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?"
Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
Re:Watch them (Score:4, Interesting)
That's what I do. I find that the kids are not really interested in anything that could accidentally stumble across anything untoward. YouTube is the main problem site, but hey saturday morning pop videos are bloody awful and you can't do much about that.
With our oldest I set up a non-network account (iptable block rule based on userid (on linux)) so that when he was left at home alone there was no internet access, but he could still play local games, use open office etc.
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
About to say the same, but under the form of: use same software that protects them offline - it is called parenting.
If you think not only real-life but also Internet is dangerous (a justified concern, I agree), I can't see why what's good for protecting your kids in real-life won't be also good for online one.
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house? And store them in places the kids can access? Just use my parenting skills to watch their every waking moment, rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house?
Do you think a 7-8 years old is still stopped by a "child safe" lid? 'Cause if s/he not, I do hope that you taught her about the dangers but that age - or else store them where they cannot be accessed.
rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?
I'm yet to see a "Parental control" software that does not fail. Have you ever seen one?
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail.
Really? I think the point is that the software gives you a false sense of security. Not to mention that it's rather pointless. I'd say education is a far better solution than treating the internet like a bogeyman.
Re:Watch them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. Drinking poison and exposure to human sexuality are very similar experiences
They can both cause a gag reflex.
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't just human sexuality, and in fact, I will say that human sexuality is the least offensive of the things people try to keep kids safe from online.
There's a video floating around of a couple of Russian teens literally murdering a man on camera. There are numerous videos showing extreme violence to people and animals. CNN had a video of a man having his head sawed off readily available, and another news site showed one being hanged while a crowd cheered.
While I wouldn't want my children exposed to a gangbang video or something, that's so far down on the list of "awful shit children shouldn't see" as to not bear mentioning except in reply to your post.
I don't think a kid catching a glimpse of goatse is going to be scarred for life, but I can assure you, as an adult, I've been unintentionally exposed, with no warning (or by being told a video was something else) to videos and pictures that by the time I realized what I was seeing, it was staying with me for awhile and I can only imagine what some of those would do to a kid.
Further, people use the real-life equivalent of net nanny software all the time: agencies testing food products and medicines to make sure they're safe, regulations about toys and clothing to make them safe, building codes and structural inspections to make sure the home is safe, the list goes on and on.
Adding some software to a machine to reduce the risk that your kids will be exposed to videos of people being mutilated or killed isn't the be-all-end-all of good parenting, but it's certainly not a bad component to add to the picture.
Re:Watch them (Score:4, Insightful)
What about grotesque images? Most 7-8 year olds are scared of things under their bed or in their closet -- they would be scared shitless of seeing mutilated bodies on the internet. For example, do a search for Porsche girl, a fairly benign phrase, you'll see whats been plastered all over the internet. Then theres images of pets being tortured, something that will likely scar any little child ...
And for sexuality -- seeing a boob is natural no big deal (as a youngin I was exited to come across a Playboy!). Seeing a girl bound and gagged while being gang-banged is not really appropriate for a young child and is easily accessible on the internet.
There's extremes for everything -- don't lump all sexuality into the same group. Some exposure is good, and natural to avoid being a freak later on in time, but no need to scar them at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say any of that.
Do you know what an analogy is? You've heard they break down right? And that they aren't supposed to be *exactly* equivalent? The idea is to take something that shows the parts that are important to the point you are trying to make and discards the unimporant parts.
In this case the pros and cons of internet access and whether it should be restricted or given free reign is not what I was commenting on.
What I was commenting on was the implication that using access controls and
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for you? :-)
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, don't forget to give up your full-time job, dump your friends and drop any sports or hobbies you do.
Your new life is monitoring every waking second of your child's.
Also something about "preventing rather than punishing for something they couldn't prevent".
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have kids? They go to friends' houses and surf the net there. Libraries, schools. You can't bubble wrap your kids.
Best to teach them how to react when they do find something offensive, and give them the confidence to say "turn that off" to a friend that might bring that up.
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, seriously. Kids have a lot more energy, and creativity, when it comes to acquiring a taboo item. Thinking of my own childhood, you're better off trying to explain, using proper (adult) reasoning, why your social values need to be respected by them rather than trying to put up magic walls to block the offending material. Remember, the first time a kid catches you lying to them, all bets are off; they'll question everything from that day forward, and test things when you aren't around.
I'd be more worried if they didn't find a way around that filter.
Re:Watch them (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. The kids' gaming computer goes in the living room. And not only for monitoring what they do, but because at that age you don't want them up all night playing Minecraft either. Which is guaranteed to happen if they have a computer in their room.
From personal experience, i didn't have trouble with my kid with naughty sites, but i did have to password protect a laptop because i caught her playing age appropriate games at 2 am in her bed on a school-tomorrow night.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Put the computer in the living room and smack 'em in the head when you catch them going where they shouldn't
Wow you got the same tripe in first yet again!
How does your solution prevent porn ads from regular non-porn websites?
How does your solution prevent popup/under ads?
How does your solution prevent drive-by downloads of malware?
A parent watching (or hell, a parent at the fucking keyboard) can't stop these things.
A good web filter is wise even for your own usage, let alone children. It has NOTHING to do with blocking them from seeking out porn. The Internet has a way of forcing these things on you if you want
Re: (Score:3)
Protip: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're looking for software to take care of your children for you, you've already failed as a parent.
... because all of our kids are just like yours.
Until you've spent a month living with someone else's kids, don't assume they can be parented the same way yours can.
Re:Protip: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> Newsflash: Even the best kids don't always listen to what mommy and/or daddy tell them.
That's the point. You cannot deal with that issue by trying to stop the kids from having the CAPACITY to disobey. Not unless you want to raise a few agoraphobics anyway...
Re:Protip: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are trying to do everything by yourself to you children, you will fail even more as a parent.
You know, you have to WORK in order to be able to FEED your kids. Will you lock the little bastards (man, my childhood memories... X-P) in a safe room in the working hours?
You really think that peeping over their shoulders all the time is a good way to raise them?
Kids *needs* some controlled "freedom" in order to acquire the needed abilities to raise the self control mechanism every adult must have. You need to leave them "alone" (please note the quotes) for some time everyday. You need to give them some room to give them the chance test what can and what cannot be done.
(And so, you need to step back and see what happens)
On the other hand, you should not expose them to things they are not ready (or are incapable) to deal.
When you drive the kids to the local park, you stays in their side every second, of you give the kids space in order to allow them to play with other kids - but stays reasonably near in order to interfere if somethings appears to go wrong?
If you are not a Luddite, you must give the kids some time on a computer. And since you probably have some other things to do in your life (as keep the house clean, cook the dinner, help the other kid on the homework, drive the dog to the vet, etc), and stating again that no kid raises mentally healthy being watched all the time (you are aware that the kids must live on their own after your death, aren't you?), so the FA have a valid question: some kind of parental software is needed.
Relying only on this software would be a failure, granted.
Re: (Score:3)
If a pedi acting like a kid is sending inappropriate stuff it is nice to know and sadly is quite common if you ask law enforcement agencies
I was a teenager when home Internet access became possible, so I missed out on most of this, but I do remember when I was quite young (5ish) being taught basic safety in that regard: don't go off with people you don't know, if someone claims to be there on behalf of my parents then ask them for a password, and so on. When I got Internet access, I was given similar advice: don't give out your home address to anyone, don't agree to meet anyone in person that you met online, remember that the person you're ta
Re: (Score:3)
We're aware of that. And we're also aware that you'll understand why when you're older and will respect us even more for it.
Re:Protip: (Score:5, Insightful)
It is normal to:
Lock the booze so your kids cannot drink it
Really? My parents left theirs unlocked. I knew where it was, and was allowed to drink small amounts from a fairly early age (in the UK, you can drink alcohol in your own home from the age of 5). I was also taught what would happen if I drank a lot.
Lock the gate, so your kids do not run across the street
There was no gate between my house and the street on the front, and the front door had a yale lock so you just turn the handle to open it. I could do this by about the time I was old enough to run across the street. My parents taught me to always look before running into the street and what would happen if I didn't (i.e. potentially getting hit by a car, not a threat of punishment).
Lock the chemicals (like chlorine) so they do not drink it
Nope, stored in the cupboard under the sink. Easy for me to get to. My parents taught me what the poison and corrosive substance symbols meant by the time I was about 4 or 5.
Lock the medicines
Nope, stored in a bathroom cabinet. Again, I was told what happened if you take medicine for something that you're not suffering from (well, with some exaggerations of the unpleasant effects, but close enough).
I suspect that a lot of the problems in modern society come from children not being taught early on to make informed choices about risk. If I'd wanted to drink a load of booze, bleach, or eat random pills, I was perfectly able to from about the age of 6 or so, but I was taught that the outcome would probably be going to hospital and having my stomach pumped if I was lucky and death if I wasn't. On the Internet, the potential for harm is much lower. No one is actually harmed by seeing some porn (although getting malware installed is a problem for random surfing). The only real danger is if the child agrees to meet random people in person, and that's fairly easy to avoid if you're a moderately attentive parent even if you fail to teach the child that it's a bad idea.
I should add that nothing in the list was particularly unusual for people I knew growing up. Locking up things that might be harmful to children just didn't happen.
Communication (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet is all about communication, be it with other individuals, corporations, etc.
Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision? No?
Then you may want to consider just making sure that there's a human with your children while they're using the thing, until they're at an age where you choose to trust them on their own for a bit. You'll be there to explain the odd random thing that happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you let a 7 or 8 year old talk to random people from around the world without supervision?
Why not? Unless you think most people are rapists or terrorists who will magically molest them over the internet, what is the problem? Just make sure they know what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
a 7 or 8 year old [...] Just make sure they know what they're doing.
I don't know about others, but when I was 7 or 8 years old I certainly didn't know what I was doing - even when I thought I do. From my today's position I think I got some reasonable awareness of adult world when I was about 16 years old, and continued learning further.
Unless you think most people are rapists or terrorists who will magically molest them over the internet
The worst thing that can happen to a kid on Internet is another
Re:Communication (Score:4, Insightful)
More on that point, its good to have supervision so that kids can be *taught* to recognise things that are bad for them, and/or how to respond to those things.
Education is the best solution to many situations, the reason to have supervision is facilitate that education.
Free or free (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Was just going to suggest this, works really well limiting apps, quotaing time and limiting content. It is actually a really well thought out tool: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=29231 [microsoft.com]
Needs a modern OS though so Vista or 7.
OpenDNS (Score:2, Informative)
OpenDNS has it's limitations, but overall it's really good.
OpenDNS (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a great idea, completely ineffective if the kid has even the slightest motivation or curiosity. Reward tinkering with sexual material, that's the way it should be.
Porn!? (Score:2)
You'd better do something! If they see that, they'll turn into evil rapists!
Bsecure Online (Score:4, Interesting)
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/ [bsecure.com]
Re:Bsecure Online (Score:4, Funny)
And yet, here you are.
/etc/hosts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This. Almost no software a parent can install is immune to kids. Plus, contrary to current browser vendor "wisdom", the most important security tools are (or should be) already on the screen: the location bar and the status bar. Teach your kids to pay attention to where they are and where they're going.
Although I find mapping hosts to 0.0.0.0 is faster, because it's not a valid IP address, so the DNS subsystem of your OS will ignore it without trying to connect.
There are several hostfile collections out
Re: (Score:3)
Homer: Hey, what gives? I thought you had a Internet access.
Ned: Sure doodily-do. Over 131,572 sites locked out!
K9 Web Protection (Score:4, Informative)
"Protect" them. That's a nice word ... (Score:2)
But I think you meant censor them, didn't you?.
Just because they are kids doesn't mean they aren't human, and it doesn't mean they don't have the same rights as everyone else. I never understood this censor the kids bullshit. Putting a veil on "the things that are out there" won't make them go away, and your kids will still have to deal with all of that real soon. Think hiding it from them for a few years will help them when they find "what is out there" in a dark alley? Or are you going to keep them foreve
Re: (Score:2)
Checking out boobs in a Good Housekeeping bra add is a bit different than stumbling upon an Anal-Fisting web site when they were trying to search for something innocent.
I don't see the problem. Are they so weak that they'll be permanently scarred for life? I very highly doubt that. I think his advice that they should instead be guided is much better advice. Perhaps they won't grow up to be oversensitive and afraid, then.
subject (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox, AdBlockPro, Noscript, and the computer in the living room.
Re: (Score:3)
I used Firefox, Noscript, and education. I have a 19 (almost 20) year old daughter and a 15 year old son. Both have done fine without any close monitoring of what they are doing. Yes, I have checked from time to time in the past but for the most part, my kids were turned off by porn and knew enough to speak to strangers safely. Yes, my kids had unfiltered net access from the time they knew how to use a computer. Yes, they have turned out, or are turning out, just fine.
Seriously, give up the control freakery
Free as in "Free Speech" or ... (Score:2)
... free as in "free lunch"?
You know, there's a difference...
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.
start with the basics (Score:3)
That is, do the things you would normally do to secure your own machine from malware, intrusive advertising, and vulnerabilities.
Use the hosts file to block certain domains from being accessible.
Install ad-blocking extensions for your web browser.
Install NoScript or some other JavaScript blocking extension.
Don't give the kids account administrative privileges.
If possible, run an operating system that doesn't permit them to install their own software.
Turn on whatever parental controls are available in the OS.
Keep it patched and up-to-date.
Beyond that, the question is really a matter of sitting down and having an honest discussion with your kids. You can supervise them if you want to come across as overbearing, but really, the single best thing you can do is to be someone they feel they can trust and share whatever questions they may have. The reality is that the world is full of weird and disturbing and dangerous shit. It's not possible, or even desirable, to try to protect them from being exposed to such things forever. Rather, teach them how to judge for themselves, and encourage them to come to you for advice. If you cannot build trust and respect, you have already lost. They will simply learn to hide things from you.
Finally, there's something to be said for simply not giving them unsupervised network access. When I was that age, I didn't play online video games. I didn't have the luxury of playing Minecraft or whatnot. And I was happy to have what I did. The more quality time you spend with your kids, the less they will feel a need for things like television, mobile phones, iPads, and the internet. It means bringing them up to read paper books. Going outside and getting exercise. Getting them interested in crafts or other creative pursuits that build fine motor control and dexterity. Teaching them how to use their imaginations and developing their critical thinking skills. Could you do these things with computers and modern technology? Sure. Is it easier? Not necessarily.
Untangle (Score:2)
Blocks protocols, porn, bittorrent, msn, etc and you can chose what to block by protocol, by type, filter email, view logs of what people are doing, the works.
Education / Communication (Score:4, Insightful)
I've two kids of my own and, amazingly enough, I was a kid once as well.
Monitoring and Filtering software is rubbish. All it does is create an artificial wall that your kids will see as a "forbidden" area. You are a /. user which means, most likely, you are a smart guy. That means your kids are probably smart too. Putting up a program like this - your kids will see a challenge and go out of their way to break/circumvent it. It's what I would have done as a kid...
Communicate with your kids. Educate them. Explain to them about the internet and life in general. There are things and places that are not good for them now and it's best if they don't go there. But do it in a way that doesn't insult their intelligence. Amazingly enough, education and communication work. Will they maybe end up with a nasty pop-up on screen? Maybe. But that might happen even with NetNanny installed.
Treat your kids like people, tell them of the dangers, explain WHY those things are dangers, and give them alternatives.
PS: No - I am not some, "Think of the children", bleeding heart freak. My kids have been spanked on occasion, they've been grounded, and done plenty wrong. They are kids. Shit happens. But by treating them like people and not pets, the shit that has happened has been minor and far less than most of my "Time-out" peers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why? (Score:3)
The fact is, none of this parental control software is foolproof... It will always let the odd thing through, and if its purely software based rather than running on a separate network device then it's not exactly hard for someone with physical access to the machine to bypass it.
Kids have a natural desire to do new things, especially things which are forbidden.
Instead you want to educate the kids.
If it's not a forbidden subject then younger kids will have no interest in things like porn...
They will encounter questionable content themselves sooner or later, better that they be prepared for it under an environment controlled by their parents than stumble into it unprepared and on their own.
That kids will see things like porn and violence isn't the biggest concern, it generally won't interest them and they will just move on unless you make a big deal about it... The biggest concern is grooming pedophiles, and these won't be found on the porn sites targeted by software filters, they will be found on the online forums and chat services which are actually aimed at kids.
How About "Parenting"? Instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
There IS NO SOFTWARE SOLUTION that will keep your kids safe on the 'net.
Period.
You'll simply have a *very* false sense of security, a hole in your time/budget, and kids that learn first that you're not very smart, and second, that the game to play is "find ways around limitations my parents set for me". That, and they'll also quickly learn all about "two girls, one cup", "lemonparty", and probably "goatse" as well.
Either be around when they're using the 'net, or turn the damn thing *off*, and tell them to do something else. It's really not that hard.
Sure, you won't be "cool". You might not be your kid's "friend" any more, at least for a while. They might even tell you "I HATE you!!".
Suck it up. YOU are the adult here. YOU set rules & limits. You're supposed to be a parent, not their buddy. Your job isn't being "cool". Your job is doing "parent" things, like make unpopular decisions that they may not understand for years yet, if ever.
Try setting rules that they're not to go online without a parent around. Take a crucial cable with you, or lock it up, when you're not there. Put the computer in the family/living room.
You have to decide whether the time you spend doing things other than supervise your children's 'net use is more important than they are. Software can't do it. It's just there to salve your conscience with illusion, and make money from your guilt.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Strat
Education, education, education (Score:3)
Probably said a thousand times but here comes again:
Using a filtering software has a very limited use - sure, it can block porn ads (but so does adblock) on torrent sites and you can easily block chat sites you don't want your kids hanging in. But - this works for a very limited time. I would say a few years max just in the 7--10 age - if at that. Then they find out that hey, they can access the blocked sites at their friends house or at library, and while it has been previously forbidden it must me exciting and they want to find out what it is.
So put the computer in the living room. Give them privacy over time (room to write personal messages without observation on Facebook etc. when they demonstrate that they can act responsibly) as they mature. If they screw up educate, and encourage them to report online bullying or inappropriate behavior without the feat that *they* are disciplined. Sure, they will see a few porn images if they are interested - you can't watch them every second. But kids did see those back in the day from porn mags in the garage of someone who's dad had a stash piled up there. It will not destroy their mental health or anything. Just educate them on the real threats - do not meet strangers from chat rooms without adult present, as you would not meet a stranger from the street in private, this stuff is easy and easily taught when you do not over-mystify it.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Obviously the first thing that comes to your head, no matter what the question was, is always correct.
Teaching kids the ability to discern (Score:5, Insightful)
I have kids of my own
I love them
I like to think of ways to protect them
But I also know that I simply can't protect them 24/7
Instead, I teach them ways to protect themselves
I teach them how to discern the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and why something are "Right", and others are "Wrong"
Services like "Net Nanny" (and others) can only give an illusion of "protection" - and parents all over, always like the feeling of instant gratification, that "My Kids Are Protected"
Sure, I am worry about the safety of my kids, but I prefer to let them learn, from the real world, rather than creating an artificial green-house so that my kids are insulated from the real world out there
Perhaps my approach is wrong
Perhaps I am a bad dad
But that's what I did, and that's what I do, and what I will do, for my children, whom I adore !!
Re:Teaching kids the ability to discern (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Teaching kids the ability to discern (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the "Real World"?
My kid knows right vs. wrong.
He just turned 9 and my wife and I (and our many friends and their children) all fully agree that he has Never lied in his life. We are not worried about Him, we are worried about the INTERNET shoving completely inappropriate things down to him.
It doesn't take a very creative Google search to come up with some fully inappropriate content.
And it's getting Worse!
By the day!!
FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!, AMEN!!, but not to my 9 Year Old.
No television then? (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
>FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!, AMEN!!, but not to my 9 Year Old.
And thanks to generations of parents like you, democracy doesn't really exist in the USA anymore. If you raise them that way at any point in their life, you pretty much rule out the possibility that they will suddenly become mavericks who change an industry or leaders who change a society - or even just actively participate in such movements.
Think you can teach them to be good, free people later in life ? The Soviets had one thing right: "Give me
Re:Teaching kids the ability to discern (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know what you are talking about - I was glued to the TV for my entire childhood, and I turned out just...
OH! Look! A new Apple product announcement!
Can't talk now.
The clue is right there in the name, "Net Nanny". (Score:3, Insightful)
It's right there, "Nanny". If you're going to pay someone else to raise your children for you, why bother having them at all?
Children aren't some kind of exotic pet that you can stick into kennels when you don't feel like looking after them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Teaching kids the ability to discern (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great but there are things a 7-year-old shouldn't have to see, even accidentally. Even YouTube has things like people getting attacked by sharks - nothing a 7-year-old needs to have nightmares over.
I have a whitelist. Sometimes it's a pain (like adding Khan Academy), but I know exactly what they are doing when unattended. It also saves on the amount of malware removal I have to do - wish I could get my wife to use a whitelist :)
I agree with your post when referring to slightly older kids. By 10, I think a kid can handle more violent images without developing a life-long complex. I don't think it is fair to expect a 7-year-old to have mature defense mechanisms and coping skills yet.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:5, Insightful)
You probably aren't a parent. Most people here hold your view (as I did) until they have little ones to protect, then decide that the educational opportunity offered by /b/tards and Goatse is pretty much zero, and decide to restrict educational opportunity to the books available at home and in the library.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:5, Insightful)
*snickers
First porn I saw? Elementary school (black and white photos)
Second naked pics? Library (color, woohoo!)
Third naked pics? Home
First information about hardcore sexual practices? Psychology section of school library.
It works best to guide our children, we instill values in them a far earlier age than most realize, then they make their own decisions. But if you decide to make them work around your efforts to thwart their curiosity, such sites can easily be included in the Hosts file provided above.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.
It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7. It is not unreasonable to want them to learn about sex and sexuality from a source that won't teach your daughters that slutty is what men like, and that their bodies are all wrong, and need silicone, and botox, and collagen, and liposuction and thousands of dollars of other cosmetic surgery to be attractive to men; or from a source that will teach your sons that women are sluts, bitches, and whores to be used as nothing more than a willing hole, and that "real" women have bodies like porn stars.
They are not old enough to understand the nuances of sexuality at that age. Their minds are still developing, and it is not unreasonable to want to make sure that their minds are not being filled with garbage. Looking at a black and white pair of tits is a LOT different than a 30 minute high-def, full color video showing everything in brutally clinical detail. It's natural that they will be curious about sexuality as they begin to mature - and that's why a responsible parent will make sure they HAVE resources to satisfy their curiosity - but if you think that the hardcore porn being produced today has educational value in teaching children about their sexuality, you are way, way, way off base.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet I am sure you are ok with them seeing violence.
I dont understand why people think that a chold seeing a boobie will scar them for life, but watching Elmer fudd unload a shotgun in donald ducks face is perfectly fine.
Nudity is not bad or evil. Stop obsessing over it.
And yes I have raised 3 children.
Re: (Score:3)
I can sympathise with your sentiment, but I think you base your views on the wrong things.
First of all, I don't think pornograpy is the reason why children learn some sick ideas about how sex, relationships and the world in general works - we are all immersed in rubbish culture from our TVs, advertising etc etc.
Secondly, pornography is only superficially related to sex. It has always struck me how unsexy porn is; with it's focus on unnaturally perfect, hairless bodies, and the complete lack of intellectual
Net Nanny is not the right answer. (Score:3)
I have children, and you're right. But the answer is not to turn the raising of your children over to machines or corporations.
Put the only machines the children can access into the most public room in the house. Do not allow them to have computers in their bedrooms (or in any room with doors) or to have wireless access to the Internet until they are old enough to buy their own computers with money they have earned themselves. Do not use any sort of censoring or blocking software, at all, ever - the less
Re:Net Nanny (Score:4)
Spoken like somebody who doesn't have children.
Not all children are the same, anyway. What works for one may not work for another. You know, like with human beings...
Re: (Score:3)
It is not unreasonable to want to prevent your children from being exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 7.
Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.
At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".
Here's one bad example: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18282560 [bbc.co.uk] and here [bbc.co.uk] ""Certain behaviours that I only used to have bored 40-year-olds asking me about goes now right down to the under-16s asking me about it."".
This report [education.gov.uk] might include some research, I don't have time to read it right now.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Net Nanny (Score:4, Insightful)
> Notice that they end with ".UK", I'm in Europe too.
UK is really not representative of European culture in general. I don't live in either but I've visited both many times for extended periods.
> What is a problem is when outside influences (pornography, media, etc) normalise certain behaviours, which pressures teenagers into doing things they don't want to do.
So teach your kids about body-ownership. Teach them that conformity is evil and it's important to be true to yourself. Then if your daughter WANTS her ass spanked then she will do so without spending years feeling guilty about it - and if she doesn't want it (or maybe wants to DO the spanking) she'll have the courage and confidence to look her puppy love in the eyes and say so.
That's what I want to give my daughters, I want to raise little Tiffany Achings.
Re: (Score:3)
>Is that acceptable? I doubt many of them discussed their relationship with their parents, and I doubt their parents had that kind of relationship
No it's not, but the kind of things you blame I think have nothing to do with the issue, the same existed when I was a teenager and the internet didn't exist then.
So teach your boys to respect woman, teach your girls to be confident and self assured - and you yourself should buy her her first vibrator.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and to conform physically to some very narrow gender stereotypes.
All this proves is that the world needs more tranny porn.
Re:Net Nanny (Score:4, Insightful)
At the age of 7, perhaps, but at 13+ hardcore porn can have an effect on what teenagers see as "normal".
So basically... you've linked me to a few examples. Kind of like blaming Doom for Columbine. What idiotic 13 year olds are these? And assuming they take everything at face-value, why aren't the parents there educating them? It's not porn's fault.
I looked at porn when I was a kid and when I was a teenager. I suspect most people do. Now, how many go out and rape others because of it?
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Not only will they likely discover it anyway, but it is highly unlikely they'll be hurt by it. In fact, I've seen no evidence to reach such a conclusion.
I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it. So we're even there.
I have no intention of exposing my children to Goatse. Sure, they might not be hurt by it, but I would hypothesize it's even more unlikely that they will be hurt by the lack of hardcore pornography. So I'll play it safe (well, as safe as I can), and not have big gaping assholes as my screen saver just to show that I'm somehow more "enlightened" than the people that filter what their children are
Re:Net Nanny (Score:5, Insightful)
>I've seen no evidence to support your conclusion that it's unlikely they'll be hurt by it. So we're even there.
No, you're not. See you're the one who is making a prediction. In scientific terms - that makes you the one who has to provide proof. He is denying that there is any grounds for your prediction.
Of course, the real truth is, most parents define "their children will become sexual beings who are ultimately sexually active with their own natural kinks and pleasures" as "harm".
Here's my advice dude - go stand in the mirror and say to yourself: "One day my little angel will have a great time being somebody else's dirty, dirty girl... or possibly his/her mean dominatrix"
Then say it until you make peace with the fact and stop being scared of it. You'll be a much better parent afterward.
Re:Automator for creating custom hosts files (Score:5, Funny)
Then I had a revelation-- I could just install MY CLEAN PC! [youtube.com] and it was truly the answer to all my
-- aaah, f**k it. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry if that sounded too harsh, this place that we all love has bias towards FREE software. I just saw "FREE" instead of "Low Cost Free". Maybe it should be "Low Cost/Free" in the headline. Net Nanny has worked well for us the past couple of years.
At $40/year I think this is definitely Low Cost.
Definitely check it out and see if it meets your needs.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming the guy is not a "free software" enthusiast. Net Nanny does not have any version running on any Linux distribution.
Guess what? We run Linux here at home. Only the professional machine have (by force of my job) a Windows 7 installation.
On the other hand, my kid is getting an Android phone, and Net Nanny can be a good solution in this case. Have you access to the block list and white list for inspection? You know, my kid is *MY* kid - I want some control about what he is allowed and don't all
Re:Net Nanny (Score:5, Insightful)
Your boy's not old enough to have hormones going wild and informing him that boobies are the greatest invention ever, so that software makes sense to avoid inadvertent stumbling upon. For the parents of kids just a bit older though, it's use is likely both useless and a symptom of bad parenting. As soon as they're physically able to reproduce, they need to be able to make decisions about it as a responsible adult; they will be in situations where they have the final say on the matter.
Me, I'd say both he and society are better off if he's wanking to a porn tube site and not knocking up the thirteen year old girl down the block. So, drop the net filter subscription and invest in either a damned good anti-virus or teach him to use Linux. Before it becomes an issue, because you've no idea when he's going to talk his way into his first set of panties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think a parent hovers around their kid 24/7?
Do you really think a kid should surf the net 24/7?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think a parent hovers around their kid 24/7?
Do you really think a kid should surf the net 24/7?
We're on slashdot, so the answer is probably "yes, and constant exposure to child rape porn, racism, bestiality and real life beheadings never hurt anyone."
Re:It is called PARENTING (Score:4)
Helicopter parenting FTW!
Or not... i've seen kids who's parents watch carefully over their shoulders all their childhood. They don't make good adults.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what parenting is all about? Its about getting your kids prepared for the real world, and not have it hit them like a brick at 18, or whenever you choose to let them off the leash. Its about teaching them respect. allowing them to make their own decisions, but being their to support them when (because of lack of experience), they make make the wrong ones.
If you ban them from the internet unless you're there watching their every move and making sure they're not looking at bad stuff, then they're g
Re:FREE (Score:4, Interesting)
You raise a point, still the massive left-over anger from completely clashing with my dad over how one should live your life was so huge by 21 that when I felt he was making a mistake in a decision about a much younger sibbling - we had a fall-out so big I didn't even visit my parents again for 6 years.
What if one of them, or me, had died in that time ?
Now 14 years after I left school - we get along fine, I live my life exactly the way I said I wanted to when I was 14, the difference - now my dad cannot tell me not to.
I knew he had good intentions, boys who die their hair pink on one side and blue on the other have a harder time getting jobs in his world-view (but I don't have that problem because I have a sufficiently impressive resume that employers really don't give a damn what I look like - especially since my work isn't customer-facing).
Over the years, he even came to adopt some of my ideas - especially in terms of artistic expression and the need for that to be uncensored even by yourself.
We got along great until I hit puberty, then we didn't actually get along at all again until I was so old and successfull that he stopped trying to tell me how to live. Now I can happily ask his advice about many things - things where he has experience I lack (I bought my first house a few months ago, he's had a few - of course I had him help me go over the contracts and check that the deal was above board and the house was really what it appeared to be).
I also grew up enough that when a while ago he said to me "maybe you should stop with the tattoos now, it's getting a bit much" I didn't get angry - I just smiled and ignored it. But I didn't have that capacity at 18 - I had a sense of who I was, but I didn't have a decade's worth of proof that it can work, I had nothing to back me up then - just stubbornness to drive me forward.
So sure, kids hating parents mostly work out after a few years... I would rather not have such a few years with my kids - because I don't know that I, or they, will be around long enough to see it end.
Re: (Score:3)
They are absolutely not allowed on Facebook. Period. This has been a major issue for the older one.
I'm not surprised. That's essentially the same as saying "you can't communicate with your friends". In the 1990s, you may as well have banned him from using the telephone. Having had parents who didn't ban me from using the phone, but insisted on sitting next to me while I was using it, I urge you to reconsider your decision. The result was I avoided using the phone, since I'd get criticised if my friend swore (etc), and I felt I couldn't speak freely. I did not turn out all right, and at least part of
Re: (Score:3)
You're not a parent. You're a fucking a prison warden !
>My kids don't have a computer.
I had one at age 7. By age 9 I wrote my first computer program. I'll be damned if I won't give my kids even the OPPORTUNITY to do that.
> I wouldn't let them walk the streets (even in my nice neighborhood) alone, why would I let them wander the internet alone?
I walked to school every day (sometimes I cycled), alone. Sometimes with friends. By the time I was your eldest's age we liked to walk out at night, climb an unb