Stopping a teen from accessing the internet???

PolishBigSpender

aliEnRIK wrote: »

So if the parent isnt computer savvy your saying they should 'never' allow their child on the internet? Surely thats at detriment to the childs learning abilities as EVERYTHING is computer based these days.

No, they should supervise their access until the child is old/sensible enough to be allowed unrestricted access. Likewise, I have no problem with the blocks that Leo is talking about - it's honest and transparent. The rule is no file sharing, so file sharing is blocked because the teenager in question can't be trusted. Fair enough.

You cannot call someone you don't know a bad parent, just because they install keyloggers on their kids lappys.
You have no idea as to someones personal home circumstances.

Of course I can. Keyloggers are nothing but an invasion of privacy and a breach of trust - which in a parent/child relationship is nothing short of being an absolutely dreadful thing to do. If home cirucmstances are such that the children can't be trusted - then anyone capable of installing/using a keylogger is also capable of setting up software and hardware blocks. No need to spy.

So would we....but hey it happens, and not just as a one off, if you read the papers and listen to the news on the radio and TV

Sure, it happens. But because of people like Carol Vorderman, people believe that the internet is full of paedophiles, waiting to pounce on the first 11 year old girl that logs onto MSN. Meanwhile, because the parent is too busy looking at logs, the 11 year old is actually being molested by a family member/neighbour.

Spying?....yes it is...but so what? Not my course of action but I understand why some people feel that it has to be done

Why does it have to be done, though? It's much easier and more honest to simply restrict access - such as in your case.

It appears quite the norm these days.

Sadly so. Again, it's one of the reasons why children are so unhappy in the UK. They're kept inside because of paedophiles in the park, only to then have their freedom curtailed inside because of paedophiles on the internet.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a hysterical mother or two who banned PDF files on the grounds of being similar to 'paedophiles'.

aliEnRIK

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

No, they should supervise their access until the child is old/sensible enough to be allowed unrestricted access. Likewise, I have no problem with the blocks that Leo is talking about - it's honest and transparent. The rule is no file sharing, so file sharing is blocked because the teenager in question can't be trusted. Fair enough.

I understand where your coming from. But in reality, ALL teenagers go on things they shouldnt when unsupervised (At least in my experience)
These include VERY trustworthy kids.
Ill never forget my mates Mrs telling me what an angel her son is (And he really is actually), and that she trusts him completely
So I checked his log files through Vista after a couple of months and one day hed been on a TON of pron.
To this day his Mrs still doesnt know as we didnt have the heart to tell her

Education IS the way to go. But your NEVER going to 'stop' it completely

spud17

You know where im comin from spud

Hence the .

Incidently regarding keeping the little dears safe.

I first came into contact with computers doing 'O' levels in the early '70s, we used to punch holes in cards using a metal spike.

Imagine the H&S implications today, if as occasionally happened, you accidently jabbed yourself.

Perhaps that's why I didn't go near another one for 30+ years. :eek:

PolishBigSpender

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I understand where your coming from. But in reality, ALL teenagers go on things they shouldnt when unsupervised (At least in my experience)
These include VERY trustworthy kids.

Of course they do, it's part of growing up. Pushing the boundaries is normal, and should be encouraged - for you never know what might happen, and that's part of the wonder of having children. Equally so, they should be educated well enough to understand the risks and so on.

Ill never forget my mates Mrs telling me what an angel her son is (And he really is actually), and that she trusts him completely
So I checked his log files through Vista after a couple of months and one day hed been on a TON of pron.
To this day his Mrs still doesnt know as we didnt have the heart to tell her

Education IS the way to go. But your NEVER going to 'stop' it completely

To be honest, the fact that he'd been looking at a ton of !!!!!! was probably a good thing. If he was savvy enough to see it for what it is, and mature enough to understand that it's not real - what's the problem?

[Deleted User]

Personally, I don't see a problem with anyone looking at pornography as long as it's legal, afterall it's part of being human to experience sexual feelings. What's wrong with just sitting said teenager down and explaining that if it's a shared computer that you would prefer no traces to be left for anyone to stumble upon and that it's not breaking any laws and then continue 'out of sight out of mind' so to speak.

advent1122

Installing a keylogger on someones computer without there knowledge is absolutely disgraceful.
Sure, tell them you have installed a keylogger and will be watching there every move, but to log onto a computer and read every word they have written and every site they have been behind there back is awful.
So where do you draw the line?
Do you install one on the wifes or husbands computer?
Now I have nothing to hide with my surfing activity but for someone to read everything I wrote or website I have looked had would mortify me.

marleyboy

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

No, they should supervise their access until the child is old/sensible enough to be allowed unrestricted access. Oh but come, thats SPYING surely, isnt that "restricting" them?


[/b]Of course I can. Keyloggers are nothing but an invasion of privacy and a breach of trust - which in a parent/child relationship is nothing short of being an absolutely dreadful thing to do. If home cirucmstances are such that the children can't be trusted - then anyone capable of installing/using a keylogger is also capable of setting up software and hardware blocks. No need to spy.
I guess it depends WHO the pc belongs to, we have keyloggers at work, for the techies to "spy" on our activity. Does this mean that I cannot be trusted to do my job?


[/b]Sure, it happens. But because of people like Carol Vorderman, people believe that the internet is full of paedophiles, waiting to pounce on the first 11 year old girl that logs onto MSN. Meanwhile, because the parent is too busy looking at logs, the 11 year old is actually being molested by a family member/neighbour.

Your actually a danger to kids, I fear anyone who has to deal with such an ignorant (claims to be knowledged) person as you, Now your saying that a rape must be connected to a family member. That "grooming" or Peadophiles dont exist on the Internet, I dont need Carol Vaughderman to tell me they do, nor do I need some terrible excuse for a parent to tell me they dont. The majority of us "sane" parents, only have to look to see how rife that is.



[/b]Why does it have to be done, though? It's much easier and more honest to simply restrict access - such as in your case.

I guess it depends on circumstances, most of us parents that actually CARE for their kids well being, should our kids go missing for example, would much prefer to be able to check their history to find any kind of clue as to their whereabouts. (its called being a caring parent)


[/b]Sadly so. Again, it's one of the reasons why children are so unhappy in the UK. They're kept inside because of paedophiles in the park, only to then have their freedom curtailed inside because of paedophiles on the internet.

Sadly your right, they are just as vulnerable on their own in a park, than they are sat at home in a chatroom, mainly becuse people like YOU go around bleating that they are more AT RISK, with a member of their family or a neighbour, than they are out in the park with NO supervision and nobody to check up.....ermm I mean "SPY" on them.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a hysterical mother or two who banned PDF files on the grounds of being similar to 'paedophiles'.

Now your posts are getting just too ridiculous, weak and pointless, I wouldnt be suprised if you let your kids meet peadophiles on the grounds of them being similar to "peadiatricians"
[/font]

I personally think you should leave the parenting, to those more "qualified" than you, maybe its because you were brought up in a dictatorship (Big Brother style) country, I dont know, but your certainly not experienced in the Big Wide World, leave that to those of us a little more "qualified" in the field. Stick to reading your books, and not acting on your "substantial" theories.

advent1122

The point about the keylogger at work is YOU KNOW THEY ARE THERE.
I am in favour of keyloggers BUT tell the child you are putting a keylogger on the computer and will be monitoring there activities.
Go barging into a 14 year old's room and say "You have been looking at Swedish Sluts II, dirty boy. Dont deny it I have been reading every word you have wrote on that computer for the past 3 months and know every site you have visited".

Wooooooshhhhh 14 year of trust out of the window and I doubt it will ever be regained from the child.

I am sorry but I believe it is as bad as reading a child's diary or checking his mobile phone messages.

PolishBigSpender

marleyboy wrote: »

Oh but come, thats SPYING surely, isnt that "restricting" them?

Nope. It's being responsible - you don't think that your child is old/mature enough to use the internet safely, so you're supervising them. You know, spending time with them, helping them to avoid risks and doing what a responsible parent would do. It's not spying - it's being done with the full consent and knowledge of the child.

marleyboy wrote:

I guess it depends WHO the pc belongs to, we have keyloggers at work, for the techies to "spy" on our activity. Does this mean that I cannot be trusted to do my job?

Pretty much. The extents that companies in the UK have gone to in order to snoop into every aspect of an employee is beyond crazy, particularly those working for councils. If I hire someone, I trust them to do a job - I don't need to snoop into every aspect of their work. But you know, not trusting employees is one reason that companies such as Tesco have such low job satisfaction.

marleyboy wrote:

Your actually a danger to kids, I fear anyone who has to deal with such an ignorant (claims to be knowledged) person as you, Now your saying that a rape must be connected to a family member. That "grooming" or Peadophiles dont exist on the Internet, I dont need Carol Vaughderman to tell me they do, nor do I need some terrible excuse for a parent to tell me they dont. The majority of us "sane" parents, only have to look to see how rife that is.

I'm a danger to kids, because I advocate supervised (in person) access to the internet, education concerning the dangers on the internet and I advocate the use of hardware and software solutions where supervised access can't be achieved yet use of the internet is required?

Also, where did I say that rape must be connected to a family member? I said that by focusing so much attention on the internet, people are ignoring part of the real problem - that many of these sickening crimes are carried out by persons known to the child in the real world. Don't forget, grooming can happen just as easily, if not easier by an dodgy old uncle as by a random paedophile on the internet.

I guess it depends on circumstances, most of us parents that actually CARE for their kids well being, should our kids go missing for example, would much prefer to be able to check their history to find any kind of clue as to their whereabouts. (its called being a caring parent)

Yup. I think that if you aren't technologically savvy enough to restrict the deletion of history, then you should be supervising their access. It's very sensible to be able to have access to such things in case something happens - and a good reason as to why parents should be open and honest with their children.

But if there's no reason to look at their internet history, why do it? Leo was doing the right thing in my opinion - the child is too old to be supervised or to accept supervision, so hardware/software blocks are the way forward.

Sadly your right, they are just as vulnerable on their own in a park, than they are sat at home in a chatroom, mainly becuse people like YOU go around bleating that they are more AT RISK, with a member of their family or a neighbour, than they are out in the park with NO supervision and nobody to check up.....ermm I mean "SPY" on them.

I suggest you go away and read up on the countless stories of where a child has been entrusted into the care of a family member, only to be abused by said member. I could be wrong, but I think even Billy Connolly was abused by his own father - at least, he certainly was abused by a close family member. This is where some of the real danger lies - where the abuser is trusted not only by the child, but by the adults too.

As for the children being at the park - if they're 10/11, what's the issue? They're old enough to have a mobile phone, they're old enough to understand that they shouldn't be at the park alone and most of all, they're old enough to understand not to go anywhere with strangers.

Again, it should be physical supervision - I have no problem with this, provided it's with the full understanding of the child. Supervising the child by spying from a distance with a telescope would be ridiculous - and any sensible parent would either be there, or would make arrangements with the child's knowledge on how to keep the child safe.

Now your posts are getting just too ridiculous, weak and pointless, I wouldnt be suprised if you let your kids meet peadophiles on the grounds of them being similar to "peadiatricians"

The sad thing is that you couldn't see the irony of my post. I'm attacking the hysteria of paedophiles on the internet, when some of the real causes of abuse (sexual, physical and mental) occur in the home by the family. Haven't you been paying attention to some of the catastrophic failures in the Baby P case?

Now, please go away and read my posts properly. I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach, but rather an approach based on respect of the child's privacy.

As for keyloggers - I agree with the post by Advent1122. Keyloggers are fine - but the child should know they're there. Of course, you should consider why you wish to read logs of the child's internet access rather than be with the child - but that's a personal decision, isn't it?

I personally think you should leave the parenting, to those more "qualified" than you, maybe its because you were brought up in a dictatorship (Big Brother style) country, I dont know, but your certainly not experienced in the Big Wide World, leave that to those of us a little more "qualified" in the field. Stick to reading your books, and not acting on your "substantial" theories.

Excuse me? What do you know about me, or in fact anything to do with my qualifications or knowledge?

And please leave the racial slurs at the door.

marleyboy

I think you have your wires crossed in that I actually AGREE with what LEO is doing, if as you said you " read my posts properly", you would comprehend that.

Yes abuse DOES go on in families, but it goes on far more rife, in the Big Wide World. remember "Huntley"? Hindley? That in no way justifies NOT monitoring your children, I'd say it intensifies it. That you jump on the "you dont trust your kids so you spy on them, is frankly insulting to the poster, and like I said previously "it isnt nice to be judged". Physical supervision does involve watching your children, their activities, and their behaviour. responcability also involves what they get up to, that isnt a lack of trust, and in the OPS case its not about snooping, its about ensuring, the OP is ultimatley responcible to his ISP for any activities that goes on, either illegal, or dangerous to themselves. Its more about limiting certain activities and letting the child know that "you have an eye on them", up until they are 18 and legally able to buy their own ISP which they themselves can be responcible for, or accepting that the ISP they currently use, is restricted and monitored by the fee payer.