A Parent's Guide To Linux Web Filtering 529
Roblimo writes "Not all parents want their children exposed to everything on the Internet, especially porn. So far, virtually all home-level Net filtering software has been for Windows. This tutorial on NewsForge, by Joe Bolin, shows Linux-using parents how to set up Web filtering for *their* children -- and shows them how to customize filters to fit their own tastes and beliefs instead of relying on a commercial software company's ideas of 'good' and 'bad,' too."
Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why should I protect my children. That's what I pay taxes for!"
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a different problem, which this solution doesn't attempt to address. This gives proactive parents another tool, which is a good thing.
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if your installing a filter of some sort, you are controlling your kids reading habit. Parental involvement does not necessarily mean physically standing over their shoulders 24/7 though. You need to give children a degree of freedom while protecting them (what you protect them from is up to the individual parents). If you are filtering for your kids 24/7, they likely won't learn h
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should offer drugs to your children, so that they can learn to resist?
Now why would you think of doing this? Did it work for you or your kids? Come on, nobody would do that. Kids need to be taught the dangers of drugs (and lots of other things), but offering them drugs isn't the approach I would use.
Kids don't need all the temptations of the Internet. Hell, I don't: I installed Dan's Guardian to filter my own browsing.
Kids using the Internet is almost a requirement in schools today. My kids (ages 7 & 10) have both had reports that asked for one Internet resource as part of their reports. Now that doesn't mean you give the kids unlimited access to the Internet because of the content. You could almost look at the Internet as going to the mall. For the most part, the stores are OK for kids to be in. You might want to "filter" them to not go into a "Spencer's", "Victoria Secret", etc... because you don't agree with the content (NOTE: I'm not saying these stores are necessarily bad, but as an example, their goods could be seen as "bad" for young children). Installing a filter for browsing can be useful to keep the "bad" information from showing up in your kids browser. I don't actually have a filter installed on my system but rather I do sit with my kids when they are doing anything in a browser. My kids do enjoy a few of the sites (Barbie, NeoPets, YuGiOh (sp?), Lego, Bionicles, etc...) and once at that site I might let them on their own for a bit. They know how to operate the browser and they also know that if they see anything that they weren't expecting that they are to get myself or my wife immediately. The sites they visit are what we consider acceptable material. Now my son has asked to look for things on Google and we as parents have told him that he can't use that unless we are sitting there with him. For now we trust him to follow our wishes and until he shows that he can't be trusted, we'll continue to give him some level of freedom (in this case we don't "block" him from doing things on the computer).
Or more realistically, take them shopping and then yell at them when they want you to buy them something?
Well telling them that you aren't buying them anything depends on why you went shopping in the first place. If you were going because you needed to pick up some groceries, then you can tell the kids that you aren't buying them anything. If you take them to the store and tell them that you are buying them something, then by all means you should hold to your word.
Back to the topic though, filtering is a tool that parents may choose to use to protect children from information they deem inappropriate. As for using a filter for your own browsing habits("I installed Dan's Guardian to filter my own browsing"), I guess you feel that you can't make a good decision or wish to rely on someone elses opinion (which may or may not match your own). You probably shouldn't allow your children Internet access as you don't seem to be able to protect yourself from the content. My approach is to prepare my kids to judge for themselves, within reason for the age/maturity.
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the trust element is an important thing for a child to learn. Everyone goes through a stage of learning about breaking trust and both being found out and not being found out. It us up to the parent to both let the child explore and then break the trust, but also then fi
offer drugs to my children??? (Score:3, Funny)
"ok, daddy, the first one is free..."
Barbie, McDonalds, etc. etc. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the long term approach, if I'm trying to filter when they are in their mid-teens, likely I messed up when they were younger. In my opinion, a value system has been instilled at a much y
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, given that neither paying taxes nor sending your children are optional activities, I'd say your argument doesn't apply.
But there's something insidious about someone taking money from you (via taxes), and then using that money to undermine your parenting. Those who view children as a nuisance and the school district as a babysitter could care less what happens there. It is the parents who are actually being parents who take greatest offense at their own taxes being used to undermine their parenti
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, it is more likely the parents undermining the schoold system. Parents come in bitching about little Sally getting an F even though she did no work. If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society. Instead, we have parents teaching kids not to respect authority.
There is a time to question authority, but that time is not when you should be learning to read and write.
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Home schooling and and private schooling are always options. Taxes pay for more than just schools and it is good that you should be responsible for more than just your own children. And as a society, we do have the right to tell you how to raise your children. It is not just the family that raises the children, but the whole village.
<pa feedback>
Testing, testing. This thing on? Uhmm, fuck the village. Thank you.
</pa feedback>
Besides, it is more likely the parents undermining t
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Teachers can not actually teach, they can only present material. If the kids do not want to learn, then they will not. Your attitude teaches your child to be a selfish prick that needs to be spoon fed. Have you actually taught in a classroom setting in the last decade? I have.
Kids need to respect thier teachers. Kids need to do the work. And par
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Respect is earned. If my daughters's teacher is a complete idiot, I will tell them so.
My sister's third grade teacher told the class that red headed children aren't as smart. If you silently accept that from a teacher you are a pathetic excuse for a parent, and are doing a disservice to your child.
Kids need to respect thier teachers.
Teachers need to earn that respect. I have rarely seen a respectable teacher not get the respect they deserve.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
And as a society, we do have the right to tell you how to raise your children. It is not just the family that raises the children, but the whole village.
Ummmmm. No.
We have the responsibility to protect your children from you, if necessary, the same way we have the responsibility to protect anyone else who needs it. We do not have the right, nor the responsibility, nor, for most of us, the inclination to tell you how to raise your children.
An excellent example of that is the recent decision that government can not, in fact, meddle in the affairs of parents who send their children to juvenile nudist camps. Of course, if they were sending them off to brothels, that would be a different story, and we would be obliged to step in and stop them because it would, in theory, be possible to show that such action is harmful.
The idea that I have either the right or the implied responsibility to assist other people in raising their children without an explicit request to do so is ridiculous.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
We see a child misbehaving in public, we morally have the responsibility to step and tell the child that they are doing wrong.
That's ridiculous. If I had children, I wouldn't trust 90% of you yahoos to "pitch in". What you and I consider "morally" acceptable are, quite possibly, light years apart. I don't give a rat's ass if a kid wanders around in public swearing and being "vulgar" and etc. etc. However, lots of other people do. Who's the one with the right to enforce their moral opinion here? If some bible thumping klan member explains to their child that it's morally wrong to say "fuck" but morally right to refer to black people as "niggers" and gay people as "faggots", do I have the moral right and obligation to go over and beat the kid in the head with my ideals which are completely opposite of that? Hardly. I may WANT to, but I don't have any RIGHT to.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not a person believes that a word should be used in a public place because it is wrong is a function of morality.
Whether or not a word should be used in a public place because other people believe it should not be used in a public place is a function of politeness.
Therefore, telling a child that they should not use a word in public because other people believe it should not be used is a function of politeness.
Telling a child that they should not use a word in a public place because it is wrong is a function of morality.
Short of vulgarity laws existing to enforce a community's veiw of acceptable behavior, you have niether the right to be surrounded by polite people, nor the right to enforce your moral viewpoint on anyone else.
This difference of belief we have here is a function of social liberalism/conservatism. Liberals hate it when someone tries to enforce an arbitrary code of conduct on them. Conservatives want their own arbitrary code of conduct enforced on other people. To be honest, I view the conservative position as utterly idiotic. The idea that other people should presume to know what's better for me than I do when I am not afflicted by anything that would impair judgement and I'm not impacting any unwilling third party negatively is ludicrous. Obviously, society needs to protect itself to a reasonable extent, and that's when we hit laws. The argument is over just how much society needs to be saved from itself.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you don't. As long as a parent isn't harming their child, they have the innate right to raise him or her as they see fit.
If that child doesn't live up to the societies standards, than society has to take it up with the parents - it's their right and responsibility.
Parents come in bitching about little Sally getting an F even though she did no work. If parents backed up schools, then we would have better kids in society.
If the schools backed the parents up in return, then it'd be great. If I were a teacher, and a parent came in asking why Little Sally got an F, I'd point out the requirements for each grade level - and show how Sally did not meet them. (Then again, I'd have the policy that one of my teachers had explicit - if you turn in every assignment, and they're all complete, you will pass the class.)
My kids - they're being homeschooled. 1st, my wife and I feel that it's best for my family. 2nd, we can't give them the kind of education we want for them in school.
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, your kids have a few rights, like the right to a decent education, to not be neglected etc. If you're going to provide a decent balanced educational program for your kids, that's fine. The state should satisfy itself that you are doing so in the same way that it satisfies itself that your kids aren't neglected, or that you don't beat your wife - ie. it does nothing unless someone complains.
Helicopter parents (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there any standards at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well and good, parents should indeed keep tabs on what their kids are told in school or see on TV or internet and help them interpret it.
That said, I can see parents getting annoyed when they have to fight a constant rear-guard action against smut, violence, and what-have-you everywhere. Despite what your parents tell
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Funny)
TW
Oh crap! (Score:5, Funny)
You don't say. What a shocker!
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if they are always around to protect their kids parents still demand that 'public' places be free of anything that could harm their children. The internet is often seen as a public place. Unless the 'magazine racks' are covered and the 'bars' are closed to anyone under a certian age they will feel that the government should step in an ensure that these steps are taken. This doesn't even touch problems with identity, stalking, etc.
This is not a terrible thing. It is a new responsibility that parents have had to adjust to in the last decade. Any reasonable step that can be enacted with little cost that does not prevent another's right to use the internet should be enacted.
The 'internet' is still in a state of tremendous change. There is no way that a reasonable response can be created that will stand the test of time. Any response now will fall far short of the ideal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though. As we develop new techniques to match the internet's development we'll learn valuable lessens.
It's not much different than spam. Techniques come, are honed, changed, and then go. We all expect (and know) that eventually the tide will turn and spam will be managed effectively. Similarily, we all know and expect that certian regulations will be set in place that will make it difficult for minors to open themselves to crimes of opportunity or exposure to things which the law currently says should be restricted to adults (or to minors only under adult supervision).
This article is good for the tech savvy parent, but it certianly will not affect the majority opinion.
-Adam
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
Pediatricians usually recommend one have furry pets and send one's kids to day care, pre-school so the little tykes actually get sick and build up their immune system. The offspring of the parents who use those "antibacterial" wipes and soaps are the ones who will die in the first wave of plagues.
This brings us to environment. Only by exposing one's kids to life in the real world (of which, Teletubbies and Barney are only a small part), can those kids grow up strong and able to deal with life outside the Master Planned Community, lest they be killed in the waves of immigrations that overrun the MPCs.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
There is some good in the idea that one should expose children to many variants of disease and illness to build a healthy immune system while they are young and physically able to handle the ravages of such bacteria and virus.
But that doesn't prove your point.
Subjecting a child's body to alcohol, nicotine, polio, etc is provably detrimental to their physical health. To say that there are no mental or emotional equivilants to these compounds is to dismiss decades and centuries of behavioral studies and observation.
"The beginning of a habit is like an invisible thread, but every time we repeat the act we strengthen the strand, add to it another filament, until it becomes a great cable and binds us irrevocably in thought and act." -Orison Swett Marden
While you and I may disagree on what specific emotional and intellectual activites are worth restricting to adults I suspect you may agree that there are such limits you wouldn't want your children to pass. I could come up with a million hypotheticals, and many (many!) actual examples - but I'm sure you are equally imaginative.
-Adam
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
This brings us to environment. Only by exposing one's kids to life in the real world
I only wish to add a little something to this, which is that children will not so much learn purely from exposure, but from watching their parents deal with the exposure. I guess most of what we're talking about with filtering is naked people. Well, a child seeing nudity may or may not learn anything, but watching whether his father pervs, looks away or just accepts will surely guide his future behaviour.
Re:look at the typical people demanding filters... (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point entirely. This article is good because it puts the power of filtering in the hands of the parent, where it belongs *NOT* the government.
we have a few on our street who demand "GO SLOW! We love our children!" signs from the town instead of teaching their kids not to run into the road
You're obviously not a parent. If you were, you'd never make such a moronic statement. Kids do stupid things. You can teach your child not to run in the road - is that a guarantee that 100% of the time the lesson is going to stick?? Hell no!!!! That's why residential neighborhoods usually cap the speed limit at 25.
I don't see how filtering for linux is going to help. You're not very likely to find linux running in in a trailer park, folks.
Insightful, my ass. This article isn't for Joe Sixpack. It's for Linux users who want a filtering solution. If I'm a Linux user, and I want to apply net filtering for my kids, this is how I do it. Pretty simple logic, huh bubba??
Re:look at the typical people demanding filters... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the sign will make a small difference. I, personally have no qualms about doing 80 in a 65 if that matches the flow of traffic (living in Phoenix, this is a fact of life). Even at lower speeds, it's common for most drivers to "bend" the speed limit by 5 mph or
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, perhaps there are legitimate reasons to keep kids from porn.
But there are certainly legitimate reasons to insist that parents are responsible to monitor their children's use of the internet and not expect the nanny-State to do it for them.
There's no mechanism for keeping porn form kids that doesn't involve the government judging content and registering that content or its viewers, or both.
And there is a chilling effect on free speech if one has to get government permission before distributing content or fear government prosecution afterwards. The cure is worse than the disease.
Let's recall the various works banned by the U.S. Government for "obscenity"; DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, James Joyce's Ulysses -- and even Voltaire's political/religious satire Candide -- all were banned from the United States by U.S. customs inspectors. And all, of course, are now considered classic works of literary art.
And as I noted previously, there is plenty of stuff on the internet that, while not obscene, probably shouldn't be viewed by children [slashdot.org]. Will you ban pictures of the Nazi Holocaust in your attempt to make the internet safe for children?
And the whole "for the children" argument is a straw-man, set up by fundamentalists who are using "the children" as an excuse to keep porn from adults by banning porn altogether [slashdot.org].
Sorry -- there are many good things in this world that it's not at all good to expect the government to provide.
Health care is a good, and I suspect that many parents would desire free health care for their kids even more than government suppression of porn. Little Johnny will recover from seeing a "beaver shot" a lot more easily than he'll recover from leukemia.
But the same fundamentalist conservatives who swear up and down that it will be positively disastrous for government to get in the universal health care business -- even just for kids --, advocate government telling us what we can and cannot view -- for the benefit of "the children".
The same conservatives who explain that government regulation of business stifles innovation and creates a drag on the economy, want to regulate the 50 billion dollar porn industry out of business -- even though by far the vast majority of porn customers are adults.
The same conservatives who rail against "Big Government" apparently don't think it's too much for government to vet every one of million of web pages?
Please: the same fundamentalists who preach about "personal responsibility" every time they want to cut a welfare program or unemployment benefits, can't ask a middle-class parent able to afford a computer and an internet connection to watch what sites his kids visit?
Re:Why filter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I am a parent and the reasons are not always what you'd think. First, note that my 3 year-old doesn't do any more with our computers than type his name and those of his friends (hey, it makes him happy
That said, children vary in their responses to different things. I tried watching Miyazaki's Spirited Away with him. Yeah, I read the "scary for kids" warning, but I figured I'd gauge his response to it. He was terrified. By what you ask? The scene where the child's parents turn into pigs. He's not afraid of pigs, he thinks they're funny. But he was terrified that his mother and I might turn into pigs like in the movie. Make sense? No, but he's three years old!
In real life, we already have issues with him being influenced by kids whose parents (if you can call them that) apparently have wildly different ideas about childrearing than we. So he already knows a few words he we don't want him using and has made a few statements that would be pretty nerve-wracking if he actually knew what they meant. We can handle stuff like this because it's out front. If he were learning this stuff online it would be much more difficult to figure out the source and decide how to handle it.
Most parents' response to the net is similar to how they view books or movies: I don't want my son watching "Saving Private Ryan" for quite a while because I know how many nightmares he'll have. But if he happens to see the occasional bare tit on TV, no big deal. He'll just giggle and forget about it.
The fundamental issue is that of not exposing a child to material that he's not yet ready for. And this decision should rest solely with the parent. Our job's hard enough as it is; for those who want to use it, filtering is just one more tool.
Fun with Filtering... (Score:5, Funny)
Why Censor? (Score:2, Interesting)
As friend said "You Americans are so puritanical!"
Re:Why Censor? (Score:2, Funny)
2. I run linux...
Q.E.D.
Re:Why Censor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents need to protect their kids from extreme pornography, highly graphic images (like rotten.com and the like), and websites that foster extreme viewpoints and hate speech, like the Aryan Nations. These things can have a much more profound impact on a child's immature mind than it would on a mature and rational adult's mind.
What your personal threshold for your family is as to how extreme content has to be before you feel the need to protect your kids from it is dependent entirely on your own belief system. This is why systems that allow the parents to decide criteria, rather than depending on things like Net Nanny, is so attractive.
Re:Why Censor? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have been on the internet for 10 years. Back then I was 17, which means I was not really a child. However one thing I learned quite quickly is that you have to search for porn/hatespeech/$fill_in_gross_stuff. Yes, I know rotten.com and I have visited it. Stuff there was quite a curiosity the first time I saw it.
Now, 10 years ago there was a child in this house. My sister. She was 12 back then. I did not once see anything questionable on her screen, nor in her browser cache (I used to monitor her stuff as a worried brother, my parents couldn't have done it) This means: if your kids go and visit those sites they have searched for it, or got the link from a friend. In the latter case you can be pretty sure they that they would have gotten the information anyways. I mean: how hard is it to go over to your friends place and ask him/her to show the site that you couldn't visit at home.
So, if I'm ever a parent, I'll just make sure to monitor what my kids do and not block their access. If I catch them doing something I can't condone then it'll just be time for a little chat.
It's all pretty subjective. (Score:4, Interesting)
I honestly don't see what the problem is. Although my world view has changed somewhat over the years, I don't *think* I react that differently to things now as to how I reacted when I was, say, 12 years old.
Re:Why Censor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's naked people, and then there's porn. Personally I'm more worried about sites like bangbus which come 1/2 inch from condoning rape. I don't want my son treating women like that, and I don't want my daughter being treated like that, clothes on or off.
As friend said "You Americans are so puritanical!"
And that is just insulting. How do you resolve the above stereotype with the fact that most the porn *origninates* in the States? I suppose you think each and every German wears liederhosen too?
Re:Why Censor? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why Censor? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a fantasy site. Centered around the idea "What if your driving down the road and you drive by a hot woman and for 500 bucks she does anything you want."
We adults see it for the fantasy it is and nothing more.
The problem is that when a minor sees something like that, they're not going to see the fantasy aspect of it. Their going to see it as an acceptable way to treat a women. Then people w
Re:Bangbus is a work of genius. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bangbus is a work of genius. (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to be shocked into reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Then go looking for news articles about kids being lured to their death by people in chat rooms, etc. You'll find plenty.
You need to monitor what your kids are doing on the net. The children aren't responsible for their actions, You are.
Re:You need to be shocked into reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Then go looking for news articles about people dying in freak accidents, like being struck by lightning. You'll find plenty.
Doesn't mean you should avoid the outdoors, or cower in the basement every time you hear thunder.
Nice one! (Score:5, Interesting)
~G
Re:Nice one! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good News (Score:2, Insightful)
I might as well say it first (Score:5, Funny)
Another filter (Score:5, Funny)
Bumper Car for OS X (Score:5, Informative)
Censorware by any other name... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that censorware suddenly becomes good when it's implemented by an open source program?
Re:Censorware by any other name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Other people using these things in their own home is none of your business, and if you make it your business, you're the one violating people's rights.
Re:Censorware by any other name... (Score:3, Insightful)
Parenting by any other name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting limits on material they want their children exposed to is a HUGE part of parenting. So why do you oppose software intended to let parents do just that?
Well.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clueless Conservative Parent:
"I'm gonna filter my puter and Johnny's not gonna get access to nuthin."
Johnny:
"My friend Jason (the other 13 year old) just burned me a CD with 30 hours of german bdsm, as well as Jenna Jamison's entire collection! My dad's so stoopid."
Refreshing (Score:2, Interesting)
Its nice to see that Linux is really emerging as a Windows alternative for the whole family. ;-)
If at first you don't friccasse, fry fry a henAlso, it should give the kids a nice challenge to get around the blockers...
I think configuring it yourself is better (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I tend to think that when my daughter becomes interested enough in sex to seek out these kinds of pages, that maybe it is better that she be able to.
Stumbles right out of the gate (Score:3, Insightful)
That's two too many, as far as the target audience is concerned. I'm no GNU/Linux programmer or anything, but what's stopping people from putting that all in one single installer?
I'll admit I didn't read on to see (God forbid) what other numerous (supposedly "easy") hoops that parents would have to jump through to get the desired result. Not that it matters; they'd probably already lost most of their target audience.
Went back and RTFA... (Score:4, Insightful)
What "average" users do you know that would be comfortable with modifying .conf files and all that other crap that this forces them to do?
Anyone who calls this process "easy" is completely out of touch with the average PC user.
Re:Stumbles right out of the gate (Score:4, Informative)
Netfilter is part of the linux kernel and doesn't require a separate installation. As for the other two, the entire unix philosophy is build small tools that do one thing well and connect them together. If someone doesn't like Squid, they can use another proxy server without ditching Dan's Guardian (or the other way around). It's called choice. It's a good thing.
Not that it matters; they'd probably already lost most of their target audience.
Their target audience is mostly parents who are already running Linux. The "hoops" (that you admit to not reading yet feel the need to criticize anyway) they have to go through are little different than configuring any other Linux app.
Complexity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, this is a little strange in it's scope. In the fourth paragraph, it defines for the reader what a "server" is, and then they expect the reader to be comfortable just jumping right in and editing the squid config. Seems like a little user-friendliness is probably needed before we can consider the parental filtering thing taken care of...
GNU nipple detection (Score:5, Funny)
The only technical problem at present is that I can not discern between human nipples and animal nipples, so some images of cow udders and the like register false positives. Nevertheless, I think this is a very important algorithm.
I have considered selling this to the Justice Department, as Atty General Ashcroft has expressed an interest in this kind of software. However, I feel this is too important to be closed. I am happy to say the project will be listed at Sourceforge soon, and released under the GPL!!!
Re:GNU nipple detection (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GNU nipple detection (Score:3, Funny)
Gee, I feel bad for you then. How horrible it must be to go through life not being able to tell if that naked chick has nipples or udders.... ;)
Great! (Score:2)
Still missing the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that proper parenting requires an active participation with your kids, whether it be in watching TV, checking out books in a B&N, or spending time on the net. Simply throwing in a vchip, blocking channels or applying hole-ridden filters can never be a substitute for actively being entertained, lerning, etc. alongside your child.
At least I think I read that somewhere...
Re:Still missing the point... (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't filter, log and ask (Score:3, Funny)
I would tell the child that I had records of every site they visit, and step on them if they kept "making mistakes".
Platform doesn't mattter - filtering == bad (Score:4, Insightful)
a) doesn't work. Kids who want pr0n will find it, or find a way to get around the filters; and
b) creates and adversarial relationship between parent and child instead of a collaborative one.
Having parents set up their own filters instead of trusting an outside organization to do it for them almost GUARANTEES that the filters will not be effective. Who has time to be comprehensive on content, given the rate at which new sites are created? The only alternative is to trust some organization that does have the resources to do a more comprehensive job, and even then will not be complete.
The more serious issue is the loss of trust demonstrated by putting filtering software on the computer.
Re:Platform doesn't mattter - filtering == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
The assumption here, naturally, is that it is bad to have disagreements with your child. That's why kids these days are so fucked up: parents will do just about anything to remove conflicts from parenting.
You don't have kids, do you? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real reason we want this stuff is so the kids won't stumble on to something bad they had no intention of finding. The lack of trust being demonstrated is a lack of trust toward every jerk on the internet that doesn't care about my kid.
That's my reason anyway. Does anyone here have kids?
Important step (Score:4, Insightful)
Dansguardian is great (Score:2)
I've been using Dansguardian in the same way described in the article for a while now and it has worked great.
Actually, it doesn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or you could (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, when they are old enough to understand, you open the Internet wide open and log everywhere they go. Make sure that they know you are logging.
Discuss with them what you think is inappropriate for them. If they visit sites that you don't approve of, talk to them about it.
Don't get me wrong, I love cool technology, but technology isn't a valid substitute for parenting.
Still No Substitute For Close Supervision (Score:4, Insightful)
My personal belief is that kids under a certain age should NEVER be on the Internet without close supervision. As the kids get older, they should be given more freedom to explore by themselves, but monitoring software is still a good idea.
A close friend of mine who's 18 and getting ready to go off to college still isn't allowed on the computer when her mom is at work during the day. The computer is password protected so the mom has to be around when they're on it. They just accept it and deal with it. She doesn't sit and watch over their shoulder now that they're older, but she's at least around and able to glance at the screen occasionally.
Re:Still No Substitute For Close Supervision (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I truly am speechless...
When I was 18 I had moved away from home and it had been my computer for 10 years. No one tells me what I can/can't do with my own computer, not then, not now. Of course this was before the net, we had to swap..."art"...by mailing floppys around the place.
Re:Still No Substitute For Close Supervision (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it says that I appreciate women's freedom. I appreciate women that are sure of themselves and their body.
It speaks volumes about you when you honestly believe that a naked woman is somehow demeaning.
I don't know that this will work ... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was 10, my dad had a net-nanny type program on the machine allegedly to protect my younger brother. It timed internet access and cut you off after a certain period. So I opened up regedit and ripped the program out manually. Sure, the system was barely functional, the network connection didn't work at all and the machine needed to be reinstalled - but that nanny software never came back.
Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The underlying issue is quite simple - Access to the Internet is the equivalent of allowing your kids to leave the yard without permission, not bothering to know where they are, who they're contacting or being contacted by and generally leaving them at the mercy of the big, bad world.
So, establishing them on isolated segement NAT'd computers where every single 0 and 1 goes through a router that their parents manage or through a proxy service of the same circumstance isn't anything more complicated than insuring that Jack or Jane ask permission to leave the yard and to know where they're going and who they'll see when they do.
With kids, you don't throw out the rules for sake of convenience or with the idea of being "progressive" about child rearing. The consequences are just too dire.
Re:Oh Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not trying to slam, but what actually are the consequences of unfiltered net access? Realistically:
1) If a kid is somehow communicating with a real sexual predator, wouldn't their behavior in the outside world show that some kind of problem needs to be addressed?
2) Has anyone shown a solid correlation between childhood/adolescent pornograph
Bayesian Filters Applied to Web Content (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is a pre-existing application, I would interested to know.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Drop broadband (Score:3, Funny)
Porn will take too long to transmit. They will be browsing without images in no time!
What a waste... (Score:4, Funny)
"If you can comprehend the aforementioned statements and use this software, you will not get laid. Ever. I know this because I'm RMS and chicks dig bearded guys. I haven't been laid yet so you won't either."
Still, we all know that chicks dig BSD instead.
Let the kids setup the filter (Score:4, Interesting)
culture subscription (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this scheme doesn't thwart the porn-hungry mormon teenager, or the santablind pre-barmitzva. That's an NP-complete problem: a bad kid will just go to a friend's unfiltered web terminal. But I note the Slashdot oracle's fortune at the bottom-right of this posing page:
It is a wise father that knows his own child. -- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"
Squid and SquidGuard (Score:5, Insightful)
My proxy system enforces just a few basic rules:
I told her straight out, if you think a blocked site is legit, just tell me and I'll see about unblocking it. I have blocked a few fringe science, religion, and political web sites. When she refused to discuss the contents with me, I blocked the sites. I was perfectly willing to leave them unblocked, but only if she was willing to discuss them rationally with my wife or myself.
Re:Squid and SquidGuard (Score:3, Insightful)
Running squid is a compromise. I would prefer my wife or myself were around when she's browsing, but we can't be with her every moment. So we run squid and allow
Re:Squid and SquidGuard (Score:3, Funny)
You're not letting her read slashdot?!?!?
"Especially porn" (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all parents want their children exposed to everything on the Internet, especially porn.
I find it strange that porn is the only content to be avoided that is explicitly mentioned by the story submitter and many comments. There are lots of things in the Internet that would be way more disturbing for children than porn, such as very extreme violence. Until that kind of content can be filtered I wouldn't even start thinking about filtering porn.
quick (and fairly easy) (Score:3, Informative)
I have used dansguardian on ipcop [dageek.co.uk] for several different sites (schools, homes etc), and have been please by the relative ease of installing (as far as linux stuff goes) and the configuration options.
I have used IPCOP [ipcop.org] v 1.2 and 1.3 w/o any problems. Sidenote :it runs well on an older pentium 133 box.
Just block sites with garish color schemes (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah, here [hitentertainment.com]
Access Denied... (Score:3, Interesting)
ACCESS HAS BEEN DENIED -
Access to the page:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/01
Weighted phrase limit exceeded.
Another perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Telnet to port 80 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Limits Create Curiosity (Score:4, Insightful)
But according to half the people here I should let them at it.