Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a techie who was able to get round any filter from the moment I first used a computer, the only acceptable way to block kids from accessing things they shouldnt is to keep the computer in a public area (living room, etc), have it BIOS password protected with a good password and only let the kid use it with you in the room. Once they get to a more reasonable age (11+) then things can get a little more relaxed as by then they will be seeing things at school and at friends houses, but by then hopefully they will have had enough chats with mature adults to be able to put things in a reasonable context.

That’s some of a concern. The other big issue is searches. The kids use the magical powers of the intranets to help with some of the projects. Often when they do searches it will pull really weird sites. That has become better but is still a concern.

That's twice in twenty four hours, you feeling alright?

***The Friday countdown has begun baby. The long drive home, a walk, BSG, and coconut rum for tonight. Major romantic dinner reservations made for Saturday.

And you are agreeing with my politics, its like everything is right with the world.

legoburner wrote:As a techie who was able to get round any filter from the moment I first used a computer, the only acceptable way to block kids from accessing things they shouldnt is to keep the computer in a public area (living room, etc), have it BIOS password protected with a good password and only let the kid use it with you in the room. Once they get to a more reasonable age (11+) then things can get a little more relaxed as by then they will be seeing things at school and at friends houses, but by then hopefully they will have had enough chats with mature adults to be able to put things in a reasonable context.

When I get young ones, I will do this, and will then have a website whitelist on a transparent proxy server so that they can only visit websites I approve of until they are a little older. Then I will switch to a keyword blacklist, and finally unrestricted as they grow older.

Nothing like a good challenge to improve your kids' creative hacking skills

If your kids can't get through then you're raising idiots. This is the 21'st century equivalent of the Penknife, cheap cider and the Jazz-mag. You can't stop 'progress' but you have to try.

At the end of the day if children are given proper parenting whatever media they see won't have any adverse effects on them. For example I managed to watch scarface at the age of eleven and as yet I still haven't pursued someone down the street with a chainsaw. So I see the OP's point of view. However, a large number of parents are complete morons and should have been castrated before they managed to produce the child in the first place.

George Spiggott wrote:Nothing like a good challenge to improve your kids' creative hacking skills

If your kids can't get through then you're raising idiots. This is the 21'st century equivalent of the Penknife, cheap cider and the Jazz-mag. You can't stop 'progress' but you have to try.

Exactly, if the kids can get through that then they deserve the reward and are smart enough to cope.

George Spiggott wrote:
If your kids can't get through then you're raising idiots. This is the 21'st century equivalent of the Penknife, cheap cider and the Jazz-mag.

New slang! Sweet!

Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

I agree.

Interestingly, a perverse effect of the amount of public surveillance and government overwatch in the UK is that the general public no longer think it is their job to protect the children, help OAPs, look out for their neighbours, tell off hoodies and generally be a good citizen and a good neighbour.

Because (a) that's the government's job, (B) if you do it you will either get shouted at, or stabbed, or arrested yourself.

As usual in pr0n debates it should be pointed out that there is no research evidence to show that looking at pr0n makes people become rapists and so on.

Are debating the merits of that KK?

Frazzled wrote:Are debating the merits of that KK?

I don't understand.

That happens when the brain and hands get in a fight and refuse to talk to each other.

To clarify-I don't think thats been debated on this thread. Were you talking about a post or something else?

The thread is about censorship of pr0n, so it seems to me that the reasons for censorship can be mentioned.

Anyway, I have just finished work and I am going for a beer.

BEER!

Frazzled wrote:

Get off your straw man nonsensical high horse. I never said anything of the sort. You're trying to square peg me into a round hole. What I said was 1. in the real world parents can't always monitor their kids (if you were a parent and not a college kid you would have some grasp of that); 2. have software on computers that default blocked unless you authenticated your age. In other words WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

First off, I'm not a college kid. I'm a law student. I'm easily 5 times as as inappropriately pretentious as any college kid.

Second, I'm sorry if I pegged you for anything. I guess I didn't read your comments clearly enough, but to be fair you do ride the whole "people who don't have kids aren't worth listening to" thing a lot.

First off, I'm not a college kid. I'm a law student. I'm easily 5 times as as inappropriately pretentious as any college kid.

How do you think I came to be this cranky? Class of 96 rules class of 2009 drools!
(jeez now I feel old)

Frazzled wrote:

First off, I'm not a college kid. I'm a law student. I'm easily 5 times as as inappropriately pretentious as any college kid.

How do you think I came to be this cranky? Class of 96 rules class of 2009 drools!
(jeez now I feel old)

You were only class of 96? Jesus, I've had sex with women older than you, and they weren't nearly as cranky. I was HS class of 98, went to college and worked in swimming pool sales (alternative semesters due to financial and academic troubles), and now I'm almost out of law school.

And while I don't have any kids, I've had some close calls. Not the same thing, I know, but I'm just saying my lack of kids is the result of some pretty extensive planning and a few bursts of good fortune.

High school 98? Yep have a few years onya.

Law school 96, after MBA, and I didn't say which century now did I?

18 96 though.

*scarpers off sharpish*

Now you understand.

Son...I knew McKinley, and you're no McKinley...

Frazzled wrote:Now you understand.

Son...I knew McKinley, and you're no McKinley...

Ok, so you've proven to my satisfaction that you're old as the hills.

And not just any hills Polonius, but real old hills like the Appalachians...

Kilkrazy wrote:As usual in pr0n debates it should be pointed out that there is no research evidence to show that looking at pr0n makes people become rapists and so on.

There's actually significant evidence to the reverse, that free access to pornographic materials reduces rape and other sexual crime rates. But then these laws have never been about actual factual betterment of the lives of the public, they are about legislating morality to the open cultural standards. They are "feel good" laws that accomplish essentially nothing, but waste money and support news media witch hunts.

I like to call them "lazy parent" laws. Not talking about you frazzled, lazy parent as in it's "moral" legislation that is usually justified as protecting "children". Even when the law itself does nothing of the sort (like this one).

Oh yes.

And there is nothing to be said for trying to stop the sex industry from being based on non-consensual acts or the exploitation of addicts etc.

Now I'm bummed by this law as well, but hey, it's law now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As usual in pr0n debates it should be pointed out that there is no research evidence to show that looking at pr0n makes people become rapists and so on.

There's actually significant evidence to the reverse, that free access to pornographic materials reduces rape and other sexual crime rates. But then these laws have never been about actual factual betterment of the lives of the public, they are about legislating morality to the open cultural standards. They are "feel good" laws that accomplish essentially nothing, but waste money and support news media witch hunts.

I like to call them "lazy parent" laws. Not talking about you frazzled, lazy parent as in it's "moral" legislation that is usually justified as protecting "children". Even when the law itself does nothing of the sort (like this one).

OT but, there is a good bit of data at this point denoting that pr0n does in fact cause desinsitization and socialization problems, just as extended violence can have some impact, but thats another thread (no I AM NOT ESPOUSING ANY VIEW POINT IN THAT REGARD)

I agree though. Some legislation to aid in private blocking, reasonableness in other areas (libraries restricting adult content to adults), and Inquisitionlike enforcement of any child pr0n, but otherwise if you don't like it don't view it.

OT but, there is a good bit of data at this point denoting that pr0n does in fact cause desinsitization and socialization problems, just as extended violence can have some impact,

True, it also has the effect of providing a sexual outlet for those outside of relationships or without the ability to get one. It's a two way street, as it's easily addicting yet also demonstrably lowers incidences of rape and similar sex crimes by providing an easy and safe alternative.

Anyway, back to the stupid topic at hand.

legoburner wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:Nothing like a good challenge to improve your kids' creative hacking skills

If your kids can't get through then you're raising idiots. This is the 21'st century equivalent of the Penknife, cheap cider and the Jazz-mag. You can't stop 'progress' but you have to try.

Exactly, if the kids can get through that then they deserve the reward and are smart enough to cope.

It certainly teaches them some useful computer skills. But really, the kids that are smart enough to pull that sort of thing off are normaly smart enought to have a good grasp on reality and a good handle on what's right and wrong (even if they don't always follow it).

whatwhat wrote:At the end of the day if children are given proper parenting whatever media they see won't have any adverse effects on them. For example I managed to watch scarface at the age of eleven and as yet I still haven't pursued someone down the street with a chainsaw.

Very true. Everyone screams about how we have to protect the children from all the strange crap on the internet, but I question if that's really true or not. Take porn for example. Most counries seem to have decided that people under 18 should not be able to view porn. We seem to have representatives from a decent number of those countries here. Raise your hand if you waited till your 18th birthday (or later) to look at porn for the first time. Anyone? Anyone at all? The simple fact of the matter is that kids will seak this stuff out, even if it is just for the thrill of doing something they are not supposed to. I know I did. But any reasonably adjusted kid that runs into the picture of the girl having sex with the horse says "Wow, that's gross." They don't go "Oh yah, I need to try that."

Yeah, there is no single thing that turns a normal child into deviant one. Its a condition created by the whole of his environment, and the desire to break from that environment. As long as we maintain a cultural emphasis on defiance, and diversity, there will always be deviance.

Phoenix wrote:Very true. Everyone screams about how we have to protect the children from all the strange crap on the internet, but I question if that's really true or not. Take porn for example. Most counries seem to have decided that people under 18 should not be able to view porn. We seem to have representatives from a decent number of those countries here. Raise your hand if you waited till your 18th birthday (or later) to look at porn for the first time. Anyone? Anyone at all? The simple fact of the matter is that kids will seak this stuff out, even if it is just for the thrill of doing something they are not supposed to. I know I did. But any reasonably adjusted kid that runs into the picture of the girl having sex with the horse says "Wow, that's gross." They don't go "Oh yah, I need to try that."

I have two brothers 10+ years older then me I saw my fair share of porn rather early. Not to mention Robocop, Terminator, Aliens... all that good stuff. Ironically most of my desensitization came from real life trauma. Watching my dad almost die in a car accident when I was 7, almost dying of cancer at age 13, and now watching my dad die of lung cancer. Let people have their cheap thrills, real life sucks hard enough.

On a related link

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_11634545?source=most_viewed

We can read about how laws are used again beyond their stated aims. I don´t think that charging teenagers for child porn for sending their own photos to other teenagers is protecting our kids as the government claims.

But go figure, if we are going to start punishing children for being stupid children perhaps we should shoot them after birth to avoid further trouble.

M.