Ask Slashdot: Good Low Cost Free Software For Protecting Kids Online? 646
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?"
Free or free (Score:5, Informative)
OpenDNS (Score:2, Informative)
OpenDNS has it's limitations, but overall it's really good.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe they're running linux. Adding the cost of windows on to that would make it significantly more expensive. Maybe they're being rational enough about it to not be scared into immediately whipping out their wallet to have someone else protect their children. Maybe there are FOSS alternatives that are actually better. Did you actually do any research on it? If so, it'd be nice to hear what your results were.
K9 Web Protection (Score:4, Informative)
subject (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox, AdBlockPro, Noscript, and the computer in the living room.
Dan's Guardian (Score:5, Informative)
One possibility is http://dansguardian.org/ [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.
Re:Free or free (Score:5, Informative)
Squid with Dansguardian (http://dansguardian.org/) has worked well for me. It has a free "subscription based" white/blacklist and also a heuristic "score" mode.
Could be a good balance between watching them all the time and letting them have some freedom. You tell them not to visit certain sights, and unless you're running it
on your router as a transparent proxy, can be bypassed with a modicum of effort, so some of the onus is on them.
Privoxy *and* surpervision (Score:2, Informative)
I highly recommend using the Privoxy content filtering proxy server. Since using it I can't recall ever "accidentally" having come across a porn site and the ad-free experience makes browsing the internet much more tolerable. You can also add your own filters based on host names, partial URIs and even funky things like image dimensions (to block out banner ads from specific providers) and it has the ability to strip GIF animations down to their first frame (no annoying blinky/flashy adverts). You can also define exceptions so that ad-supported web sites you approve of can still display their non-invasive ads and/or certain banking sites aren't fucked-up by having their Javascript blocked (why aren't they on SSL anyway?).
All of my desktop computers and mobile devices use it - it's particularly amusing to see how insistent some mobile apps are trying to get their advertising - especially Angry Birds, which tries about 8 different FQDNs and IP addresses before giving up and letting you play anyway.
Even with Privoxy, though, you cannot replace supervising your children's online time. I also recommend *not* allowing computers and connected mobile devices to wander off into bedrooms, etc. - make sure your kids are in the lounge/kitchen area where you can keep an eye on them.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:4, Informative)
My links weren't very good, but I don't think you read them anyway. Notice that they end with ".UK", I'm in Europe too.
I have no problem with fetishism. (Also, the quote isn't from a "shrink", it's from the editor of the letters page for a crap newspaper.) 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.
Here's a quote from a report by the NSPCC [nspcc.org.uk] (British charity, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Children)
Our research into young people’s experiences of violence in their intimate relationships
clearly demonstrates the very high levels of violence that some girls experience from their
male partners. A third of girls reported some form of sexual violence and a quarter
experienced physical violence, with many reporting controlling behaviours from their
partners. The very detrimental impact of such violence on the welfare of girls is clear. In
contrast although boys did report experiencing violence from a partner, only a minority
reported any detrimental impact.
Some boys in the interviews showed very negative attitudes to girls, often objectifying them.
This was especially prevalent in their attitudes towards pressuring girls into sexual contact
and their lack of awareness regarding the impact of this on their female partners. For example,
in one group interview with three boys, when they discussed their sexually coercive ‘tactics’
the other boys in the group responded with admiration. It was clear that some boys
predominantly viewed girls as primarily sexual objects, and that sexual coercion was seen as
normal and acceptable. Little regard was held for the girls’ feelings. In other interviews boys
were either unsure or unaware if their behaviour constituted sexual pressure. The pressure on
boys from peers and the media to portray a dominating sexual persona is also an issue.
In contrast, for girls a disembodied and passive sexuality predominated where sexual pleasure
was mostly absent in their discussions. Many girls stated that the sexual aspects of their
relationships primarily consisted of attempting to resist the pressure they experienced from
male partners. They found this aspect of their relationships hard to negotiate and worried that
their partners would finish the relationship if they confronted them about their behaviour.
These girls derived a great deal of peer status from having a boyfriend – a key protective
factor would be to ensure girls were able to gain self-esteem from other aspects of their lives.
Is that acceptable? I doubt many of them discussed their relationship with their parents, and I doubt their parents had that kind of relationship.
Re:Education / Communication (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Net Nanny (Score:3, Informative)