posted
Now that my kids are getting older and spending more time online, I'm looking for some strong filtering software.
I'm about 10 days into my 14 day free trial of Net Nanny, but it doesn't seem to play well with Internet Explorer, which is what my kids use as it tends to work better with the sites they regularly use (I use Opera and have no trouble...but this is for my kids).
Before I start trying out a bunch of different products, does anyone here on Hatrack have some experience with (and good recommendations for or against) web filtering software?
Posts: 692 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Put the computer in a well-traveled area in the home, and let your kids know your rules for browsing and conversations on the internet.
Follow up on their internet usage by checking the history tabs. If they use any IM programs, configure them to keep a history, and check up on those periodically.
Teach your children safe internet usage, and have consequences for them if they violate your expectations.
Better than Net Nanny any day.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always considered looking at their chat history an invasion of their privacy, and likely to do more harm than good.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think browsing through chat history is a good safety measure, and isn't an invasion of privacy beyond the bounds of a parent, provided you let them know you'll be doing it.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allow them to only use programs, such as msn, that focus on adding friends instead of general chat.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fully agree with what Scott said. I would skip filtering software and just check your kid's internet history every now and then. Filtering software can be easily bypassed and gives then a challenge to overcome (it may encourage them to try and circumvent it and visit bad sites).
I would be more worried about who they talk with over IM software, since thats a popular medium for sexual predators. You should keep a list of the usernames of their friends so its easy to spot potential strangers.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any parental experience, but I agree with Scott.
Kids are smart, though. Even when I was in middle school there were 11 and 12 year olds that were building and tinkering with their own computers. Try and force compliance of something they want and they'll figure out a way around it. If they want to hide something, they'll figure out how to clear their history, to delete their chat logs and emails. Heck, there are probably patches for programs like Net Nanny that kids can use to get around restrictions while maintaining the appearance of compliance.
The key, I think, is for them to fully understand why being safe on the internet is beneficial and why giving out personal information can be dangerous.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I've always considered looking at their chat history an invasion of their privacy, and likely to do more harm than good.
I don't have kids, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that this would be an age related thing; checking up on a 7 year old like this seems entirely appropriate to me, whereas doing so with a 17 year old doesn't, necessarily.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Use the filtering software AND use the monitoring service. Internet histories can be deleted.
Yes, filtering services can be "got around," but B-safe's is tough to get around. Yes, there are a few holes, but that's where you use the monitoring service.
Privacy isn't really any more an issue here than it is in meatspace. You'd want to meet your kids friends, and you'd want to know where they were going. It's not because you don't trust your kids, but it's because you love your kids and you don't trust other people.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd use the filtering software just so icky things don't come up by accident during searches. That is in addition to the monitoring Scott suggested.
I see nothing wrong with reading kids' chats as long as (as someone suggested above) you tell them you'll be doing it.
I don't know what the cutoff age is on that--17 does feel awfully old for that kind of monitoring...but 15 sure as heck doesn't. I suppose a lot of it depends on the common sense level of the person in question.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I think reading a 15 year old's chat log is just as violating as reading a 17 year old's. These are high school freshmen and sophomores we're talking about here. They need their space and their privacy, and they need to know these boundaries will be respected. These boundaries are privileges, of course. So they can be taken away. But at some point parents need to be able to trust their children, and I think there's a serious problem if that trust isn't there by 15.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: This will sound sexist, but I think that it somewhat depends as well on gender.
Why?
Opportunities to be victimized in various ways on the internet are statistically different for males and females, especially young ones. It'd be wise to account for these, much the same way it's wise to account for gender, neighborhood and distance when deciding whether to let a 17 year old walk home alone at 11:30 at night.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point. But while I understand the difference in potential danger, I don't think it follows just from that potential that different restrictions should apply. What if that 17 year old girl has a twin brother? Can you really justify treating them differently based on gender alone?
And depending on the environment, it's probably not a good idea for anyone to walk alone at 11:30 at night.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Good point. But while I understand the difference in potential danger, I don't think it follows just from that potential that different restrictions should apply. What if that 17 year old girl has a twin brother? Can you really justify treating them differently based on gender alone?
Of course not, but no one suggested that. Here's what John said, with my emphasis:
quote: This will sound sexist, but I think that it somewhat depends as well on gender.
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: And depending on the environment, it's probably not a good idea for anyone to walk alone at 11:30 at night.
Yes, but circumstances often force us to make decisions based on unideal circumstances.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It had a role, but not a necessary one, and not enough of one to justify difinitive differences in restrictions based on gender.
I'm a guy, and I'm 5'1", 135 lb. One of my best friends in high school, a female, was 6' something and at least 250 lb. And that's just the first two extreme examples I could think of.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you're saying. I guess I just don't think "gender" is the distinction that needs to be made, solely or in part.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I see what you're saying. I guess I just don't think "gender" is the distinction that needs to be made, solely or in part.
Then I think you're wrong. In most environments, both on- and offline, women are more likely to be bothered, harassed and/or preyed upon. Failing to take that into account is irresponsible.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying don't take it into account. But the parent should do so by making the child fully aware of these dangers. Whether that child is male or female shouldn't matter. Any direct restrictions that the parent feels need to be made should be equally applied as far as gender is concerned.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Well, yeah, of course.
But not in ways that merit differences in the kinds of parental restrictions in question.
I agree with Eros' sentiments, but would like to add that you seem to be focusing on the ideological belief that men and women are completely equal, but as you admitted men and women are different, and it would be stupid to pretend that they are not just to make a point.
Edit: If I had kids, then I wouldn't let a son date until he was 12, and a daughter date until she was 17. I know that she would go behind my back, but she'd be more careful.
Edit2: Yes, I am sexist. I actually think that women in general are more intelligent and harder working than men... however, I will still be overprotective of my non-existent daughter, in comparison to my non-existent son.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right that my focus is ideological. But I'm not ignoring anything or pretending that men and women are physiologically or psychologically the same. I'm saying that as far as restricting a child is concerned, and as far as treating grown men and women is concerned, distinction based on "gender" is wrong.
But I don't think I'm saying this clearly enough. Give me a bit. Let me see if I can express this a little better.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that's cool. In my experience, transvestites are typically really interesting people.
You're being sarcastic, obviously. What's your point? Because I never said anything about treating males and females the same, if that's what you're getting at.
edit: Okay, I can see how that came across in my previous post. But I think you know what I meant. If not, I'll try to clarify.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I'm not saying don't take it into account. But the parent should do so by making the child fully aware of these dangers. Whether that child is male or female shouldn't matter. Any direct restrictions that the parent feels need to be made should be equally applied as far as gender is concerned.
I see what you're saying: basically, you think that the inequity should be addressed through preparation, information and communication rather than through restrictions.
While I agree these are very important and a necessary component of preparing one's children to be part of the real world, I disagree that unequal restrictions based on any factor, gender included, are inherently unfair.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that you do believe in treating males and females differently, the difference is the view of where to draw the line.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was little my mom had AOL parental controls on me. I soon found a way to get around that and I was like 12. I think kids will find a way to get around that kind of thing, so I don't know what to tell you.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that where a girl might be more likely to be victimized, a boy might be more likely to victimize a girl. If your daughter isn't allowed to date until 17, but your son at 12, who is he dating? Is there a 12 year old girl out there that doesn't deserve as much protection as your daughter? By allowing your son to date, it will be putting pressure on his peer female friends to also date.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: My point is that you do believe in treating males and females differently, the difference is the view of where to draw the line.
You could put it that way, but it's misleading.
I don't "believe in" treating males and females differently. I believe in equal treatment of males and females in terms of rights and fairness. In this context, "equal" is not synonimous with "same" as it seems you believe - or at least what you believe that I believe. So obviously if my male friends are into dressing in drag, then I've got no problem with that, and I might very well give them make-up as a gift. Similarly, my sister is a bit of a tomboy, and I have given her many gifts over the years that might be considered more masculine than feminine.
This isn't sexism. Making restrictions based on gender arguably is. I wouldn't give my sister a "girly" gift because she's a girl. I would give her a certain gift because I know that's what she would want. Her gender is irrelevant.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I would say that where a girl might be more likely to be victimized, a boy might be more likely to victimize a girl. If your daughter isn't allowed to date until 17, but your son at 12, who is he dating? Is there a 12 year old girl out there that doesn't deserve as much protection as your daughter? By allowing your son to date, it will be putting pressure on his peer female friends to also date.
posted
Hey Jon - who do you expect your 12yr old boy to be dating? 17 yr old girls?
thanks for the suggestion doc - even though I wasn't the one asking!
I second (or third or fourth) the suggestion to keep the computer in a public place and check it regularly. I don't allow internet usage when a parent isn't home and if I find out they've used it they are in big trouble. I have a broadband modem that I take with me if they can't behave while I'm gone. And my kids know they have no expectation of privacy. They are still kids. I have a 14yo girl and a 12 yo boy and they know I have the right to read their message board posts and at the moment we don't allow IM. Its not about privacy per se but it is about protection. They are still young and immature. I clearly remember being a 14 yo girl and base my decisions off of remembering what we did to get in trouble back in the dark ages before internet Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
CyberPatrol is a pretty good filter/monitoring package. It does have an annual fee, but it's strong enough and updated enough to be worth it. I tried a lot of stuff to get around it myself, and always failed. One of the neat things about it is that if someone tinkers with and tries to bypass it using a method it knows about (If you have a tinkering child, the easy methods will be tried first, and then some harder ones) it will completely lock down the internet connection until an administrative password is entered. Meaning that if your kids try to get around it, you'll probably realize they're trying something before they are successful and can take steps to curtail further attempts.
For down-sides, the version I used a couple years ago had a typing filter that prevented certain words from actually being posted to the internet. This wasn't a huge problem, but it was annoying to find out that some of my internet posts were edited for words like "girl." At the time, there was no way to control that particular filter. Also, I experienced an unusual bug related to the Java code which caused my computer's clock to run at double speed (Meaning that my computer counted 2 seconds for every real second). It has been 3 years since I tested their software out, so those problems may have been fixed.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see what you're saying: basically, you think that the inequity should be addressed through preparation, information and communication rather than through restrictions.
I am saying this, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I think raising children differently (in terms of rules and restrictions) based on gender is at least borderline sexism.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I commented that I would most definitely NOT expect my daughter to listen to that rule, it would mostly be symbolic.
Edit: By the way, it isn't that I don't trust my non-existent daughter. It is that I don't trust the non-existent boys that she would go out with.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because honesty isn't always the best policy with 14 year olds.
"Have you ever committed any crimes?"
"Yes, I have 3 DUIs, I was charged with use of marijuana and cocaine when I was in college, etc. but I learned from those experiences, and know that you really shouldn't do them."
The line "But I learned from it, and don't want you to make the same mistakes" practically never works, despite how much it is promoted.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I am saying this, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I think raising children differently (in terms of rules and restrictions) based on gender is at least borderline sexism.
I agree that it certainly can be sexist. I think labeling differing restrictions based on the gender of your child as automatically sexist is closed-minded and silly.
If I tell my kid that they can't have a Honda or Acura because they're statistically the most likely cars to be stolen, does that make me unfairly discriminatory against Japanese car manufacturers?
If I have two daughters, one biological daughter and one adopted Vietnamese girl, am I being a racist by insisting the Vietnamese one not wear decorative armbands? Granted, in the latter situation I'd probably sort the problem by banning both my daughters from wearing them (especially since the average human being can't distinguish very well between asian ethnicities anyway), but does the fact that such thoughts motivate my thinking make me a racist?
If my son's chore list includes helping me unload 100 lb boxes in my warehouse, but my daughter's include helping me cut branches off the trees in our yard, does that make me sexist?
Does insisting that my daughter carry pepper spray when going out at night and ensuring she knows how to properly use it but allowing my son to go out with a different set of rules make me a sexist?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, for the most part, teenagers are immature and believe that they will be different, and/or need to see for themselves, but if you just forbid it with a strong penalty if they do anything, then it will be less likely that they will risk it.
Just my experience.
Edit: And by my experience, I mean that being tried by my parents and all of my siblings ending up smoking at least marijuana, my sister doing a ton of hard drugs, and one of my brothers selling weed.
Not the desired results.
Edit2: Oh, and the throwback to threats/reprimands? You admitted that you did it! You're being a hypocrite!
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woah, sorry. I am listening to an audiobook while typing and the word throwback was used, I meant comeback.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"typical reprimand" "Why should I listen to you, you hypocrite! You did it when you were my age!"
Edit: Unless you expect your young teenage children to have a full understanding of ad hominem attacks, and their fallacious nature. Something that most adults don't understand,as is evident by the effectiveness of their use in political campaigns.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, step away from the computer for a couple hours and now I'm totally out of the loop of my own thread! (working to catch up, but I've only really read the first few posts so far)
My oldest is 11, and while comfortable on the computer, I doubt he'll be hacking filtering software anytime soon.
Our computer is in the living room. NOBODY gets more that 30 seconds to themselves there. (In addition to my 11 yo, I have 4 younger kids and a wife; 'privacy' doesn't exist in my house )
We have been over safe surfing rules (although my kids don't actually "surf" per say, nor do they chat or IM) They have a couple of educational sites they frequent, and some online games they like to play when they've earned free time. Otherwise, my wife and I keep the kids on a pretty short leash on the computer. (to be honest, my kids would rather sit down with a favorite book than the computer anyway)
I'm looking for a good filter to keep out the crap that might accidentally slip in. Net Nanny was doing the job pretty well, but there have been compatibility issues.
Next on my list to try is Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sitter, K9 and now Bsafe (thanks docmagik). Any thoughts?
Posts: 692 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DSH: My oldest is 11, and while comfortable on the computer, I doubt he'll be hacking filtering software anytime soon.
There are simple things an 11 year old can do such as use proxies. You can eliminate the proxy issue (atleast for an 11 year old) by installing filtering software and banning secure connections but then it will be a pain everytime you want to do a credit card transaction or something.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't there things boys need to have monitored, in their own way, more than girls?
Mainly I need to have a gameplan that I'm not still working full time when my kids get older. Sheesh.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
