Stopping a teen from accessing the internet???

PolishBigSpender

marleyboy wrote: »

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.

What about West, or even more up to date, what about Fritzl? Or even this shocking case in Sheffield recently with the man who raped his own daughters over 25 years? And you're telling me that the 'Big Wide World' is more dangerous than within the immediate world of the child?

Even http://www.childhelp.org/resources/learning-center/statistics shows that 90% of child rapes that were reported have been carried out by a person known to the victim. So, please, go ahead and prove to me that the 'Big Wide World' is more dangerous to a child than the child's immediate world.

I think you'll struggle.

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".

What's insulting about it? To spy on your own flesh and blood is absolutely hideous - imagine spying on your partner or parents in the same way?

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 what about the responsibility to ensure that the child grows up well adjusted and normal? A child's trust in the world could be permanently damaged by finding out that they've been spied on systematically by their parents. Certainly enough people were damaged in the East by the revelation that their partners or children were spying on them for the State.

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.

Of course. Hence why I approve of limiting his exposure to the risks. But he's not spying on his child, is he? He's simply limiting what he can see and do on the internet - which is fine. The child (from the OP's words) also seems to be deservedly limited.

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.

What has this got to do with using keyloggers to spy on every aspect of their internet use? The point is that you don't have to monitor and spy on everything your child does - if you do, then you're a bad parent. End of.

marleyboy

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

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.

Originally Posted by PolishBigSpender
Imagine how your children would feel if they knew that their own mother trusted them so little, she even resorted to spying on everything they did?

And to be honest, every minute spent looking at logs is a minute less with your children. You know, the ones you talk about protecting..

Like I said it isnt very nice to be judged on what you do is it :D

marleyboy

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

The point is that you don't have to monitor and spy on everything your child does - if you do, then you're a bad parent. End of.

Remember the Bulger case?

PolishBigSpender

Edit : see next post!

PolishBigSpender

marleyboy wrote: »

Tell that to the Bulger's parents

Leaving a toddler unattended in public (or even in private!) was universally thought to be a bad thing these days, I thought? Considering that James Bulger was able to walk out of a shop by himself - then it was clearly negligence on the part of the parent.

Plenty of examples of where leaving a toddler unattended has ended in disaster, no?

So...tell me, who are children more at risk from statistically - someone known, or someone unknown to them? For the purposes of unknown, it includes paedophiles on the internet. I'm interested to see what you can find, particularly as plenty of high profile cases this year have been committed by family members. There was also a horrific incident involving a Muslim girl lured to the UK, only to be forced into prostitution recently, I think?

But I'm not interested in the high profile cases - I want statistics concerning abuse (mental, physical or sexual, your choice!) towards children. UK statistics would be preferable, although I appreciate that I used American ones in the link above.

leosayer39

Hi all,

Well well well, this really has turned into some sort of moral discussion / dilemma and I didn't really want it to go this far...I just wanted I bit of teccy advice.

It's all very well people bleating on about someone elses personal situation without even knowing them, not a good thing to do in my book.

Anyway, as for the teccy bit it looks like it can be sumarised as below, and you should bear in mind that I do not want to use a keylogger.
However, although I do not wish to go down this route (just yet) although I have no problem with people that do.

For total disconnection then jammin's solution in post #2 seems good enough for me.
It also follows that fermi's solution to disconnection in post #12 is also good.


Blocking websites on the router sems like a good idea.

Changing the router DNS servers to use open dns is also a possibility, so thanks to bookduck in post #35 and wacko911 in post # 37

Splank in post #38 came up with a very good solution, albeit quite expensive.

Good on cazpumpkin in post # 39...respect to you. Not the way I want to do things (just yet)

to be continued after tea..........

Leo

aliEnRIK

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

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?

Completely agree. I tried my best to explain what can be done and what really shouldnt be done (googling the word '!!!!!!' for instance is a BAD idea)

As I said before. Educate. Just dont expect them to be 'angels' forever

aliEnRIK

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Leaving a toddler unattended in public (or even in private!) was universally thought to be a bad thing these days, I thought? Considering that James Bulger was able to walk out of a shop by himself - then it was clearly negligence on the part of the parent.

Plenty of examples of where leaving a toddler unattended has ended in disaster, no?

So...tell me, who are children more at risk from statistically - someone known, or someone unknown to them? For the purposes of unknown, it includes paedophiles on the internet. I'm interested to see what you can find, particularly as plenty of high profile cases this year have been committed by family members. There was also a horrific incident involving a Muslim girl lured to the UK, only to be forced into prostitution recently, I think?

But I'm not interested in the high profile cases - I want statistics concerning abuse (mental, physical or sexual, your choice!) towards children. UK statistics would be preferable, although I appreciate that I used American ones in the link above.

The vast majority of the abusers are family members or friends of thr family. Even paedos online tend to use their own (sic) kids and then relay to the rest of the sick world. Its rare indeed for paedos to 'groom' someone they dont know through the net. But that does NOT mean we should be blind to it.

marleyboy

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Leaving a toddler unattended in public (or even in private!) was universally thought to be a bad thing these days, I thought? Considering that James Bulger was able to walk out of a shop by himself - then it was clearly negligence on the part of the parent.

Plenty of examples of where leaving a toddler unattended has ended in disaster, no?

So...tell me, who are children more at risk from statistically - someone known, or someone unknown to them? For the purposes of unknown, it includes paedophiles on the internet. I'm interested to see what you can find, particularly as plenty of high profile cases this year have been committed by family members. There was also a horrific incident involving a Muslim girl lured to the UK, only to be forced into prostitution recently, I think?

But I'm not interested in the high profile cases - I want statistics concerning abuse (mental, physical or sexual, your choice!) towards children. UK statistics would be preferable, although I appreciate that I used American ones in the link above.

In particular I was referring to his Killers, who were able to freely wander into a shopping Mall and take the toddler to his fate. All because their mummy and daddy trusted them enough to be able to go out unsupervised..

SplanK

how has this managed to get from somebody asking about protecting their kids from the unsavory's of the internet and preventing them doing illegal things such as downloading unpaid for music to a poor kid who got killed....

waaay off topic and just not needed!!!!!