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?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Software can be bypassed.
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I've always considered looking at their chat history an invasion of their privacy, and likely to do more harm than good.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Allow them to only use programs, such as msn, that focus on adding friends instead of general chat.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Bsafe.com.
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.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
This will sound sexist, but I think that it somewhat depends as well on gender.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: This will sound sexist, but I think that it somewhat depends as well on gender.
Why?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I used to, but I'm 6'2", 210. I think gender had a role to play in that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Can we agree that men and women are different, both psychologically and physiologically?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, yeah, of course.
But not in ways that merit differences in the kinds of parental restrictions in question.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I always buy my male friends makeup and/or perfume and/or dresses as presents.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
My point is that you do believe in treating males and females differently, the difference is the view of where to draw the line.
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
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.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
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 by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Very good point.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
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 Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
So what makes a false restriction better than honesty?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: 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.
How do you know this? And how does that justify the alternative?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Edit2: Oh, and the throwback to threats/reprimands? You admitted that you did it! You're being a hypocrite!
Do what now?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Woah, sorry. I am listening to an audiobook while typing and the word throwback was used, I meant comeback.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I still don't understand what you're talking about.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"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.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
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?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
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.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Well it depends on your view of the matter. *cough* Catholic?
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Ok. I don't know if I have an overly optimistic attitude regarding children just because I have been a good kid, or because my parents raised me well, but it seems to me that this concern with making sure your kids don't find anything you don't want them to on the internet or go around... meeting... creepers online just shows a lack of trust in your kids. Personally I've always just been reminded to not go around giving away my personal information and I've been responsible enough to handle anything I find online. And instant messenger... I don't see what the concern is... if someone sends someone a message that person can just not reply, and add them to the blocked list. I just feel that kids are, generally, capable of keeping themselves out of harms way given proper education from their parents on computer, and life, etiquette.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Its not a matter of not trusting them. There are reasons I make sure my kids are buckled every time we get in the car. Sure they can put on the seatbelts themselves (and do) but I still ask to make sure because its my responsibility to keep them safe. Part of keeping them safe on the internet is monitoring usage. That could include software or just be me checking on them. But since its my responsiblity as a parent I need to do what I feel is best to protect and educate my kids at the same time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I was going to write something up here, but it's been pretty well handled.
DSH, I honestly wouldn't worry about it enough to get specific software to protect your kids. As long as you have the relationship with them that you've laid out above, you should be good to go.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
I wouldn't say that at all. A good relationship helps of course. A knowledge of the rules helps. And any kid with any computer savvy can bypass filtering software. Or if they can't get past it, keep looking long enough and a site will get past it for them.
As far as checking the history goes, all you have to do is rightclick an item in the history and say delete and it's gone. No record that you've been there.
You can go through the cookies and see what sites they've been to but that's long and tedious. My advice would be to get a program that tracks their internet usage in a history that they can't access. That you need a password to access.
It's not a violation of trust if you tell them right from the get go that you'll be monitoring their activity.
Hold them accountable. Prevention precludes repair.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Also, everyone is aware that most ISPs can provide you with access & data usage records for your account, right? Like, you can call and get a list, for the month, of every single URL visited with times & durations of visits sent to you.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik:
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.
(Coming into this late)
Reading chat logs seems to me to be the equivalent of listening in on phone conversations. Which seems like too much of an invasion of privacy to me.
-pH
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
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.
You might be surprised. I haven't kept up with it at all, but back when parental controls were still common for people may age (say mid 90s), it was common knowledge of nearly all kids in my age group of how to get around them. I assume they have improved somewhat, but then I'm also sure that it would not be particularly hard for your 11 year old to figure out how to get around just about anything.
I'm going to second the idea of just informing them that you'll be monitoring their usage and finding some kind of secure history (or getting it from your ISP as someone else suggested). I'd also say tell them that you will be checking history but don't necessarily mention that you have your own history that they can't delete from if you think they will be doing that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Jon, I'm a little confused by your view. Are you saying that it's a bad idea to be honest with your children about the negative effects of poor choices you have made? And are you also saying that it's not possible to threat/reprimand them for making those same choices if they know you did them?
DSH: Don't underestimate what your child can learn about using computers, even if he doesn't spend that much time on them at home. I learned a ton of useful info from my TEACHERS and peers in computer class. You'd think teachers would be smart enough not to teach that kind of thing to kids, but I think there are people who get off on having knowledge other people want in every vocation. Plus, some basic information is just part of that kind of training that you get in school. Like:
"Kids, this is a history. It records all the sites you go to so you can find them again easily later."
Kid's thinking, "Uh-oh."
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Scott, we're doing pretty good in the relationship dept., it's the internet itself that I worry about.
For instance: I was helping my wife with a google search once. Entered a perfectly innocent phrase and began working my way down the list of results. Number 3 on the list gave the name and description of a site selling a specific gift my wife wanted for a baby shower she was to attend. When I clicked on the link, I was taken to a bestiality(sp?) website.
That's the kind of thing I want to prevent from happening to my kids.
pH - My kids have no privacy (except in the bathroom) and they know it. Of course, in practice, they have plenty of privacy. We still go through their things from time to time, and if they protest, we tell them the same thing my parents told me: "My house, my rules. If you don't like it, you can find somewhere else to live". (so far, it hasn't really been a problem...they're not teenagers yet!)
xtownaga - Yeah, I would be surprised. My son has shown no real interest in computers other than to play the occasional game. I've even tried to sit him down and teach him something but unless it involved a youtube video featuring thermite, he isn't interested.
PSI - Since we started homeschooling, my kids haven't learned anything about computers that I haven't taught them. (I learned a ton at school too, my CAD instructor taught us how the fdisk function of a PC works, then told us NOT to go down the street to CompUSA and fdisk their computers! )
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: DSH: Don't underestimate what your child can learn about using computers, even if he doesn't spend that much time on them at home. I learned a ton of useful info from my TEACHERS and peers in computer class. You'd think teachers would be smart enough not to teach that kind of thing to kids, but I think there are people who get off on having knowledge other people want in every vocation. Plus, some basic information is just part of that kind of training that you get in school. Like:
"Kids, this is a history. It records all the sites you go to so you can find them again easily later."
Kid's thinking, "Uh-oh."
What exactly should teachers not be teaching kids? No, we wouldn't want our children to actually know what they're doing when they're using computers...
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
On the issue of parental supervision of chat logs, I would have to say that I fall pretty firmly in the "invasion of privacy" camp. While I can see that chat rooms can provide an opportunity for predators to talk to children and whatnot, instant messenger acts (at least for me) as a method for communicating primarily with people that I already know in real life. I think that it's horribly rude for some to just peruse such conversations with no regard for privacy. I mean, how many of the people who favor chat log monitoring would approve of recording every single phone call as well? Or eavesdropping on every private, in-person conversation?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think that it's horribly rude for some to just peruse such conversations with no regard for privacy.
Sure it's rude. Parenthood is often rude.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
True. But do you think that a parent should have a right to listen in on every single conversation that their child has?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes.
The child also has a right to be respected. It's a fine line that is prone to a lot of crossing and double-crossing-- and will probably be best served by a parent who knows how to apologize.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: What exactly should teachers not be teaching kids? No, we wouldn't want our children to actually know what they're doing when they're using computers...
As I said, some of that knowledge is just part of the normal curriculum, and I'm not debating that kids need to know it. But there are some things that are not necessary in the least for kids in basic computer classes. In other words, young kids who barely understand the basic concepts of computer usage get taught how to sweep their internet trails clean and format their hard drives. However, there is so much more to be taught in order to fully comprehend what one is doing that I wonder why precious time would get wasted on those skills. Yes, people need to know them in order to be computer literate. But in order from fundamental to peripheral, I'm thinking that being able to do massive computer overhauling and track-covering should be WAY down at the end of the curriculum. Which is why they ARE. However, they frequently get taught as an aside for the wow factor.
So yes, anyone who wants to know what they are doing will need to learn those things eventually. I just don't think that otherwise ignorant fourteen-year-olds need that info.
edit: Unless you think I was saying that kids shouldn't know about histories. I put that under the heading of "basic things you learn at school" and NOT under "things teachers should be smart enough not to teach."
(DSH- Yay for homeschooling!)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think as long as expectations are clear and made up-front, then nothing Scott has said is a violation of a kids' "rights".
My kids were told as soon as we got a computer that it would be in the middle of the house, and NOTHING would be private on it. I had the right to read/investigate/look over their shoulder -- because the internet is PUBLIC and I want them to always think of it as that.
Since I made those expectations clear up front, there was never an issue. I trust my kids, but I'm not stupid, either.
I also never get any privacy on the computer (at home) either, so it is applied equally to everyone in the household.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The internet is public, but personal email and an AIM chat with a friend certainly aren't. The text you type can easily be copied or forwarded, but a phone conversation can be taped and a letter photocopied.
I'm with pH in that spying on chat or email is similar to listening to your kid's phone conversations or opening his letters. After puberty or so (depending on the child), I don't think it's right, even if you let the kid know beforehand.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Farmgirl, exactly. I don't think comparing checking your child's net usage to listening in on their phones calls (don't remember who said it) was a very good comparison anyway, specifically because I would not be inclined to leave the kitchen at my child's behest because they want a private phone call. (Our phone is in the kitchen.) Unless it was for our a specific reason that I approved of.
edit: Saw Jhai's post after this was posted.
Jhai: It's different because the letters your child receives in the mail are most likely NOT from a predator, but IM's they receive very possibly ARE. How many IM's have you gotten from people you didn't even know? Plus, I can see exactly who the snail mail is from. That's not true with email or chatting.
Sorry for the excessive editing. I also want to say that, as an example, I have manipulative and dangerous people in my family. If one of them sent a letter to my teenage child, I would DEMAND to read it. It's my job to protect them from people like that.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
When it comes to kids and their privacy, my duties as a parent trump everything else. As a parent, I'm responsible for my kids.
If I leave my baby in her car seat in the car on a hot sunny day, I'm held responsible.
If my kids vandalize the neighbors property, I'm held responsible. (same goes for most any criminal behavior kids might engage in)
If my kids behave like animals in the store, I get the dirty looks.
If my kids end up dumb as dirt, I'll be responsible (we're homeschooling...I think I said that earlier)
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a "hands off" approach to parenting. If you're gonna raise kids with any degree of success, you need to know what is going on in their lives so you can encourage, caution, guide, prohibit, correct, etc. You can't do that if you don't have a clue what's going on in your kids life.
So I "invade" my kids privacy w/out a second thought.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: How many IM's have you gotten from people you didn't even know?
Not many, and I have my AIM screen name posted on my Myspace.
-pH
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
On the same thought as pH. I have honestly probably gotten 2 IMs from people who i immediately realized were not people I knew and blocked.
I think the most important thing with internet safety, from predators etc. is just to enforce the idea that we do in normal life, Don't trust anyone who has not earned your trust, and don't talk to strangers.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I get random IM's on MyspaceIM frequently, usually after updating my page. And trust me, there's nothing interesting about my page. Maybe I'm just hot. Or maybe it's the program.
But I pick the hot thing.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I get that too, but I look at it incredulously, determine that it's not a classmate of mine, and get rid of it.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
In addition to the possibilities of strangers IMing kids, I'd like to bring up cyberbullying as a good reason to monitor kids' chats. (Although I hate the term.) Kids can be really mean to each other. I would want to know if my child were involved in it in either direction.
I agree with many others, that "invasion of privacy" has a different meaning when children and teenagers are aware that there is no expectation of privacy in this particular area. If I say "I will never read your chats" and then I do, that's a betrayal. If I say, "Nothing you do on this computer is private," then, well, he knows up front.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)