Protecting Kids Online

[xcrissxcrossx]

It pisses me off when i see something on the internet ,Which i constantly do, about all these ways to protect kids on the internet. I know that i can easily be proved wrong when i say this, but i really don't think the parent has a right to trespass on their childrens' security. Never unless in suspection that the child is breaking the law. I know that about .000001% percent of kids are hurt because they give out too much information online, but damn, if telling them not to give out information on the internet isnt enough, then they deserve to be taught a lesson, and when parents stop this from taking place by using a method since as parental controls or keyloggers, I believe the parent should be scolded for falling to such a low level of protecting their child that they must interfere into a PERSONAL level of security and liberty. I personally hve had enough experience with computers that anything my parents would ever think of setting up would probably be detected and destroyed pretty soon (yes, even keyloggers, I know what i'm doing), but I feel that every kid should carry this knowledge so they wont be held back from the full length of the internet, because a parent feels their child might be hurt. I really don't see how pornography can hurt any children or teens or whatever they want to be called (and i'm sure you can't come up with a counter-arguement agaisnt that statement). Please discuss. I know that this has little organization but im in a bad mood and have little patience for organization.

[arby]

criss cross. This is your parents. We made an account on the forum that you frequent and have been reveiwing all your posts. We find this one rather distastefull so we have decided to ground you for the next month. There is NO excuse for this sort of behavior!

[Descensus]

My parents have asked my sister and I if we have MySpace's...We said we do (my dad's even looked at my sister's from time to time). By age 14, I think parents should stay out of their kid's online profiles. Why? Because those parents should've made sure by age 12 that they know the hard facts of what can happen if a certain person obtains a certain piece of information (address), or other things.

[Burns]

Let me guess, all of you are under the age of 18, am I right? Spoken like true teenagers. Your parents are fully entitled to monitor your activities and are essentially responsible for what happens to you while you are not legally an adult and live under their roof. Period. You can be mad about it all you want, but if I ever had kids, I'd be damn sure to monitor what they are doing online. You can explain about the birds and the bees and internet predators all day long, but that doesn't stop a teen from looking at inappropriate material online. You feel like your privacy is invaded now, but you'd have the same responsibility to monitor and protect your child if you were in your parents place. Admittedly, some parents can take it too far, but I don't for a second think a 14 year-old should have unmonitored access to the internet.

[Descensus]

I do...(have pretty much inmonitored internet access). But honestly, I know better than to go to "porn.org".

[MSG]

Yeah basically Burns is right You do not have any rights as a kid, your parents own you. Basically this is because most kids aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves. Some kids are, but the dumb ones ruin it for the rest of us.

[l3xicon]

Personally, I've never had parental controls on my computer. My parents never thought we needed em, but more than that, they knew if they tried to put them on us, we would lock out their accounts instead. So to save everyone the trouble, no one was on them. You know what this got us? Trust. Our parents learned to trust us online because we showed them that without them, we were just as careful as we would be with them. Parents need to start showing more trust in their kids. I know alot of people who are stuck on parental controls, merely for the fact that the parents don't understand the internet and how it works, nor how the parental controls work. So they set them too high, blocking the kid from accessing perfectly fine sites. The parents don't know any better, they think because the controls deem it unsafe, that it is. Im 18 Years Old by the way, with a young sister, who, at the age of 13, knew what was appropriate to go to, and what not to, what info to give out, and what to keep private. It doesn't take much to teach your kids that. Checking out Kids profiles, thats understandable with sites such as myspace or tagworld, as you never know who will request to be your kids friend. But even those sites got steps to make sure its only people you know that can be added. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a site is deemed unsafe for content it may have somewhere on the site, that they don't have a way of restricting access to it. If your afraid of who your kid is talking to online, then by all means, restrict the chat to people you've met personally. I see nothing wrong with that, but don't go closing your kid out of what has become one of the biggest social things next to Cell Phones because a few other parents are paranoid and don't know what their doing. Long story short, only restrict your kid if they give you a reason to feel like you should. Don't do it just because every other parent is. If you trust your kid, show them you trust them and give them that privacy and freedome.

[TweaK]

Let me guess, all of you are under the age of 18, am I right? Spoken like true teenagers. Your parents are fully entitled to monitor your activities and are essentially responsible for what happens to you while you are not legally an adult and live under their roof. Period. You can be mad about it all you want, but if I ever had kids, I'd be damn sure to monitor what they are doing online. You can explain about the birds and the bees and internet predators all day long, but that doesn't stop a teen from looking at inappropriate material online. You feel like your privacy is invaded now, but you'd have the same responsibility to monitor and protect your child if you were in your parents place. Admittedly, some parents can take it too far, but I don't for a second think a 14 year-old should have unmonitored access to the internet. [/b] I am under the age of 18, and I fully disagree with crisscross. I think parents should monitor their children's activities if they think they should. A lot of unsuitable material is floating around the internet. I know I wouldn't want my 7-8 year old offspring to be browsing 4chan's /b/, and while I might not go to such lengths as configuring applications/internet gateways (the router) to disallow such sites, I would most likely at least monitor my children's activities until they've reached a certain age in which they can decide for themselves what is suitable and what not. On the other hand Burns, a 14 year old can usually perfectly decide for themselves what is suitable and what is not. After all, when you were 14, did your parents monitor every action you made? It's been a while since I just turned 14, but I know that back then I was damn capable myself to seperate appropriate from inappropriate. On the other hand, internet site filters is maybe going a little too far. Guys, hello? The children are going to find workarounds anyhow, or on the likely case it's near impossible to find a workaround (unless your kid is a complete computer-obsessed one), he/she is just going to go to a friend's place and do everything there. It's like alcohol: You can forbid it all you want, but children at a certain age are going to want to experiment with it anyhow. Maybe allowing them to do have one mixed-drink (ie, 5% alc.) on occassions (such as New Years, Christmas, birthdays, family parties?) is a lot better, for: [a] You control when they drink alcohol and how much. [b] They know what drinking alcohol is like, so they're less likely to drink it when you're not around just to experiment with it. I know this has worked for me. I'm sure everyone here knows what Bacardi Breezer is? Yeah. Starting at the age of 12-13, on special occassions I was allowed to have one Breezer when my parents were around. I knew what it was like, and I didn't feel the need to drink it when my parents weren't around "because I was dying to know what it was like". You know, peer pressure. It's just a big cause for doing certain things when you're a teen. Anyways, I'm straying offtopic - sorta. Back fully ontopic, I sorta agree with Burns. Anything you do on the internet, be it illegal or not, are the parents' responsibility as long as the children are under the age of 18.

[MSG]

Yeah good point Grounding, most of the time (meaning almost all), doesn't teach the child what they can or cannot do, it just gives them incentive to find workarounds. Teenagers are rebellious, it's in their blood. Even wikipedia says so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_%28punishment%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenagers

[Burns]

On the other hand Burns, a 14 year old can usually perfectly decide for themselves what is suitable and what is not. After all, when you were 14, did your parents monitor every action you made? It's been a while since I just turned 14, but I know that back then I was damn capable myself to seperate appropriate from inappropriate.[/b] When I was 14, back in 1995, I don't think I had the internet at my house yet. But I understand the point you are trying the make, TweaK. I also agree that 14 year-old's are perfectly capable of telling right from wrong - it's just that some don't care or do it anyway. I think parental controls are pretty useless with today's kids being able to get around them quite easily. And I'm not saying that a parent should stand over the kid's shoulder and read every word they type, but having time limits set, and having the computer in the main part of the house (not the kid's bedroom) is helpful in keeping an eye on the material they are viewing. Some families don't have issues like this, and others do. So it really depends on the household and the individual teen themselves on how strict the parents should be about monitoring in specific situations.

[TweaK]

When I was 14, back in 1995, I don't think I had the internet at my house yet. [/b] I understand, which is why I said "monitor every action you made" - I didn't mean just on the computer, but in general. But yeah, I'm glad we're thinking on the same level. Sorta.

[xcrissxcrossx]

I am under the age of 18, and I fully disagree with crisscross. I think parents should monitor their children's activities if they think they should. A lot of unsuitable material is floating around the internet. I know I wouldn't want my 7-8 year old offspring to be browsing 4chan's /b/, and while I might not go to such lengths as configuring applications/internet gateways (the router) to disallow such sites, I would most likely at least monitor my children's activities until they've reached a certain age in which they can decide for themselves what is suitable and what not. On the other hand Burns, a 14 year old can usually perfectly decide for themselves what is suitable and what is not. After all, when you were 14, did your parents monitor every action you made? It's been a while since I just turned 14, but I know that back then I was damn capable myself to seperate appropriate from inappropriate. On the other hand, internet site filters is maybe going a little too far. Guys, hello? The children are going to find workarounds anyhow, or on the likely case it's near impossible to find a workaround (unless your kid is a complete computer-obsessed one), he/she is just going to go to a friend's place and do everything there. It's like alcohol: You can forbid it all you want, but children at a certain age are going to want to experiment with it anyhow. Maybe allowing them to do have one mixed-drink (ie, 5% alc.) on occassions (such as New Years, Christmas, birthdays, family parties?) is a lot better, for: [a] You control when they drink alcohol and how much. They know what drinking alcohol is like, so they're less likely to drink it when you're not around just to experiment with it. I know this has worked for me. I'm sure everyone here knows what Bacardi Breezer is? Yeah. Starting at the age of 12-13, on special occassions I was allowed to have one Breezer when my parents were around. I knew what it was like, and I didn't feel the need to drink it when my parents weren't around "because I was dying to know what it was like". You know, peer pressure. It's just a big cause for doing certain things when you're a teen. Anyways, I'm straying offtopic - sorta. Back fully ontopic, I sorta agree with Burns. Anything you do on the internet, be it illegal or not, are the parents' responsibility as long as the children are under the age of 18. But why is it inappropriate. I dont understand how something can be inappropriate material. Pornography never hurt anyone. 4chan's /b/ would probably give a little kid nightmares but thats probably the worst. I know that parents own us, but they are taking away many of our human rights that anyone should have. Parents can only go so far to protect their child, they cant lock them down on a chair in clear sight but i feel that many parents have too much power over their children, In my opinion it would help if a parent allowed their child to look at porn, or look at watever they want. I cant imagine the fact of a parent grounding a child because of something that they have no rights grounding them for like because they have aidfferent religious view or because they looked at porn or something with bad language, but it happens WAY too often.

[MSG]

But why is it inappropriate. I dont understand how something can be inappropriate material. Pornography never hurt anyone.[/b] Dude. Look at Japan. they are taking away many of our human rights that anyone should have.[/b] Yes but, you don't get any human rights as you are only a child. i feel that many parents have too much power over their children[/b] Boo-hoo. In my opinion it would help if a parent allowed their child to look at porn, or look at watever they want.[/b] Okay yeah I'm done with this

[Led]

Dude. Look at Japan. Yes but, you don't get any human rights as you are only a child. Boo-hoo. Okay yeah I'm done with this [/b] Well we do get basic human rights. For instance we cannot be killed, raped, tortured, etc. But we don't have the right to choose what is best for us. Why? Because we are not full individual citizens yet. we are minors.

[Marvo]

Ah, being a rebbelous teenager. I&#39;m glad that my mind has chosen to skip that part of my teenage-hood. Originally posted by crisscross+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crisscross)</div> Pornography never hurt anyone.[/b] Yes, I&#39;m afraid it has. Watching porn intrigues the child to have sex themselfs, which might bring them into something bad, if they&#39;ve never been taught about the usage of protection. Originally posted by crisscross@ I know that parents own us, but they are taking away many of our human rights that anyone should have. No, they are not taking away our human rights away. They&#39;re teaching us what&#39;s wrong and what&#39;s right. <!--QuoteBegin-crisscross I cant imagine the fact of a parent grounding a child because of something that they have no rights grounding them for like because they have aidfferent religious view or because they looked at porn or something with bad language, but it happens WAY too often. Oh my god Where the heck do you get all this from?

[Kaniaz]

I've never been monitored; ever. I'm good (I was either smart or just lucky). If I had been, I can assure you I wouldn't be here now and I would not be as happy as I am with my life as it stands. Monitoring is a stupid thing to do. If your kid needs monitoring on something, they shouldn't be using it in the first place. Not yet. OK, you're going to supervise your kid the first few times, and that's one thing. When your kid starts to walk, you'd help it*. You don't then follow them around all day for the first six months in case they fall over and hurt themselves. Whatever you do, don't just sit them in front of a computer, shut the door, then pore over loads of logs later about what they've done. That's creepy and not to mention it doesn't exactly promote many lovable feelings. Yes, that's an excessive view, but it's a kid. They're going to see everything in black and white, they're going to make a big deal out of nothing. And it will affect them. You can't expect them to see the tough-love in monitoring: they are not going to. Find a million more productive things to do with your kid. Give them a passion for a subject. Talk to them (it's alarming how many parents don't actually do this). Read a god-damn book. Go outside, breathe carbon monoxide, etc. I'm not arguing in favour of pornography, although, heck, I saw it when I was about eleven and the Devil didn't get in me, or to cave to rebellious' kids demands. Just use some common sense and you'll only muck your kid up slightly. And, of course, cases vary. If your kid is going to throw their address at anyone in sight, do monitor them. Or, like I say, just keep them away from the wondrous computer. PS: Is it ironic that during the course of writing this post, I changed from 15 to 16 years old? * Yes, it. Bastard kids don't have genders.

[Truthbearer]

It pisses me off when i see something on the internet ,Which i constantly do, about all these ways to protect kids on the internet. I know that i can easily be proved wrong when i say this, but i really don't think the parent has a right to trespass on their childrens' security. Never unless in suspection that the child is breaking the law. I know that about .000001% percent of kids are hurt because they give out too much information online, but damn, if telling them not to give out information on the internet isnt enough, then they deserve to be taught a lesson, and when parents stop this from taking place by using a method since as parental controls or keyloggers, I believe the parent should be scolded for falling to such a low level of protecting their child that they must interfere into a PERSONAL level of security and liberty. (One sentence)[/b] But why is it inappropriate. I dont understand how something can be inappropriate material. Pornography never hurt anyone. 4chan's /b/ would probably give a little kid nightmares but thats probably the worst. I know that parents own us, but they are taking away many of our human rights that anyone should have. Parents can only go so far to protect their child, they cant lock them down on a chair in clear sight but i feel that many parents have too much power over their children, In my opinion it would help if a parent allowed their child to look at porn, or look at watever they want. I cant imagine the fact of a parent grounding a child because of something that they have no rights grounding them for like because they have aidfferent religious view or because they looked at porn or something with bad language, but it happens WAY too often.[/b] I think you should first worry about your grammar and sentence building skills before you worry why your mean mean mean parents won't let you look at porn. As for all the points you are trying to make, they are all retarded and you will one day understand this. Pornography never hurt anyone[/b] Ever hear of snuff? I know that parents own us, but they are taking away many of our human rights that anyone should have.[/b] Did white families respect the human rights of their black slaves back in the day. NO. That is the point of owning someone. It is because of people like you that I wrote this article. Alright, that's enough arguments/punchlines poking at your overdeveloped teenage angst. This conversation is over.

[arby]

I'm just happy my parents are too computer-illiterate to monitor me. My mom gets scared to death of popups.

[xcrissxcrossx]

I think you should first worry about your grammar and sentence building skills before you worry why your mean mean mean parents won't let you look at porn. As for all the points you are trying to make, they are all retarded and you will one day understand this. Ever hear of snuff? Did white families respect the human rights of their black slaves back in the day. NO. That is the point of owning someone. It is because of people like you that I wrote this article. Alright, that's enough arguments/punchlines poking at your overdeveloped teenage angst. This conversation is over. [/b] I don't understand how my grammar that i'm to lazy to use on the internet disproves any point of my statements. There are laws against slaves these days, I don't see how you can use an example that took place almost 100 years ago for something that has little to do with what I am talking about. You have made very few points to why my statemetns are "retarded" and they are all wrong. Everything I say is true, that is why when the few people that DO disagree with what I am saying can't think of a good counter-arguement. (BTW I have never heard of snuff. So please explain. It isn't on wikipedia either.) Please discuss. I know that this has little organization but im in a bad mood and have little patience for organization. [/b] I also said that I had little organization because I was in a bad mood which is a good reason for my poor grammar and bad spelling. Now that I am in a better mood I can accually type correctly.

[Truthbearer]

You are proving me right with every single word you type. Don't you get it? My point is not to prove you wrong. Time will do that on it's own. My point is to "pok(e) at your overdeveloped teenage angst" in hopes to receive a response as comical as yours was. Thank you for your time! P.S. As for Snuff, I am sorry but you are too young to know what that is. Isn't irony delicious?

[xcrissxcrossx]

You are proving me right with every single word you type. Don't you get it? My point is not to prove you wrong. Time will do that on it's own. My point is to "pok(e) at your overdeveloped teenage angst" in hopes to receive a response as comical as yours was. Thank you for your time! P.S. As for Snuff, I am sorry but you are too young to know what that is. Isn't irony delicious? [/b] Please tell me how im being proved wrong.

[MSG]

I see you've met Truthbearer

[Slacker]

I'm 17, and i'm basically free from monitoring. I have my own computer, (which I built myself,) and I don't let anybody on it. It's password protected, so nobody can even touch my stuff. I used to be on AOL on a family computer, before I actually knew what the fuck I was doing, about 5 years ago. I was monitored then through AOL, but still I knew how to get around the AOL logging. (sign onto AOL as it was dialup, and minimize it and go on IE. ) I've had my own personal computer since 5th, although it didn't have the internet. I didn't have the internet in my room until we upgraded to broadband and got wireless when I was a freshman in high school. Since then, I have learned a lot from the internet, and nothing but good has come of it for me. (I'm a senior now.) As for my opinion on the matter, it really, really depends on age. Elementary school students and early middle schoolers should definitely be monitored, but I wouldn't try to do it behind their backs, that's just low. After they're mature enough to understand the nature of the internet, they're free to do whatever they want imo. For me this was probably 7th or 8th grade, but I can't really remember. Just be sure to teach your kids well on the dangers of personal information. I think the problem is that quite a large amount of parents this generation are somewhat computer illiterate, and don't let their kids know what not to do. As for porn and the like, who the heck cares? You can't shield your child from it, they'll find it somehow... I'd just block them from installing programs so they don't kill windows.