite media. I've suggested this before and I'll suggest it again. Pick something that your little sister loves, like pokemon, Harry Pothead, Celine Dion or whatever the devil kids are watching/reading/listening to these days. And simply have her pick the most memorable quote or verse from that thing. Then you simply strip down to the first letters of each word (punctuation and capitalization included) and you have something that is easily memorized but fairly random.

      For instance, in high school I listened to Tomorrow Never Knows off of the Revolver record by The Beatles nonstop. Since I know every lyric [lyriki.com] of that song, I might pick the opening line:

      Turn off your mind, relax and flow downstream
      Which would render the password:

      Toym,rafd
      Not a bad password, in my opinion. You could do the same with the opening line of a book, quote from a movie, TV show or even a line from a poem. All of these things are very memorable and produce hard to break passwords.
    • Re:passphrase (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Culture20 (968837) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:18PM (#22516700)
      Memory... a seven year old's is quite fluid. "My favorite food is steak" might morph into "My favorite food is ice cream" or "I like steak" or "I like eating" or "I like my little pony". Passphrases might be easier than g%jP22094jmqqlDMSk, but they're still memory-based.
  • Shape (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ami Ganguli (921) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:51AM (#22516142)

    Have her make a pattern on the keyboard that she can remember. I've actually had a number of PIN codes that I didn't actually remember apart from the pattern they make on the numeric keypad.

  • Strange quote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Foolicious (895952) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:52AM (#22516160) Homepage

    My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords.
    I find this interesting. Is the goal to set up a machine for a 7-year-old that parents cannot access? If so, I personally think this is silly. I do admit I RTFS very quickly and perhaps missed something.
    • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Friday February 22 2008, @11:54AM (#22516224) Homepage Journal

      My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords.
      And exactly why is this a problem? If your parents are totally and completely incompetent, go to child protective services now, for you have more important issues than passwords.
      Otherwise, quit undermining your parents and let them raise your sister. You can contribute if you want by teaching her about computers, but do it in assistance to your parents, not in opposition.
      • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:10PM (#22516566)
        This can be solved by giving the parents the root password and letting the girl keep a secret password. That makes it so that she gets the feeling of privacy and, for the most part, the reality of privacy while still allowing the parents to do and see whatever they want on the computer.
        • by Glonoinha (587375) on Friday February 22 2008, @01:20PM (#22517848) Journal
          I can just see the little seven year old explaining to her parents ...

          It's not about trust. It's about accountability. See, I trust you guys, but lets face it - sometimes things happen and we all want to be able to have every person be accountable for their actions. So I'm just going to lock this bad boy down with a digital key long enough to choke a horse.
    • by Imagix (695350) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:55AM (#22516264)
      I noticed the same thing. Also the quote how the brother had to "endure" parental control software. We're talking about a 7-year old. There should be parental supervision, education, and monitoring.
        • by bugnuts (94678) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:22PM (#22516786) Journal

          There should be parental supervision, education, and monitoring.
          Why?
          Two reasons. First, parents are completely responsible for their child's safety. That includes things like giving out her name, address, even state to strangers. Perhaps it's a surprise that children... even kids twice her age, do not tend to use good judgement.

          That judgement is learned, generally through the parents. And yes, you'll see lots of adults using their parents' poor judgement.

          The second reason is that it helps prevent parent ignorance. If the parents participate in her "computer experience" they will become experienced, too. The younger kid had to endure safe-surf software because the parents didn't want to surf with the kid.

          What gets me is that a 7-yo actually feels the need to hide things from her parents. This can be from watching her brother and deciding his frustration was bad, or it could be because she doesn't trust them so much.
          • by Lijemo (740145) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:52PM (#22517330)

            What gets me is that a 7-yo actually feels the need to hide things from her parents. This can be from watching her brother and deciding his frustration was bad, or it could be because she doesn't trust them so much.

            Or it can just be for the same reason that kids like having a "secret hideout" or "secret clubs" or whatever. Like everyone else, they like space --whether physical or conceptual-- that is their own.

            Children, even that young, DO need a certain amount of privacy. But that's too young to be having privacy from parents in connection with her interactions with the outside world, and her interactions with the random & anonymous people that she'll meet there.

            And being in her own room gives a very dangerous illusion of complete safety-- she would probably want parents present when wandering through a large, bustling crowd of unfamiliar grown-ups, but she's far less likely to recognize any danger when she's alone in her house with her parents in the next room.

            If this computer is not connected to the internet, then sure, let her have a password that keeps her parents out of the computer. It's like having a room with a door that closes, or a diary that no one else is allowed to read.

            But if it's attached to the Internet? That's another story. Her parents NEED to be involved.

    • by eln (21727) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:57AM (#22516322) Homepage
      I agree. At that age, her dealings with computers (particularly computers with Internet access) should be closely monitored by her parents. She should set up a password and be instructed not to tell other people what it is in order to get her into the habit of good security practices, but her parents should nevertheless know the password (or some other way to access the computer).

      Of course, my son is 8 and he's only allowed to use the computer in the living room, and we can easily see what he's doing on it at all times. Kids are already going to obsess about keeping things from their parents when they're teenagers, there's no reason to start building that barrier when they're only 7.
      • by syphaxplh (896757) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:11PM (#22516576)
        Thank you to all who have pointed out that perhaps locking the parents out is not a sensible goal. While I think it is good for a child this age to understand the concepts of security and privacy, I don't think that it is reasonable for a minor to expect her own little private computing world, free of parental control. There should be some semblance of openness and trust in a healthy household, particularly between parents and their children.
  • at age 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tsiangkun (746511) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:52AM (#22516178) Homepage
    I would suggest the parents have the root password, and their child can ask them to reset her password when she forgets.

    Parents guessing the password of a seven year old is ridiculous, is this a serious question ?
  • by garett_spencley (193892) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:54AM (#22516234) Journal
    Seriously, she's 7?!

    I have two daughters around the same age. They share a computer that we gave them for xmas. They have their own accounts, with their own passwords and my wife and I maintain the Administrator account. I could not fathom them having an Internet-accessible computer without us having full control over it.

    Am I missing the point ? Because when I read:

    "My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords"

    it sounds to me like you're trying to keep a 7 year-old's parents off of a computer she uses when they have every right (and reason / responsibility in this day in age) to know what their young child is doing on a computer.

    Of course I am all for teaching kids how to be security conscious and protect their private data. But it's a fine balance. Parents need to keep themselves in the loop in order to, you know, be effective parents.
  • by fredrated (639554) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:55AM (#22516266)
    With phrases like "She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent" and "My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords" you are clearly trying to undermine your parents. I know that children, though you don't give your age, usually think that they know better than their parents, but guess what: it isn't usually true! I hope that your parents are smart enough to take your sisters computer away if you succeed in locking them out.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2008, @11:58AM (#22516340)
    ...like, "My parents are responsible for me." Or, "I live under their roof, so I play by their rules." Or, "My brother is an asshat."

    And yes, I'm a parent.
  • by Shuh (13578) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:35PM (#22517032) Journal
    I have a seven-year-old child who needs to drive around town in a car, but has problems getting the keys. Is there anyone on Slashdot who has suggestions on how to open, start, and operate a car without keys and otherwise make it so easy even a seven-year-old can do it? Thanks! Signed, A Responsible Human Being
  • I was shocked a number of years ago when I was moving some furniture so the floors could get cleaned behind the beds. There, under my (then) five year old's mattress, was a complete list of all of my (and my wife's) passwords. He had everything (from multiple machines): power-on passwords, logon passwords, email account passwords, merchant passwords--even our online banking passwords!

    [No, they were not all the same. Some of them were quite complex, too, like 'ni*45FPN!ng'. I got to play "change-the-password" for a few hours that evening.]

    I asked him how he got them: he shoulder-surfed us for every one of them. The reason he had them? He wanted to sneak down to the computer at 3 in the morning and play Spooky Castle.

    That scared the snot out of me. Now, I know he may not be the typical kid, but it just goes to show that you really can't be too careful with your passwords.

    As to the boy, I started encouraging him to use his powers for good. I teach network administration at an area college, so I started bringing him with when I had to configure the lab. He caught on quick, and was a huge help. He's just over 11 now, and while he's still one of the most tech savvy kids in the house, he has little interest in PCs (that might be a good thing). He'd rather spend time outdoors (even when it's thirty below zero) or with his pet cockatiel.
    • by meringuoid (568297) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:52AM (#22516188)
      A fingerprint seems like a reasonable idea. If she's just trying to keep other family members off of it, rubber-hose cryptanalysis is unlikely to become a problem

      You were an only child, right?

        • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

          by KublaiKhan (522918) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:11PM (#22516568) Homepage Journal
          Yes, and I'm questioning two aspects of that:

          Why the parents need to be kept out, and why the AC thinks that any password will keep out parents who presumably have physical access to the system.

          If the parents are taking an interest in keeping young children safe, then by all means let 'em.
          • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:37PM (#22517086) Homepage
            Is it not, after all, a fundamental not only on Slashdot but of security in general that any security can be broken if you have physical access to the boxen?

            In any case, I think as a primary corollary to your first question, one really needs to ask whether this is a decision that the submitter should be making with his sister. It seems to me, that with all of the talk on Slashdot about 'we must blame the parents who do not take care of their children', this is a decision the parents need to make with their daughter (or that she needs to make alone and can then argue with them afterwards about).

            It seems like a ripe situation for family conflict when the (brother, presumably) interposes himself as he is doing here.

            • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Informative)

              by Rei (128717) on Friday February 22 2008, @02:02PM (#22518584) Homepage
              If you have access *and you know what you're doing*. I get the impression that the parents don't. As for whether the submitter should be doing it, if the parents are the type who install cybernanny software on their kids computers, I say go for it.

              Anyways, as for passwords: what about acronym passwords? I love them because they're so easy to memorize, yet end up quite random. Have your sister think of a phrase -- for example, "Mom and Dad, leave me alone!" -- and then make an acronym out of it, like "MaD,lma!"
              • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

                by PCM2 (4486) on Friday February 22 2008, @03:58PM (#22520274) Homepage

                If you have access *and you know what you're doing*. I get the impression that the parents don't. As for whether the submitter should be doing it, if the parents are the type who install cybernanny software on their kids computers, I say go for it.

                Uh ... wait. "Cybernanny" software for high schoolers, yeah, I can see where that's the wrong approach. But what's the problem installing it on a computer for a seven-year-old? There really is a lot of really foul stuff on the Web, and stumbling on it by accident isn't uncommon. Why allow the child's experience to be colored by that?

            • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2008, @02:31PM (#22519078)
              I agree; that's a parental decision. I wouldn't let my daughter (especially back when she was anywhere near 7 years old) use a computer that I wouldn't have access to.

              I'm not saying I would use that access. I'm suggesting that 7 is too young to need it.

              Side note--I thought we all agreed 5 years ago that 'boxen' was stupid.
          • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cHiphead (17854) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:38PM (#22517098)
            You nailed it.

            As a parent, there's no way in a hell a 7 year old will have a lock down to keep mom and dad out, no responsible parent will allow such a thing, and the machine gets taken away if such a practice is put into place.

            When your 18, go right ahead and make the 53 ch4R@ct3R password to lock your machine up, until then, accept the fact that you are the child and we are the parent, and you don't get root access or personal and private encryption, you ask the IT department (dad).

            Cheers.
            • by Scrameustache (459504) on Friday February 22 2008, @12:58PM (#22517466) Homepage Journal

              When your 18, go right ahead and make the 53 ch4R@ct3R password to lock your machine up, until then, accept the fact that you are the child and we are the parent, and you don't get root access or personal and private encryption
              And after they're 18, you don't get regular phone calls or visits, nor talks about their lives. You'll have denied them privacy for as long as it was legally possible for you to force that upon them, and the pendulum will swing back in full force, reacting to your actions with equal force in the opposite direction.
              • by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Friday February 22 2008, @01:07PM (#22517606)

                And after they're 18, you don't get regular phone calls or visits, nor talks about their lives. You'll have denied them privacy for as long as it was legally possible for you to force that upon them, and the pendulum will swing back in full force, reacting to your actions with equal force in the opposite direction.

                Bullshit.

                If you're open about it, then the idea that there is automatic resentment is just bullshit. Seven-year-olds shouldn't get unresticted and expecially not unmonitored access to the internet. Should the kid be able to keep a private journal, sure. Electronically? Maybe, I don't know about that. Should the parents know who the kid is e-mailing, hell yes. Should the parent read e-mails to the friends, once they have been identified? Well, that's where you get into trust issues. When the kid is seven, yes. When the kid is sixteen, probably not.

                • by cuantar (897695) on Friday February 22 2008, @02:04PM (#22518642) Homepage
                  Easy solution: the computer doesn't get 'net access. There's no reason an unplugged box shouldn't be as private as the child wants it to be; computers are no more dangerous than a pen and paper. Problems only occur when children don't take proper precautions online. There's no reason, in 2008, that a child should not have unfettered access to his/her own system, including root.
                  • by encoderer (1060616) on Friday February 22 2008, @03:13PM (#22519650)
                    Absolutely.

                    An unplugged box is fine.

                    Load up a few games. Show them how to use a Paint-like program and a word processor.

                    Teach them the value of money by giving allowance that they can chose to spend on a new game (and which one to pick!) or something else they may like.

                    Teach them the value of caring for things by waiting a bit to fix whatever they (potentially) break.

                    With the amount of educational software, and the fact that innate computer skills are already a requirement in the workforce (let alone 15 years from now when this girl will begin her career), a computer can be a valuable tool for a child.
                • by TheMCP (121589) on Friday February 22 2008, @05:20PM (#22521494) Homepage
                  When I was 5, my family moved to a new house in which I for the first time had a lock on my bedroom door. I didn't really care about it, but my father for some reason was very uptight about it and made a big deal about telling me that I was never, ever to lock my door.

                  When I was 7 or 8, I went into my room one day and closed the door, and didn't notice that the lock accidentally jiggled itself to locked. (The knobs were cheap junk and the locks were overly loose, so this happened occasionally.) My father tried to come into my room moments later, and flew into a rage when he found the door locked. He refused to believe me that I had not intentionally locked the door, and as punishment he removed the door from my bedroom - for two years.

                  I never forgave him for that. It was very traumatic for me. I couldn't bring myself to even speak to him for months afterward, and when he asked me to do any household chores my only reply was "when do I get my door back?". I felt nothing toward him but angry resentment for the next 10 or 12 years.

                  You are not in a position to judge another family's personal interactions with regard to privacy. You don't know the people involved or their histories or their opinions. If the kid, at age 7, is already sufficiently bothered by whatever her parents did to her young brother's computer, and her elder brother is sufficiently bothered by it to try to prevent his parents from doing it to hers, maybe they're actually unreasonable nutjobs. It's not our place to judge.

                  I spoke with a young woman once whose parents placed such draconian restrictions on her computer use in her teen years (severe time restrictions, IM buddy list restrictions, email restrictions, web filtering, and the software sends frequent reports to the parents with screenshots) that it actually interfered with her school work (the computer would lock her out before she could finish typing her homework), not to mention her social life (her friends had difficulty communicating with her, since her phone usage was highly restricted and parental monitored too). When they attempted to send her off to college with a laptop with their draconian control software still installed and just as restrictive as ever, she told them where to shove it and left. I'd be surprised if she ever speaks to them again.

                  If the parents in the situation this Slashdot discussion is about feel that their 7 year old shouldn't be using the computer the brother gave her, they can ask him to take it back, they can put it in storage, they can ask their daughter to show them her emails and buddy lists and web favorites now and then, or they can put it in a family room so they can see what their daughter is doing with it. If they don't do these things, that's their parenting choice.

                  Meanwhile, we could be having an interesting discussion of how to create decent passwords for people (like children) who are unable to remember arbitrary strings. I've met adults with the same problem, so it's not a moot question.
                  • by cHiphead (17854) on Friday February 22 2008, @05:52PM (#22521914)
                    i told my 5 year old my battlenet password on warcraft 3 just to test the waters, the next day, I walk into the computer room and he's on bnet playing tower defense maps. That passwd is now changed b/c he will try to login with it (even when my machine is locked he will try that one).

                    W.T.F.

                    Kids can remember passwords, maybe not strong passwords, but words and letters are easy enough. I've seen it first hand.
              • by Digital_Quartz (75366) on Friday February 22 2008, @01:30PM (#22518042) Homepage
                I can just envision the police phone call:

                "Ma'am, do you have any idea who might have kidnapped your daughter? Has she been talking to anyone new lately? Has she had any new friends come by the house?"

                "*sob* I don't know! She uses blowfish!"

                You're legally responsible for your children until they reach the age of majority, and the only way you can possibly do that is to have some clue what your children are doing.
              • by penguin_dance (536599) on Friday February 22 2008, @01:46PM (#22518312)

                And after they're 18, you don't get regular phone calls or visits, nor talks about their lives. You'll have denied them privacy for as long as it was legally possible for you to force that upon them, and the pendulum will swing back in full force, reacting to your actions with equal force in the opposite direction.

                Maybe...until they have their own kids. But mostly that's crap. Children expect boundries...and they will keep pushing you until you establish some. Because, when there's no barriers, there's also nothing protecting you either. They may grouse at the time, but they will respect reasonable restrictions.

                Boundries are the foundation that allows the now 16 year-old daughter to tell her boyfriend, "We can go in my room, but mom/dad will freak if I close the door."

                I've got to wonder what this precocious 7 year-old wants to look at or do that she thinks is going to be foiled by her parents!

              • by q-the-impaler (708563) on Friday February 22 2008, @01:58PM (#22518548)
                Interesting that you titled your post 'Cat's in the Cradle'. The Harry Chapin song that I assume you are referring to is about a boy who resents his father for not being active in his son's childhood. I assume you were focused on the part where the son grows up and, in turn, does not make time for his own father. You missed the big picture.

                Just thought I'd point out that your oversight in your title extends to your oversight in the importance of good parenting. Children need to earn privacy so they can respect the responsibilities it comes with later in life. Obviously you give them more and more privacy to practice with the older they get, but a seven year old cannot possibly be ready for that kind of responsibility yet.

                In fact, the lack of structure you suggest will probably cause the exact thing you tried to avoid: a bratty kid who gets what he (she in this case) wants. I'm sure you are going to argue that you were referring to the extremeness of the GPs comment (i.e. no privacy at all until 18) but you know you'll be missing the point.
              • by swordgeek (112599) on Friday February 22 2008, @03:17PM (#22519720) Journal
                Bollocks. Kids are FAR more likely to ignore their parents as adults if they weren't given any restrictions or limits. Lack of caring or outright abuse will alienate kids, NOT actual parenting.

                There is no reason a seven-year-old needs absolute privacy from her parents combined with internet access; to the contrary, it's a dangerous and potentially harmful scenario, and it is a parent's primary job to deal with such things. (And no, I'm not advocating a 'padded room' solution to childcare.)

                Let's be clear here: privacy for dependents is not absolute. (In fact, privacy is seldom an absolute for anyone, but that's another issue.) Privacy for a seven-year-old should NOT be the same as it is for a 16-year-old or a college student. If your seven-year-old says "I'm going out for a while.", do you ask them where? With who? What time they'll be home? Do you let them go? When they're 16, you can expect different degrees of answer from them, and correspondingly give them more freedom (=privacy). When they're 21, your questions are less of a protective nature, and more concern/interest.

                Explaining why they don't have absolute freedom and privacy is a big part of the challenge of being a parent. Kids can be raised (more or less) rationally, and if your reasoning is rational, they'll often go along (although not always, and not always without complaining). Unfortunately, making good decisions for good adult reasons doesn't always translate well to the age of the child. Explaining to a seven-year -old about online pedophiles, credit scams, phishing, and so forth is tough when she hasn't reached puberty or had a net worth more than ten bucks. You can simplify a fair bit, but there are some explanations that ultimately have to wait until she's older. "Because I said so" can actually be the right answer sometimes.
                • by sumdumass (711423) on Friday February 22 2008, @02:07PM (#22518706) Journal
                  Bull shit. Children don't posses the ability to accurately reason. This is one reason why the age of consent is 18 in most places. Sure, some children mature faster then others and some think they have but it doesn't apply universally to them.

                  If you ask people 20 years after their teens, they will most likely say they didn't know as much as they thought they knew at that time. Most kids find a point in their teens when they think they know it all. Later they realize that if they knew what they know now, back then, they would have done quite a few things different.

                  It sounds like you can't make a definitive statement on your parents snooping either. IF you as you claim, didn't do anything wrong, how would you know that Dad was looking at your browsing history or cookies? He wouldn't tell you because you did nothing he objected to. He could have been reading your email and all and you just turned out to be a good kid regardless. Again, you wouldn't know unless you did something wrong that he felt like dealing with. And even then, he might have dealt with it in an unrelated way so you wouldn't put two and two together. After all, why expose the ways he found out about what you were doing that was "bad" and lose that ability in the future?

                  The primary role of a parent is to make you into the best person you can be and give you the opportunity to do this within their means. This might be subject to interpretation but it would require them to know something about you. Just because you couldn't catch them checking up on you doesn't mean they didn't from time to time.
            • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

              by fishbowl (7759) <nethack.cox@net> on Friday February 22 2008, @01:34PM (#22518112)

              "As a parent, there's no way in a hell a 7 year old will have a lock down to keep mom and dad out, no responsible parent will allow such a thing, and the machine gets taken away if such a practice is put into place."

              I did not understand that point of view at 7, and I do not agree with it a 40-something.

              It seems to go without saying that children are not entitled to privacy from their parents. I say it is up to the individual parent. Many parents DO respect their children enough to give them privacy. Some consider doing otherwise to be a form of abuse.
              • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

                by nahdude812 (88157) * on Friday February 22 2008, @01:39PM (#22518212) Homepage
                If the computer isn't connected to the net (and they aren't able to load inappropriate stuff their friend gave them on a thumb drive), then I don't need access to it. Likewise with a journal. No one ever got kidnapped, raped, and murdered by someone they met by writing in a private journal, and material which the child isn't emotionally and developmentally ready for never spontaneously appeared in it.

                Plug it in to the net, or notice little Bobby or Susy loading up stuff on it that you don't recognize from friends, then you bet it's time to want to know what's going on. Kids aren't adults, they don't get the same level of privacy from their parents that adults do, nor should they.

                Parents need involvement in their kids lives, it's the way that they shape and mold their kids into functional balanced adults, as well as protect them from dangers the kid doesn't realize exist or doesn't believe in. It's the mark of a good parent, and it's something that's lacking in too many parents.
              • Hah, I don't remember a single point in time I hadn't r00t on all boxes in my home, and I always had at least one computer at home since I was three.

                Either you're young enough that you're not a parent (i.e., that "computer when you were 3" was a Windows 95 machine) or you're old enough that the computer you had at home had no real user account control.

                TODAY, with the internet everywhere, control of a household computer is as important as control of a household medicine cabinet or control of the family car. You might trust a teenager with it, but if you're stupid enough to trust a seven year old with it you should have your children taken away.

              • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Friday February 22 2008, @01:10PM (#22517670) Homepage
                hell, no wonder so many kids get screwed up and run away at 16.

                A family is most definately *not* a dictatorship. It's a family, which has its own dynamic. Respecting the rights of the child (one of those rights is the right to privacy btw.) is fundamental to a healthy functioning family. In turn they should respect your wish to know what they're doing - but not every detail (and you will never find that out anyway).
                  • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Friday February 22 2008, @01:25PM (#22517930) Homepage
                    Responsibility of the parent doesn't make it a dictatorship, legally or otherwise.

                    I'm shocked that anyone would even think that. A child with no freedom and no room to grow would turn out to be a basket case. I'd wager social services would get involved at some point.
              • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Insightful)

                by ultranova (717540) on Friday February 22 2008, @02:47PM (#22519284)

                I wish I could attribute sarcasm to your post, but it is obvious you're being serious. And it's obvious you know nothing about children or the raising thereof.

                I neither know or care anything about rising children. I will learn if I ever have any. I simply answered the question "why the parents need to be kept out"; since the summary gave me the impression that the it is the child who wants a "parent-proof" PC, I took this question to mean "why would a child want to keep its parents out".

                You are seeing moral judgements where there is none, merely an attempt to see the world through someone elses - the kids, in this case - eyes while attempting to solve an interesting problem: how to secure a computer against an attacker who has physical access to both it and the onwer. Since the rest of your post proceeds from this flawed assumption, commenting on it further would be pointless.