MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Can kids buy anything they want?

Bargain_Babe-a-Licious!

Easy peasy!

Freedom within the rules.

:j :j :j

chattykathyblue

I agree with you, IClaudius, it was the first thing I thought - children should not be sitting in their bedrooms and not mixing with their family. There's been a whole debate recently about Britain's young people, with so many spending more time with their mates rather than their family. My kids who are now in their early twenties weren't allowed their own tvs in their rooms and the PC was downstairs too! The kids soon leave home and have the rest of their lives to surf the net! Parents - spend time with your kids!!!

Cougar

Hi,

First time poster here, so be nice. (-:

I've read this thread with interest. I'm not a parent and have no burning desire to change that, but I find it intriguing how parents approach the idea of kids and Internet safety. In particular, I wonder how my own parents would be handling things now if I was growing up in the noughties rather than the 80's. How would they have controlled my web access?

A few people have suggested various products to help police their kids' access. I'm sure these products have their place and all, but I can about imagine how long it would have taken me (as a 13-year old geek in training) to bypass any technical security imposed by my parents. I'm not really 'home with the downies', but I know what I was like 20 years ago.

In today's terms, I'd probably have bypassed any well-intentioned 'net guard' products within an hour. If I thought you'd never check, I'd just kill it. If the laptop was likely to be inspected (which is a funny concept in itself, I can imagine my parents attempting to check the 'security' of my computer), then I'd have the machine dual-booting a second copy of Windows, one sanitised version to show mummy and daddy on demand, and one installed by myself where I could do what the heck I pleased.

Any restriction you impose on that laptop can theoretically be bypassed unless you know more about computers than your kid. Do you? In my opinion, net protection software stuff lulls you into a false sense of security. You think "little Johny's perfectly safe, I'm running WebProtect 3.0 (tm) on his laptop and checking his Internet Exporer history every week" whereas in reality little Johnny cracked your software a fortnight ago, he's on an unrestricted Internet connection, he bittorrented the entire contents of lookatthesizeofthose.com last week and is now selling burned CD-R copies at school for a fiver a pop. He's also going round unlocking all his mates' computers who were running the same software imposed by their well-meaning parents. Oh, and he only uses Internet Explorer for sites like mummyisgreat.com, all his !!!!!! is downloaded with Firefox which you didn't know about so weren't checking.

If you really want to keep your kid safe, there's two things you can do, though neither are particularly easy.

1) education and trust. Teach them about netiquette, Internet safety, junk email, teach them about viruses and spyware, teach them not to believe everything they read, and that Julie (14, Ontario) could easily be Mike (57, Dagenham). If you don't know about this stuff, find a friendly geek to teach them. Heck, get them to teach you at the same time. We're quite accomodating and accept payment in most major forms of alcohol. (-: Let the children know that they're being trusted, and that if they abuse that trust then daddy could always use a new laptop.

2) remote security. If you don't trust your kids, you can't hope to secure a laptop in a bedroom. Forget it. What you -can- do is secure the connection between them and the outside world. If I ever found myself in this position, my kid would connect to the Web though my proxy server and firewall. Their Internet access would be logged and monitored on a machine in a different room and they would be well aware that this was the case, and it would only be available at certain times of day (ie, off at bedtime). Like with 1) your friendly neighbourhood geek should be able to help with this too.

Of course, It's possible that my kid (if I had one) would try to hack my security anyway, but to be honest I'd be disappointed if he didn't try and massively proud if he actually managed it. (-: I appreciate though that I'm probably atypical here!

So yeah. Get some expert advice (from a real techie, not some burger bar reject working as a sales droid in a high street computer shop). Educate yourself, educate your kids (and don't underestimate them), and don't have blind faith that some random piece of software will instantly solve all your problems. It might do, but you can't guarantee that.

Good luck, I hope this helps. I appear to have gone on a bit, sorry about that.

Alan.

november

littleange_com wrote:

This is what teenages do - I can't remember spending any time with my parents when I was a teenager, I was either in my room or out with friends.

Glad someone else said that

I spent most of my time with my friends or in my room despite the fact that there was nothing in my room apart from a small cassette player (back in the 70's).

I probably spent the same amount of time with my family as my son spends with me, if not less - family outings, shopping, Sunday dinner, watching some tv together, holidays.

To be honest I don't think the amount of time DS spends with the family is affected at all by his having the computer in his room. I think its affected by him being 13 and starting to spread his wings which IMHO seems perfectly normal at that age.

cougar wrote:

1) education and trust. Teach them about netiquette, Internet safety, junk email, teach them about viruses and spyware, teach them not to believe everything they read, and that Julie (14, Ontario) could easily be Mike (57, Dagenham). If you don't know about this stuff, find a friendly geek to teach them. Heck, get them to teach you at the same time. We're quite accomodating and accept payment in most major forms of alcohol. (-: Let the children know that they're being trusted, and that if they abuse that trust then daddy could always use a new laptop.

Again that is the option we have gone for. DS still knows slightly less than me about computers and less than me and DH combined. I am aware he may overtake us but by the time he has done that hopefully he will be older. In any case both DH & myself have a keen interest in computers so we may keep pace.

I'm actually amazed at the amount of posters who think allowing a 13 year old a computer and internet access in their room isn't the defination of responsible parenting or that not allowing it is a defination of the 'best type of parent'. Or that equate buying a computer and having internet access with buying cigarettes or alchohol

IMHO I am protecting my children by teaching them about something, letting them do it, and being there (admitedly in the house rather than the room) if they have problems. This has been backed up by the fact my DD has had internet access in her room for 2 years, following internet access in a communal place. The one time she did get someone 'dodgy' on MSM she called me and I dealt with them and blocked them.

Based on my experience with DD. I therefore feel fine doing the same thing with DS. I trust my children and I trust them to tell me if they have probs/ask me if they want advice etc. I also know they are not angels, no more than I was, but basically they are sensible.

littleange

november wrote:

IMHO I am protecting my children by teaching them about something, letting them do it, and being there (admitedly in the house rather than the room) if they have problems. This has been backed up by the fact my DD has had internet access in her room for 2 years, following internet access in a communal place. The one time she did get someone 'dodgy' on MSM she called me and I dealt with them and blocked them.

This is what I'm talking about, if you are very reluctant to give you child this kinda freedom when they do have a problem they are not going to come to you for help as they know you'll just take the internet access off them. Sounds like you have the right set up November. :T

Kantankrus_Mare

november wrote:

Glad someone else said that

I spent most of my time with my friends or in my room despite the fact that there was nothing in my room apart from a small cassette player (back in the 70's).

I probably spent the same amount of time with my family as my son spends with me, if not less - family outings, shopping, Sunday dinner, watching some tv together, holidays.

To be honest I don't think the amount of time DS spends with the family is affected at all by his having the computer in his room. I think its affected by him being 13 and starting to spread his wings which IMHO seems perfectly normal at that age.



Again that is the option we have gone for. DS still knows slightly less than me about computers and less than me and DH combined. I am aware he may overtake us but by the time he has done that hopefully he will be older. In any case both DH & myself have a keen interest in computers so we may keep pace.

I'm actually amazed at the amount of posters who think allowing a 13 year old a computer and internet access in their room isn't the defination of responsible parenting or that not allowing it is a defination of the 'best type of parent'. Or that equate buying a computer and having internet access with buying cigarettes or alchohol

IMHO I am protecting my children by teaching them about something, letting them do it, and being there (admitedly in the house rather than the room) if they have problems. This has been backed up by the fact my DD has had internet access in her room for 2 years, following internet access in a communal place. The one time she did get someone 'dodgy' on MSM she called me and I dealt with them and blocked them.

Based on my experience with DS. I therefore feel fine doing the same thing with DS. I trust my children and I trust them to tell me if they have probs/ask me if they want advice etc. I also know they are not angels, no more than I was, but basically they are sensible.

Hate to be the one to pick up on this but erm its M.S.N not MSM as you put it.....just a typing error maybe?

november

Kantankrus_Mare wrote:

Hate to be the one to pick up on this but erm its M.S.N not MSM as you put it.....just a typing error maybe?

:rotfl:

Well I was in a hurry as I was mid post and there was a queue of family awaiting the lift I'd promised them to the shops while I was going to the PO.

The M is because I was thinking of messaging :rotfl:. What can I say :rotfl:. I've done that before - my brain thinks messaging and my finger removes the N and puts 'M' in. Not a 'my finger slipped' typo but a 'my brain slipped' typo and I don't notice until I've read it as I touch type and have a lot of 'bald' keys (they've worn out). If I had proof read before hitting send I would have spotted it and corrected it

(and I'll leave it in now so people know I'm not perfect :rotfl: )

Oh well at least I made myself laugh so thanks for pointing it out I think I've picked myself up off the floor now ...

eta Actually I've just noticed another error in the last para when I called DD, DS. She'd love that so I've edited that bit correctly

SusanCarter

november wrote:

I'm actually amazed at the amount of posters who think allowing a 13 year old a computer and internet access in their room isn't the defination of responsible parenting or that not allowing it is a defination of the 'best type of parent'. Or that equate buying a computer and having internet access with buying cigarettes or alchohol

I don't think they are saying that internet access is the same as cigarettes and alcohol but just that they don't automatically have a right to these things just because they've saved up the money for them. I think the issue of whether it is "responsible parenting" depends on the child so can be a difficult judgement to make when not having a specific person in mind. I used to walk to and from school by myself when I was in Reception (aged 5). It was 5 mins walk, there were no roads to cross, I wanted to, my mum knew she could trust me and she could see the school entrance from one of the bedroom so would watch to make sure I'd got there safely. I can't remember how old any of my brothers were when they first walked to and from school by themselves but all of them were much older than I was. Therefore, in the same way that the judegment of letting a 5 year old walk to school by themself depends on the individual child, so does the judgement about a 13 year old having internet access in their room. It is much easier to make the judgement based on a real child than an imagined one so people are more likely to err on the side of caution. I would certainly not advocate all 5 year olds walking to school on their own but I am sure that like me some of them would be perfectly fine doing so.

gelato_cat

Exactly. Thanks!

Suze

SusanCarter wrote:

I don't think they are saying that internet access is the same as cigarettes and alcohol but just that they don't automatically have a right to these things just because they've saved up the money for them.

gelato_cat

yracry wrote:

The main argument here has been missed; if your child wants to see/find out about the things you are worried about they will do it any way, regardless of them having a laptop or not.

Maybe. It would be much more more difficult though. You can find out about ANYTHING you want on the Internet - sometimes by accident. For instance, one of my friends has a 13-year-old stepdaughter who is worried about puberty and has some questions she feels awkward asking her dad. So she went onto Google and typed in "teen breasts". I don't think I need to tell the rest of the story!!!

yracry wrote:

I had access in a public room of our house and viewed all kinds of things I wasn't supposed to.

You can't assume that every kid will turn out like you though. Knowledge is one thing. What you do with it is another. Some kids don't want to look at !!!!!!. Some do. Some are easily led, some aren't. I don't think you can generalise here.

yracry wrote:

The issues you are concerned about are issues in life and not the internet. All the things you can see and do online your child can do in real life and are often more likely to happen.

I disagree - I think there's way more freedom online. A child being physically present somewhere trying to access something, eg !!!!!! mags, is going to be a lot more difficult for them than accessing the same !!!!!! (or worse) online. Some 13-year-olds might not be bothered about marching into a newsagent and buying !!!!!!, granted. But they wouldn't last too long in a sex shop. Online, anyone can get this stuff and, for instance, if they did want to buy something and used the parents' credit card, it would be easier than them trying to use it in the shop down the road.

yracry wrote:

The only difference is them recognising what is going to harm them.

Yes, and how many times have kids heard the messages that drugs, cigs and unprotected sex can harm their health and go ahead and do it anyway?

yracry wrote:

Letting them have it and having all those awkward conversations about sex and drugs and terrible things in life would (in my opinion) be infinitely more productive than either outright saying no or restricting access.

I disagree - you should have "the awkward conversations" in any case - it's your duty as a parent. I don't agree with the whole "if I don't let them do it they're going to do it anyway". You are the parent - you are the one who is meant to set the limits until such time as they are adult and need to take responsibility for themselves.

yracry wrote:

My parents didn't and I worked it out for myself

Some children aren't as savvy.

yracry wrote:

I also learnt a shedload of stuff, If i got curious about something, I wouldn't go ask a patronising parent - i'd go look myself. That's especially more relavent now wikipedia is about.

I used to go to the library They have free Internet access there too now as well

yracry wrote:

So in my opinion (from a non-money perspective) - let them have it. By stopping them it's a bit of an insult to there acheivement.

I don't agree with that. I really don't think that just because a child has money, they can spend it on whatever they want. Anyway, where did the money come from in the first place? At 13 they're unlikely to have earned £500 washing cars. Most of it is probably pocket money, so it's the parents' money in the first place.

If, on the other hand, the child is an entrepreneur by the age of 13 and has raised the money themselves, I'd probably be inclined to believe they were mature enough to buy what they want. But in general, I don't believe this is the case.

yracry wrote:

The horror stories you see in the news can and are avoided with care, but ultimately that care cannot come from you, it's up to the them.

Erm, why?? It's the parent's job to protect the child.

Suze