Child web Restrictions

[Derek]

Anyone know of any good way/method/utility to restrict child access to the web .. to specified sites or unspecified acceptable sites?

Any help/info would be good .. please! /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Thanx muchly

[currently using WinXP Pro with an unrestricted broadband connection, so i dont have the option to use isp restrictions etc]

[AXXESS]

Hi Derek

What about Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, or similar service??

Also if you are using a router (I use NetGear) you can block specific domains or you can block domains with keywords. It also keeps logfiles of all domains visited and can even e-mail you if a "forbidden" domain is attempted to be accessed. Pretty cool stuff! I am using this router:

http://www.netgear.com/products/prod_details.asp?prodID=131

Good luck!

[AXXESS]

Oops... disregard the 1st half of my post... but what about the router??

[Corey]

Wow that's can of worms Axxess. Can you imagine if your mom and dad got to see a list of everything you had read never mind some of the things you said, saw, and thought (or tried to see) when they weren't around? /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

I think, and this is just my personal opinion, that trying to prevent your child from seeing offensive material by accident is a great endeavor, but policing your child is a very bad thing on every level. I won't say more on that topic, but suffice to say I am keeping it understated, I could rant on that for days.

There's a big difference between having a content filter and logging/analyzing people's activities. In my opinion it's none of my business what my daughter chooses to read or view much in the same way it isn't any of my business who she chooses to be or what she chooses to do. She's an intelligent kid with a great brain and a good sense of what's what... If she wants to read something then I'm sure there's a good reason for it.

I've never heard of a child asking for anything inappropriate, go ask a kid what they want to see on the web, I bet you get a very predictable appropriate response, like their favortie character from TV/Movies/cartoons or sports or movie stars, or music, whatever... You'll never hear one respond, "Directions on how to make a bomb" or "****". (and if you do, you need more than just a filter to help that kid)

Additionally I have had to deal with some adults who grew up in restrictive circumstances vis-a-vis info and they all seem to be *a little bit off the ball*. Plus I also submit to you that clandestine mischief is a vital part of a healthy childhood. I doubt any of us can say we didn't partake quite heavily in that at some point in our child carreers.

But I defintely see the point about preventing kids from accidentally seeing some of the stuff which is out there. I;ve heard a few experts speak on the topic, after all the Supreme Court hearing on the new law (last week) in the US which cuts all federal funding and grants to any public library which doesn't install content filters by next month were very informative. And the bottom line is that they don't work for a host of reasons. All the experts stated categorically to the US senate that there is only one way to effectively make sure kids aren't seeing in appropriate stuff and that is to be sitting right beside them, looking at the screen at all times, never looking away. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

They were all there, CEO of netnanny, etc. execs from all the tops brands.

Apparently the senate and librarians claim that software companies refuse to properly address the issue, that's who they blame. They say that because the problem is that the filters, when they do work, also filter out up to 50% of relevant material on a given topic also. They kept using the example of Breat Cancer as a model. Apparently you cannot access any info on breast cancer through a filter. They had a few other exmaples such as almost all women's health info being filtered out but you get the idea... Important info can't get through and if you set it so that it can, then all the bad stuff spills in behind it.

Anyhow I'll have a look and see if I can find you a link to those senate hearings at CSPANS webcast archive, I think you would find it really interesting. At the very least it always fun watching the world's top experts on a given topic collectively throws up their hands in complete abdication. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Obviously it's just like spam, the senders are very clever and they find ways around these filters as quickly as the software developers develop new rules.

Like I say they discussed about 20 other issues addressing the failure of these filters but I can't rememeber half of them now. Personally if the child is really, really young and doesn't need info on breast cancer I would use a filter like that and crank it right up, and then I'd tell them, "Hey if there's something not getting through on your computer come upstairs and we'll check it out together on my computer". After all, how often is that going to happen to a little kid? And besides I only really want to be there with them through the dicey stuff so I can lend an experiential perspective when asked, but I sure as heck have no desire to sit through 6 hours of the Barney Flash game or #BrittanyChat whatever...

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software (http://www.indigorose.com)

[AXXESS]

Whew!!

OK, but how about the response for what Derek is trying to achieve? /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[AXXESS]

Oh, and you're right Corey.... nothing beats good parenting also. Logfiles would be useful just to insure that your trust is warranted!

[AXXESS]

Also, FYI, I am not using the router for content filtering.... I just use it for networking and the (slight) firewall protection it offers. My kids are 5 and 3 and I don't need to worry about where they go online... but is amazing that they can do so much on the PC already (future AMS users???).

[Corey]

My response for Derek was, according to the CEO of Net Nanny, once pressed into a corner by the Senate sub-committe, it doesn't work in the way you expect it to. According to same CEO, only reliable filter is you, barring that, any of the top ten filter products cranked up is the best choice. Essentially the top ten all work in the same way and are pretty much the same thing.

As to the "just to see if my trust is warranted" comment, I guess we just have a different view of what trust is. I thought trust was when you didn't need the logfile. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif I trust all humans until they give me a good reason not to, especially my kid (and for that matter yours). Although I'm not judging you, just giving my opinion on that topic. To each their own... /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif For me personally I don't test the people I trust, just one more side to the coin.

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software (http://www.indigorose.com)

[Corey]

BTW you could easily build your own browser using AMS which would filter out whatever you set it to!!!! You could easily lock out URLs, etc. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

I almost missed that plug, whew....

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software (http://www.indigorose.com)

[Derek]

"BTW you could easily build your own browser using AMS which would filter out whatever you set it to!!!! You could easily lock out URLs, etc."

good point! ... didnt even consider that.

[kpsmith]

Corey you have kids???

I'm just glad my kids aren't old enough for me to worry about this question yet. It hurts my brain just thinking about the right solution.

Of course my son has been doubleclicking since he was one and can now probably tell you what most of the components are inside the case.

Maybe it isn't too early to think about this one?

[Corey]

Yes I do kp... /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software (http://www.indigorose.com)

[Lorne]

One interesting method of handling this is to place the family computer in a public area of the home.

I've seen people put them in the kitchen, or within siight of the main living room, etc. Wherever Mom or Dad are likely to be around.

I would personally favor limiting/filtering access as well...or just not letting kids log in without being supervised (i.e. don't give any net access to their login account, and lock down the machine tight). I don't think kids should be sheltered completely...but there is something to be said for picking the right time/age for some things in this world to be encountered.

A similar issue these days is figuring out how to explain Daddy's MP3 collection. "Isn't that stealing, Dad?" "No, it isn't...and if the FBI ever asks you, you tell them NOTHING!" /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Corey]

Yeah they addressed that issue at the senate sub-committee, placing the computer in a common area. The experts were mixed on that one as I recall. Some felt that was OK as long as the screen is facing you/supervisor, some felt that you actually need to be close up viewing the screen along with them to make sure that content they are viewing doesn't fall outside of your personal value system. (If that's your goal)

On the other hand most of the panelists agreed that it's actually a lot of the stuff which is considered appropriate and therefore not filtered which is causing the damage to kids as oppposed to internet content, i.e. violent vid games, violent movies, violent TV shows. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif They presented a whole bunch of evidence to suuport that, charting incidents of school shootings to the advent of these games, etc.

I think the point they were making was that often the really siginificant factors are not things a web filter can address and so to really address the issue of filtering or restriction one needs to look *outside the box* to some extent.

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software (http://www.indigorose.com)