I think an awful lot of people are not giving young people enough credit. Of course, up to a certain age they should be supervised (that is the same with a lot of offline activities) but generally once they reach their teenage years, they are pretty savvy and aware of the dangers.
I totally agree....
I also very much disagree with this notion that everything has to be made suitable for children. Adults have to live in this world too and frankly I don't want everything I do and everything I'm allowed to access to be governed by it's suitability for children. Indeed I find it an utterly ghastly concept.
I also very much disagree with this notion that everything has to be made suitable for children. Adults have to live in this world too and frankly I don't want everything I do and everything I'm allowed to access to be governed by it's suitability for children. Indeed I find it an utterly ghastly concept.
Something vaguely similar was suggested back in the early 1990s.
David Alton MP put forward a private members bill that would have banned any film, video or TV programme deemed to be above a 12 certificate from being available in the UK.
It was a knee jerk reaction to the Bulger killings, and thankfully it never made it into law.
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that a law requiring South Koreans to use their real names on Internet forums was unconstitutional, forcing the government to change the five-year-old regulation created to reduce anonymous criticism of politicians and celebrities.
The court said the requirement amounts to prior censorship. It also said the law violated citizens' privacy, was technically difficult to enforce and was ineffective at stopping online criticism.
...
Many Korean individuals and business had turned to overseas companies to host websites and services because the government said it couldn't enforce the name-verification law on Internet sites operated outside the country.
Google in 2008 closed its Korea-based YouTube site rather than comply with the requirement for people who uploaded videos. South Koreans since then have used YouTube sites based in other countries. NHN and Daum complained the rule made their video-sharing services less competitive.
...
The government came under increasing pressure to change the law after hackers last August accessed databases for the real-name verification system, obtaining the resident registration numbers of 35 million people.
In response, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security told website operators and portals they could no longer use South Koreans' resident numbers to verify their identity in order to comply with the 2007 law.
Just this week, a new rule took effect requiring one of three other methods for online identity verification—cellphone numbers, newly created government certificates or an independent identifier. Companies have complained about the cost and technical difficulty of compliance with the rule.
Additionally:
The Korea Communications Commission on Thursday said it will end online registration requiring resident registration numbers and other personal information as it is vulnerable to increasing cyber hacking.
...
The system has been ineffective in preventing people from posting abusive messages or spreading false rumors. According to a study by the KCC, malicious comments accounted for 13.9 percent of all messages posted on Internet threads in 2007 but decreased only 0.9 percentage points in 2008, a year after the regulation went into force.
OK, but apart from being probably completely impracticable, expensive and still easy to get round I don't see what difference that would make.
Twitter and Facebook users don't seem at all worried by the fact they tend to use their real names, and they still carry out abuse and bullying often under their own names. So having to sign up via some ID card system, or fingerprint system wont make any difference to them.
Besides, when did it become wrong to believe that personal privacy is a human right?.
I think I maybe posting in the wrong thread, my issue mainly is that fact the WWW is open to all, and that includes young children.
I know that I could 'parent' my children and remove games from them, but for example my grandson likes 'Minecraft' and I thought it seemed like a great 'building game', I heard bad language from the Ipad and realised he was listening to who knows playing the game.
I wasn't really making a point. You claimed some women liked porn, and I provided evidence.
There's plenty of porn produced specifically for women.... it's often far more sensual, less tacky and the actors/actresses far more attractive than that targeting male audiences.
Not that I'm any sort authority on that sort of thing
I think I maybe posting in the wrong thread, my issue mainly is that fact the WWW is open to all, and that includes young children.
I know that I could 'parent' my children and remove games from them, but for example my grandson likes 'Minecraft' and I thought it seemed like a great 'building game', I heard bad language from the Ipad and realised he was listening to who knows playing the game.
Yeah, the problem is that the internet really is for all. But that's also what makes it such a great place.
If we start getting into debates about who should, and should not have access to the internet, then everyone who has a dislike for any other group will want to have that other group banned or restricted.
Benjamini seems to feel adults should be banned from the internet, or the entire internet should be dumbed down to be safe for children.
Well, I'd rather no one under 18 be allowed access to the internet.
Is either point of view the right one?. Who gets to decide?. Benjamini or me?.
Yeah, the problem is that the internet really is for all. But that's also what makes it such a great place.
If we start getting into debates about who should, and should not have access to the internet, then everyone who has a dislike for any other group will want to have that other group banned or restricted.
Benjamini seems to feel adults should be banned from the internet, or the entire internet should be dumbed down to be safe for children.
Well, I'd rather no one under 18 be allowed access to the internet.
Is either point of view the right one?. Who gets to decide?. Benjamini or me?.
I just wish there was a 'Top Shelf' option, that I didn't have to stand over my children, making sure they didn't reach so easily whilst cooking a 'Healthy' meal......
I just wish there was a 'Top Shelf' option, that I didn't have to stand over my children, making sure they didn't reach so easily whilst cooking a 'Healthy' meal......
In essence that's what parental controls are for.
But just as your kids could find your hidden stash of mags, or find them in a hedge, or find the stash of one of their friends dad's to get round the "top shelf", there are ways around internet blocks too.
It simply is NOT possible to 100% effectively protect kids from such stuff, short of locking them up until they are 18.
You can only do your best with the tools available, and make sure you are the kind of parent a child can come to with concerns or if they are upset by something they do come across.
The usual cliched replies. When will it be ok to allow my daughter to have unsupervised access to child porn, animal porn etc. at what age should she be let loose to access this.? 15? 16 ? When?
What age would you deem mature enough to accesses and understand this. .?
Surely you, her parent, the one who knows her better than anybody else on this Earth, are most qualified to answer those questions?
I mean for Christ's sake, does the term "individual responsibility" mean nothing to anybody these days?
I just wish there was a 'Top Shelf' option, that I didn't have to stand over my children, making sure they didn't reach so easily whilst cooking a 'Healthy' meal......
If you don't want them accessing dodgy content then you have to take full responsibility for them which I think should mean you should have a talk with them about it and then if you still aren't happy to trust them then make it a rule that all internet access is supervised. Every child is different and some might be mature enough for unsupervised access at a younger age with other parents not totally trusting their child until much later.
But just as your kids could find your hidden stash of mags, or find them in a hedge, or find the stash of one of their friends dad's to get round the "top shelf", there are ways around internet blocks too.
It simply is NOT possible to 100% effectively protect kids from such stuff, short of locking them up until they are 18.
You can only do your best with the tools available, and make sure you are the kind of parent a child can come to with concerns or if they are upset by something they do come across.
I fully understand that, but some parents/grandparents are 'thicker' than others when it comes to the Internet, and before long it might be to late to educate us or our children.
I heard about a year ago (on the radio) that primary school kids were sending each other porn on their smartphones so sussing-out how to block sites on the family PC isn't really going to cut it these days.
I fully understand that, but some parents/grandparents are 'thicker' than others when it comes to the Internet, and before long it might be to late to educate us or our children.
There is actually a wealth of information out there for parents who are unsure of how to best protect their children online, some of it is really rather good even for a beginner.
If you don't want them accessing dodgy content then you have to take full responsibility for them which I think should mean you should have a talk with them about it and then if you still aren't happy to trust them then make it a rule that all internet access is supervised. Every child is different and some might be mature enough for unsupervised access at a younger age with other parents not totally trusting their child until much later.
As a child, there were times when the talk from grownups, made me want to investigate for myself.......and the equipment to 'investigate' is in our homes (that I do not yet know how to keep fully under lock and key).
Which illustrates my earlier response to the OP quite succinctly. Why waste time with stuff that just isn't workable. Anyone who thinks it is, needs to step back and think about it for a moment.
As for unique ID numbers, well that's probably the most dangerous thing you could do with something like the net and identification. You'll end up with a black market for ID numbers that have been obtained by security breaches and then people could have all manner of problems. That suggestion is incredibly naive and dangerous.
I fully understand that, but some parents/grandparents are 'thicker' than others when it comes to the Internet, and before long it might be to late to educate us or our children.
Yeah perhaps, but isn't the parents/grandparents moral duty to do whatever they have to do, or are allowed to do within the law, to protect their children?.
Modern parental control software is actually quite easy to use, even Windows and OSX have rudimentary parental controls built in.
I would argue it is a parent's duty to educate themselves on such products, how to use them and how to (as far as possible) lock them down to make it hard for the kids to get round them. It is more a parent's duty to do that than anyone else's, and it is certainly more of a parents responsibility than it is the government's, or mine.
Which illustrates my earlier response to the OP quite succinctly. Why waste time with stuff that just isn't workable. Anyone who thinks it is, needs to step back and think about it for a moment.
As for unique ID numbers, well that's probably the most dangerous thing you could do with something like the net and identification. You'll end up with a black market for ID numbers that have been obtained by security breaches and then people could have all manner of problems. That suggestion is incredibly naive and dangerous.
Agreed, plus it gives the government a very, very strong tool to keep track of and identify anyone they have taken a dislike to even more easily than they can do at the moment, especially concerning given recent revelations about GCHQ targeting critics of government etc.
Yeah perhaps, but isn't the parents/grandparents moral duty to do whatever they have to do, or are allowed to do within the law, to protect their children?.
Modern parental control software is actually quite easy to use, even Windows and OSX have rudimentary parental controls built in.
I would argue it is a parent's duty to educate themselves on such products, how to use them and how to (as far as possible) lock them down to make it hard for the kids to get round them. It is more a parent's duty to do that than anyone else's, and it is certainly more of a parents responsibility than it is the government's, or mine.
What about the parents/grandparents who don't give a shit?
What about the parents/grandparents who don't give a shit?
I reckon, generally speaking, that those are the parents who don't give a shit in other areas of their children's lives in which case we have more serious problems than what they are viewing online.
Yeah, the problem is that the internet really is for all. But that's also what makes it such a great place.
If we start getting into debates about who should, and should not have access to the internet, then everyone who has a dislike for any other group will want to have that other group banned or restricted.
Benjamini seems to feel adults should be banned from the internet, or the entire internet should be dumbed down to be safe for children.
Well, I'd rather no one under 18 be allowed access to the internet.
Is either point of view the right one?. Who gets to decide?. Benjamini or me?.
where did I suggest any of this? I said that the internet was a big beautiful world we should all be able to enjoy. kids, teens and adults. however no ones needs should be so exclusive that it precludes and becomes selective. The internet is not owned by anyone, nor any section of society. I do indeed monitor my child, do you monitor adult content? or is monitoring only a parental responsibility?
I have never said that porn should be removed, I have said that it should be not be easily available to children.
I reckon, generally speaking, that those are the parents who don't give a shit in other areas of their children's lives in which case we have more serious problems than what they are viewing online.
I was about to respond in much the same way, they have much bigger problems than the net (unfortunately).
I'm a strong believer in educating kids to be sensible, to understand the risks and to have clear boundaries set. That is the only way you can keep them safe.
The problem is, a lot of people seem to struggle to get their heads around what the internet actually is.
where did I suggest any of this? I said that the internet was a big beautiful world we should all be able to enjoy. kids, teens and adults. however no ones needs should be so exclusive that it precludes and becomes selective. The internet is not owned by anyone, nor any section of society. I do indeed monitor my child, do you monitor adult content? or is monitoring only a parental responsibility?
I have never said that porn should be removed, I have said that it should be not be easily available to children.
And if you use the correct parental control software, and don't opt out to the adult content filters being rolled out, it wont be easily available to children.
Why do I have to monitor adult content?. There are no children in this house, so if adult content is available on my internet connection it makes no difference to me.
If you want to monitor what your children do online, go ahead. I have absolutely zero interest in your internet connection, what it is used for, who accesses what etc. so why should I take any responsibility for what your kids do online?.
Comments
Sorry Regis.
I mistook you for Benjamini.
I also very much disagree with this notion that everything has to be made suitable for children. Adults have to live in this world too and frankly I don't want everything I do and everything I'm allowed to access to be governed by it's suitability for children. Indeed I find it an utterly ghastly concept.
Firstly, there would be one site left and it would be called "Bring back the porn"
Secondly, teens would just go back to the days of hedge porn. Good times
Something vaguely similar was suggested back in the early 1990s.
David Alton MP put forward a private members bill that would have banned any film, video or TV programme deemed to be above a 12 certificate from being available in the UK.
It was a knee jerk reaction to the Bulger killings, and thankfully it never made it into law.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444082904577606794167615620
Additionally:
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011123001526.html
I think I maybe posting in the wrong thread, my issue mainly is that fact the WWW is open to all, and that includes young children.
I know that I could 'parent' my children and remove games from them, but for example my grandson likes 'Minecraft' and I thought it seemed like a great 'building game', I heard bad language from the Ipad and realised he was listening to who knows playing the game.
Not that I'm any sort authority on that sort of thing
Yeah, the problem is that the internet really is for all. But that's also what makes it such a great place.
If we start getting into debates about who should, and should not have access to the internet, then everyone who has a dislike for any other group will want to have that other group banned or restricted.
Benjamini seems to feel adults should be banned from the internet, or the entire internet should be dumbed down to be safe for children.
Well, I'd rather no one under 18 be allowed access to the internet.
Is either point of view the right one?. Who gets to decide?. Benjamini or me?.
I just wish there was a 'Top Shelf' option, that I didn't have to stand over my children, making sure they didn't reach so easily whilst cooking a 'Healthy' meal......
In essence that's what parental controls are for.
But just as your kids could find your hidden stash of mags, or find them in a hedge, or find the stash of one of their friends dad's to get round the "top shelf", there are ways around internet blocks too.
It simply is NOT possible to 100% effectively protect kids from such stuff, short of locking them up until they are 18.
You can only do your best with the tools available, and make sure you are the kind of parent a child can come to with concerns or if they are upset by something they do come across.
Surely you, her parent, the one who knows her better than anybody else on this Earth, are most qualified to answer those questions?
I mean for Christ's sake, does the term "individual responsibility" mean nothing to anybody these days?
If you don't want them accessing dodgy content then you have to take full responsibility for them which I think should mean you should have a talk with them about it and then if you still aren't happy to trust them then make it a rule that all internet access is supervised. Every child is different and some might be mature enough for unsupervised access at a younger age with other parents not totally trusting their child until much later.
I fully understand that, but some parents/grandparents are 'thicker' than others when it comes to the Internet, and before long it might be to late to educate us or our children.
There is actually a wealth of information out there for parents who are unsure of how to best protect their children online, some of it is really rather good even for a beginner.
It's never too late to learn
As a child, there were times when the talk from grownups, made me want to investigate for myself.......and the equipment to 'investigate' is in our homes (that I do not yet know how to keep fully under lock and key).
Which illustrates my earlier response to the OP quite succinctly. Why waste time with stuff that just isn't workable. Anyone who thinks it is, needs to step back and think about it for a moment.
As for unique ID numbers, well that's probably the most dangerous thing you could do with something like the net and identification. You'll end up with a black market for ID numbers that have been obtained by security breaches and then people could have all manner of problems. That suggestion is incredibly naive and dangerous.
Yeah perhaps, but isn't the parents/grandparents moral duty to do whatever they have to do, or are allowed to do within the law, to protect their children?.
Modern parental control software is actually quite easy to use, even Windows and OSX have rudimentary parental controls built in.
I would argue it is a parent's duty to educate themselves on such products, how to use them and how to (as far as possible) lock them down to make it hard for the kids to get round them. It is more a parent's duty to do that than anyone else's, and it is certainly more of a parents responsibility than it is the government's, or mine.
Agreed, plus it gives the government a very, very strong tool to keep track of and identify anyone they have taken a dislike to even more easily than they can do at the moment, especially concerning given recent revelations about GCHQ targeting critics of government etc.
What about the parents/grandparents who don't give a shit?
I reckon, generally speaking, that those are the parents who don't give a shit in other areas of their children's lives in which case we have more serious problems than what they are viewing online.
where did I suggest any of this? I said that the internet was a big beautiful world we should all be able to enjoy. kids, teens and adults. however no ones needs should be so exclusive that it precludes and becomes selective. The internet is not owned by anyone, nor any section of society. I do indeed monitor my child, do you monitor adult content? or is monitoring only a parental responsibility?
I have never said that porn should be removed, I have said that it should be not be easily available to children.
These same parents will probably be the same ones who don't give a shit about their children in other areas of life.
I was about to respond in much the same way, they have much bigger problems than the net (unfortunately).
I'm a strong believer in educating kids to be sensible, to understand the risks and to have clear boundaries set. That is the only way you can keep them safe.
The problem is, a lot of people seem to struggle to get their heads around what the internet actually is.
And if you use the correct parental control software, and don't opt out to the adult content filters being rolled out, it wont be easily available to children.
Why do I have to monitor adult content?. There are no children in this house, so if adult content is available on my internet connection it makes no difference to me.
If you want to monitor what your children do online, go ahead. I have absolutely zero interest in your internet connection, what it is used for, who accesses what etc. so why should I take any responsibility for what your kids do online?.