Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 27586	2002-11-26 04:38:00	Kids and the Internet	cyberchuck (173)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
101552	2002-11-26 04:38:00	Hi all The content in this article may not carry the same opinion as some of you . It does not contain coarse language, but may offend . If this offends you for any reason, please contact me (mailto:madmusician66@hotmail . com) to discuss your problem Recently, I have noticed a large campaign targeting kids, mostly teenagers (like myself), about the risks of Internet Safety – I even brought myself to watch through a 20/20 documentary about it (which was boring) . It was a great article and was well presented, it was just overdone . Most teenagers are aware of the idiots out there on the internet (I know I’m one of ‘em - joking), but even more importantly, we are aware that the internet comprises of approximately 54% pornographic content . I myself have seen some of it, not that I purposely went to a pornographic site, but was bombarded with their popup windows when I went to an MP3 site – bigger fool me . Anyway, we are aware that the Internet contains “unsafe” materials and “stuff that can offend us” (as a teenage male nothing offends me) however, we know that we may see pornographic content, just as we know how to quit/close a browser window . If we see this stuff we will generally just quit out . Do people think we’re going to stare gob-smacked at the screen until our parents walk past and start screaming at us? NO… and one of the reason’s is because If we get caught at these sites, then we will be in a whole lot more trouble than I care to explain, so the sooner we’re out the better . Many schools and institutes recommend putting a computer in a “public” place so parents can monitor what their kids are doing . For young kids this is fine, as they are more likely to accidentally stumble across this material, however I know that if a link points to www . playboy . com that there is an extremely high chance of it been pornographic . However do these institutes think about privacy? – I personally get “racked off” when idiots are peering over my shoulder and reading my instant messages or emails . What is the point in having a private conversation/email if the rest of the world is going to read it? What if I was to get all their emails and online communications forwarded to my home computer (apart from killing my bandwidth) would they care if I read every email they sent? I think so, how would you feel if every online transaction that was made by you was overseen by me? We are aware that “chatting” is unsafe and that some fruit-loop may wish to contact us and gain access to personal information . Firstly, in the majority of Instant Messaging Programs I’ve trialed, in order for two parties to communicate the first must initiate the conversation by adding the second user . If the second user says “bugger off” then the conversation never takes place . “However if the second says yeah, I’ll talk to you” then they can communicate . Now I (personally) am pedantic about online privacy/safety/etc . I use a Hotmail account which changes once a year, I have a false online name and addresses are randomated for every site I visit (except for 3) however, If teens wish to extend their friendship to other people go ahead… Friendship is a two way thing, and in most cases if the “second” user does not know the “first” then they get blocked . End of sentence . (which explains why my blocked list is bigger than my allowed list) If parents are so paranoid about Internet Safety, why not invest in NetNanny (which is easily defeated when you know how) or even safer – use Watchdog or Xtra CyberPatrol as your ISP, then at-least they know that there is no way to bypass these filters . Furthermore, Symantec and McAfee have Content Filters, you just enter in “secure” details and if they detect that these “secure” details are been sent online then you can get them either blocked, or get a warning screen appear to alert you of what’s happening . This software is relatively cheap, so why not invest in it? Also, my school (which I can’t tell you – One of the rules in the “Principal’s Digest”) and many others, hire people to come and educate parents on Online Safety . I’m amazed at how many parents go . The majority of them use the internet at work and home . They are aware of the risks involved and will pass this information onto their kids so they don’t get “caught-out” . Really… Online Safety starts with the FAMILY . If reasonable guidelines are setup, then you shouldn’t need to invest in programs and safety monitors . For example my parents think I’m mature (stop laughing… I can still hear you… STOP IT) enough to handle the internet without a “baby-filter” and I am, although I have come across “bad” content, I just close the window and keep browsing . I’m personally feed up by this online safety propaganda . I’m aware of the risks involved and so are the majority of other teenagers, so why stuff this stuff down us when we know it already and don’t need to know it any more? CyberChuck	cyberchuck (173)
101553	2002-11-26 04:51:00	well said! I think that for younger people 7-13 than a net filter is the best way to stop them browsinh into pron and such like. for older teens 14+ most of them can ahck around a filter and they know what they are getting into (thats why they hack the filter :-) ) education is a better solution than censorship. by the age of 14 most teens will have access to the internet at school and at home. even if both places have a filter then they can get access at one of many cyber-cafes. if a 14 year old wants to find porn then o adult will be able to stop them, this is true both in cyberspace and at the corner dairy.	robsonde (120)
101554	2002-11-26 04:52:00	Why?, because not all teenagers are as level headed or internet savvy as you . Good advice should be given loud, clear and often . The majority may well know . If the advice or the "propaganda" informs ONE person and that ONE person is able to avoid being subjected to any form of abuse then it is worth it . sam m	sam m (517)
101555	2002-11-26 05:45:00	Hey Still, I agree if one person wants to view porn, then there is no way you can stop them, but through the "propoganda" stuffed down our necks we get sick of hearing this stuff - even the nutcases that enjoy porn get sick of it. I was educated in Primary about "Net Threats" and the perverted molesters that go with it (back in the days of 33.6K modems) - and from there I have heard too much of it. Did you watch the 20/20 documentary? if not then some mother advised her daughter about all these threats, but she had a computer in her room, and ended up dead about a month later. It was found out that she was hosting her own porn site, and that she had had cybersex with 20 year olds (she was 14), and had physically met up with some of them and had physical sex with them. You cannot tell me that it works... Too much of something is bad (isn't that how the saying goes?) well, too much propaganda just minimalizes the effect that teachings on online safety have	cyberchuck (173)
101556	2002-11-26 06:46:00	> Hey > > Still, I agree if one person wants to view porn, then > there is no way you can stop them, but through the > "propoganda" stuffed down our necks we get sick of > hearing this stuff - even the nutcases that enjoy > porn get sick of it . You have got to be kidding! Does this mean because YOU are sick of it then we should say "ok that's enough, every teenager in the whole wide world knows about the dangers online so we should stop trying to educate them" That would be like saying, "ok we have been driving now for 100 years, we don't need to teach anyone any more the Road Rules" > > I was educated in Primary about "Net Threats" and the > perverted molesters that go with it (back in the days > of 33 . 6K modems) - and from there I have heard too > much of it . So you speak for everyone younger than you who maybe today bought their very first computer . > > Did you watch the 20/20 documentary? if not then some > mother advised her daughter about all these threats, > but she had a computer in her room, and ended up dead > about a month later . It was found out that she was > hosting her own porn site, and that she had had > cybersex with 20 year olds (she was 14), and had > physically met up with some of them and had physical > sex with them . Exactly the more reason to get more education out there . Did the progamme say how many kids have been saved from learning about online dangers . From your own admission you have learnt through "Net Threats" . > > You cannot tell me that it works . . . Too much of > something is bad (isn't that how the saying goes?) > well, too much propaganda just minimalizes the effect > that teachings on online safety have You are probably right here . Warnings about cigarettes have increase dramatically in the last 20 years yet people still smoke . You say that you have heard enough, maybe so . I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say . Should we stop trying to educate teenagers about online safety or should we try a different approach? My girls are 4 and 2 . By the time they are your age I would still like to see proactive education about this danger . Don't you agree? sam m	sam m (517)
101557	2002-11-26 07:22:00	Hey Because we've been driving for hundreds of years we practically don't need to teach anyone the road rules. I mean when I (a few months back) got my liscence (another teenage holigan on the streets) I really didn't need the RoadCode book - everything that was in it I knew from watching my parents drive Also, just because people read the road code and passes a practical test doesn't mean that their instantly good safe drivers. They have to learn how to properly drive, and even then it doesn't stop the boyracers. Also how many 5 year olds do you know that buy computers? none that I know of. Although they may have access to computers ant the internet, they should still be educated in Net Safety (contradicts my point really) however, at a certain age can't you just say "Enoughs enough". My dad works in law enforcement, and although he "slaps people on the hand" in the long run it does nothing as the next week their right back with him Although we have agreed that too much doesn't work, I agree that we should be warned, but really, schools and tv programs us warning us, just wastes 50mins of my school day. If anything shouldn't it be parent's that are warning their kids of the dangers of the internet, and although a PE teacher raised this point with the topics of Health (as in parents should teach kids about health and sex-ed, etc instead of wasting Phys. Ed time). It seems like the only thing I've managed to do by this thread is contradict myself and say that parents need to take a pro-active role in their kids lives. But, my sister absolutely hates her dad looking over her shoulder reading her instant conversations (can't blame her - I installed a keylogger the other day and, yeah, anyway) I realise dad's just making sure she's not up to mischief, but where is the line between safety and invasion of privacy? Thanks for your comments.. Really got me thinking about this	cyberchuck (173)
101558	2002-11-26 07:48:00	I see that the real point that you wanted to make is at what stage do you become an adult and respected and trusted to make the right decisions . And that the decisions that you make are private and informed . That is the decision of your parents and to them I applaud their active monitoring . At least you know they care, maybe the horrible statistics of teenagers targeted by predatory scumbags would be less if more parents took a more active monitoring role while kids are online . Your earlier comments focused on the amount of warnings that are constantly fired (seemingly) at you . From the point of those that promote those safety warnings is that everyday new people join the internet, a % of them are uninformed young adults . They don't know who they are or how much they know . While you are thinking about this, why not devise a plan/project that may get the message through to those who say "yeah I know it all" but ignore the heedings and get involved anyway . Similar to the SADD campaign which I think was student run in an effort to reduce drunk driving . sam m	sam m (517)
101559	2002-11-26 08:20:00	While there are Dilberts like the Childrens Comissioner, Mr Rodger McLay (an ex MP) there will be a lot of scare-mongering. I prefer to teach my kids whats right or wrong on the Net, and so far touch wood.	Baldy (26)
101560	2002-11-26 10:05:00	The world is made up of people and people, both adults and kids, do stupid things. We currently live in a climate of "responsibility". If something goes wrong then it is absolutely essential that "someone is to blame". If a kid is found accessing an inappropriate site or passing on personal information then the blame war starts. Parents blame teachers, teachers blame parents, the community blames the parents AND the teachers and so it goes on. Sorry kids, no matter how mature you think you are if adults don't cover their backs by ramming the rules down your throats then they are at risk themselves from the blame war. Don't worry, it's not just "watching the kids". In the real world employers also watch their staff. One or two judges and principals have been in the hot seat lately for inappropriate use of work computers, others have also lost jobs for the same thing. Basically it seems that the world is made up of a lot of slow learners so repetition is the only way of teaching the rules. Boring for the fast learners though.	Heather P (163)
101561	2002-11-26 17:40:00	Hey When you put it this way > I see that the real point that you wanted to make is > at what stage do you become an adult and respected > and trusted to make the right decisions . I agree that parents need to take a proactive role in online safety, however, how do you inform parents about internet safety . The mum on the 20/20 documentary said she had told her daughter about the threats of it, and assumed that she was abiding by them . I see where you are coming from and if I was in the same situation (with kids) as you, then I would most certainly prefer them been constantly warned about the threats of online safety > While you are thinking about this, why not devise a > plan/project that may get the message through to > those who say "yeah I know it all" but ignore the > heedings and get involved anyway . Similar to the SADD > campaign which I think was student run in an effort > to reduce drunk driving . How would this plan be targetted . Like the drunk driving ads on TV with the drunk who accidentally "drove" his friend on a motorbike off the cliff . The first few times I saw that i said "Yeah, good ad . Should give drunk drivers something to think about" and then from there (as it was shown so often) it changed to "just another ad" The same goes with the music department at school . On one of the doors is a smokers body (really disgusting) and it has cancer, and something like Psoriosis or something (skin condition), etc . I thought "Great, might reduce the numbers of idiots at our school that smoke", then a week later someone pointed out to me "well to them (the smokers), it's like that drunk driving ad with you . They've seen it already and won't stop . The hard question is HOW do you target parents about online safety for their kids? - schools run campaigns and get speakers in on the subject, there's (online) safety commissions setup in NZ http://www . safekids . com/ - which is kinda ironic . Kind of like putting an ambulance down the bottom of a cliff instead of a fence at the top (or how the saying goes) - Shouldn't warnings start before the kid(s) have access to a computer with online services? (like what schools are doing) . Anyone can read out the statistics of kids that meet people from the internet, but it takes brains to figure out how to make people actually want to listen to them Finally, (and I will understand if you don't want to answer this) when (if not now) your daughters start using the internet how do you plan on keeping them safe?	cyberchuck (173)
1 2