[David Braue]

Today we have a guest blog with some tips for parents concerned about keeping their kids safe online.

Any others anybody has found to be particularly useful, perhaps re negotiating computer time and rights with the little ones? Has anybody had some worrying runins online after the kids ended up somewhere they shouldn't have been?

[pmoeser]

Not only have the kids never had a worrying run in, I've never had a worrying run in in over a decade of internet use.

All this talk of censoring the internet drives me nuts.

The best way to keep kids safe on line is obviously to not let them be on-line. But the educational reality does not allow this.

Our solution is that the computer is front and centre in the living area and no emails are to be sent without our "proof reading" them first.

[Ken Gracey]

Bingo, you hit the nail on the Head pete, my kids started on the net when they where about 8 years old with a 14.4 dial up modem, the rule was if the Net was on the old man was no more than 5 feet away MAX at any single time.




TL

[mickdevlin]

[…], the rule was if the Net was on the old man was no more than 5 feet away MAX at any single time.

Direct parental supervision is the only way to be sure that children are protected. The old "but I don't have time" excuse is no excuse at all.

[Anthony Caruana]

Direct parental supervision is the only way to be sure that children are protected. The old "but I don't have time" excuse is no excuse at all.

I've given a number of seminars for parents and guardians on cybersafety. Apart from the "I don't have time" argument my other pet hate is the "I don't understand the computer" excuse.

I reckon that's a cop out. If you give a stuff then you should make it your business to learn.

[mickdevlin]

Yep. It's not as if they have to learn to use a command line.

[Molecule]

No censorship! It doesn't work, not to mention it's inherently evil. Also, we've got to remember that while keeping kids safe is important, they too are entitled to at least some privacy.

Yep. It's not as if they have to learn to use a command line.

When I come to power I'm going to make it a law: everyone who uses a computer must learn at least some basic command-line skills. It's for their own good...


./Molecule

[clinton1550]

Direct parental supervision is the only way to be sure that children are protected. The old "but I don't have time" excuse is no excuse at all.

If they don't have time then the kids can't use the internet, easy as.

[Dave Bullard]

No censorship! It doesn't work, not to mention it's inherently evil.

So are you the guys who are going to draw the line in the sand on how much censorship is too much? Or do you just want open slather? I'm glad my kids could look forward to watching hardcore p*** between kids' shows on TV. Or getting snuff movies on the YouTube home page. And yes, we come back to the old pedophile question. The threat exists.

I have two kids, and for their sakes I want some censorship to exist. But at the same time I also think too much is obviously a bad thing. Everyone has their own leanings to the left or right, and whatever level of censorship governments impose will always be too much or too little for some people. I'm certainly not putting myself up as the one to draw the line in the sand, but someone has to, and I don't think all parents can be trusted to protect their kids.

The only thing that's inherently evil, in my book, would be a total lack of censorship.

[Anthony Caruana]

No censorship! It doesn't work, not to mention it's inherently evil. Also, we've got to remember that while keeping kids safe is important, they too are entitled to at least some privacy.
./Molecule

Perhaps to some degree - but while my kids live under my roof and I'm paying for the connection I get some rights to say what it can and can't be used for.

As a parent it is my job to protect my kids and to teach them discernment. The problem with censorship is that I lose the right to teach discernment.

[Molecule]

So are you the guys who are going to draw the line in the sand on how much censorship is too much? Or do you just want open slather? I'm glad my kids could look forward to watching hardcore ###### between kids' shows on TV. Or getting snuff movies on the YouTube home page. And yes, we come back to the old pedophile question. The threat exists.

I have two kids, and for their sakes I want some censorship to exist. But at the same time I also think too much is obviously a bad thing. Everyone has their own leanings to the left or right, and whatever level of censorship governments impose will always be too much or too little for some people. I'm certainly not putting myself up as the one to draw the line in the sand, but someone has to, and I don't think all parents can be trusted to protect their kids.

The only thing that's inherently evil, in my book, would be a total lack of censorship.

I've long maintained that if the Government goes ahead with mandatory internet censorship, I will leave the country. Plain and simple.
What I will be willing to settle for is a purely opt-in or opt-out (preferably opt-in...) filter. This eliminates the chance of exploitation by future Governments, and should also mitigate any effect of performance for those choosing not to have their internet traffic censo...I mean filtered.
Either way, censorship is no match for education. Educate kids about the dangers they may face online. Tell them it's okay to talk to you about anything that goes on online. As to pr0n, well let's face it: they will be curious at some stage. At some stage in their life they will be (intentionally) exposed to pornography. There's not much that can be done about that.

On another note, we shouldn't forget the official reason for the Government's filter: protecting children by filtering out child pornography. This won't work. Apart from the fact that a lot of it gets transmitted through P2P traffic and sneakernets, plus the fact that any filter can be bypassed if one has the will and skills to do so, there's one fatal flaw in this whole idea. And that is the idea that censoring child pornography will in some way protect children. It won't. The problem isn't that sickos are out there watching videos of children being abused - it's that these children are being abused in the first place. Censorship does nothing to address this. The money would be much better spent giving additional resources to State and Federal police, you know, so we can actually catch these monsters.

Perhaps to some degree - but while my kids live under my roof and I'm paying for the connection I get some rights to say what it can and can't be used for.

As a parent it is my job to protect my kids and to teach them discernment. The problem with censorship is that I lose the right to teach discernment.

Absolutely. I should also point out that giving them privacy will actually work in your favour. Think about it, if you give them some space/privacy, they're much more likely to be open and honest with you; whereas Big Brother constantly keeping watch only leads to more and more secrecy, which can put a real strain on relationships.


===========================================================

Now, onto stopping the Government's filter:
I didn't want to bring party politics into this, but I feel I have no choice.
Since realistically no Minor party is going to win Government at the next Federal election (minor parties are hugely popular with Gen-Y, so 10 years from now it's a real possibility. Not this time though), as nice as it would be. So here's what has to happen: Labor should remain in Government, but must not be allowed to gain control of the Senate. If Labor does gain control of both Houses, I might as well book my ticket out of here loooong in advance.
Sorry about having to say that.

It's great to see companies like Google taking on China. What I fear is that in the not too distant future, Google may well find itself having to say no to Australia, too.


Molecule

[mickdevlin]

As a parent it is my job to protect my kids and to teach them discernment. The problem with censorship is that I lose the right to teach discernment.

Censorship is indeed the responsibility of parents and not governments for the reason you have outlined. Paedophiles were around long before the internet, yet parents were able to teach their children how to detect and avoid them then. Porn has also existed for a very long time, yet parents again coped with the problem.

We don't need censorship by a body outside our homes.

[Ken Gracey]

This government is trying to turn the whole country into a nanny state, Don't smack your kids, don't let them watch to much telly, etc etc etc. I for one are sick to death of them, Bring on an election PLEASE....

And make old old TL happy..




TL

[Molecule]

Censorship is indeed the responsibility of parents and not governments for the reason you have outlined. Paedophiles were around long before the internet, yet parents were able to teach their children how to detect and avoid them then. ###### has also existed for a very long time, yet parents again coped with the problem.

We don't need censorship by a body outside our homes.

Basically this.

This government is trying to turn the whole country into a nanny state, Don't smack your kids, don't let them watch to much telly, etc etc etc. I for one are sick to death of them, Bring on an election PLEASE....

And make old old TL happy..




TL

Here's an idea...TL For PM!


Who do you trust?
Molecule

[mickdevlin]

Ars Technica reports that an App Store problem involving Parental Controls allows children to view porn.

[kim jong il]

My siblings have dealt with this, with their offspring, in fairly similar ways to a lot of the previous posters but it really boils down to one element: internet access computers can only be used in the lounge room, where they risk getting caught, where parents are present or frequent and no wifi computers in bedrooms. The only difference between them is the age in which this restriction stops ~15-19.

Fortunately they are all good kids (and I'm not saying that because I like all of them or their parents). Maybe they are all good kids because of their parents; however differently they do things (and I can't say that I always agree). The common theme is supervision until they are old enough or mature enough to discriminate.

[mickdevlin]

The removal of the age restriction is indeed one thing I forgot to mention. I usually recommend 16, but as you've noted it really depends upon the maturity of the child.

[Martin Levins]

The internet sees any censorship as a blockage and its immune system finds a way around it.

Kids need supervision - simple

The supervision can take the form of a conversation - whereby education is possible, but sooner or later, the kid will experience temptation/exposure.

This is not unlike teaching a kid to drive, having a conversation about the risks and how to deal with them, then trusting them to drive (knowing full well that they will do something stupid out of ignorance or peer pressure).

The current Government's plan is a technologist's answer that ignores sneakernet, encryption and human behaviour.

This same plan will not allow parents to see what has been attempted (if they want to monitor) - the free opendns.com will allow parents to control and/or monitor should they wish to

Cheers
Martin

[MacDavo]

It's good to see some sensible views around this.

Kids will be kids, and censoring the internet is not going to "protect" them from themselves. Good morale values and understanding will.

I would compare the online problem to the drugs problem. I know of two teens who might have gone down a terrible path of self destruction, except for the fact that the parents were observant and invested in their kids. As a result they noticed very early on something was amiss and avoided tragedy.

On the flip side, I've had close personal friends growing up, hook up with the wrong crowd, head in the wrong direction, and ended up in all sorts of strife. The significant difference was the investment of the family. Parents paying attention to what their kids were up to.

Drugs are illegal. That hasn't stopped young people obtaining, experimenting and in some instances falling victim to drugs. What makes the Govt. think censorship will work. If anything, these measures give a false and dangerous sense of security. It's akin to early PC antivirus software. People with it never ceased to be amazed, astounded, that they were infected with the worst viruses. "But we have antivirus!"
"Sure, but you haven't updated it for 18 months."

This in fact is a really good example. Parents let their kids free because they thought it was safe, and the consequences were catastrophic! Good for the PC repair business, but a costly lesson to parents, who sometimes took several times to learn the lesson at $250 a pop.

[mickdevlin]

Drugs are illegal. That hasn't stopped young people obtaining, experimenting and in some instances falling victim to drugs. What makes the Govt. think censorship will work. If anything, these measures give a false and dangerous sense of security. It's akin to early PC antivirus software. People with it never ceased to be amazed, astounded, that they were infected with the worst viruses. "But we have antivirus!"
"Sure, but you haven't updated it for 18 months."

This in fact is a really good example. Parents let their kids free because they thought it was safe, and the consequences were catastrophic! Good for the PC repair business, but a costly lesson to parents, who sometimes took several times to learn the lesson at $250 a pop.

This whole thread, particularly this part, shows where a WiFi-only iPad (or iPads) would be useful. Apple has ratings applied to the App Store which, as we all know, sells games. As such, there will be less need for children to use the internet. The restrictions mentioned above with regards to browsing, email and Twitter will still apply but children won't need to sit in front of a computer; they can sit besides their supervising parent on the sofa.