Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EC Tests Show Windows Vista Is Above Average — At Blocking Content

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the bad-oysters-good-laxative dept.

Microsoft 101

littlekorea writes "Microsoft's much-maligned Vista operating system has been named in the top three of 26 tools tested by the European Commission to filter out web content deemed inappropriate for children. The EC tests found that none of the 26 products enjoyed a 100 percent success rate, failing to block over one in five adult sites. It also found that few tools could overcome the workarounds available through cache or translation sites."

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Even better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903484)

I run 6 windows CE and Me machines at home and they are great for keeping my kids safe.

Re:Even better (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904674)

I don't get why they mention vista though. vista by itself does nothing, it's all the parts on top of it. IE, filtering, user privileges, UAC, whatever, but that's not "vista".

sounds like marketing hype or fud or something.

Re:Even better (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906894)

White lists, I think it is an even "better better" when it comes to small children. The sites you want them on are far fewer and it's easier to say where you want to be able to go than where you don't want them to go.

But I never had any luck finding an application that facilitates creating and implementing a white list.

Re:Even better (0)

aquila.solo (1231830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34908470)

Heh. Just wait for APK and his magical HOSTS file. It will probably be something like:

Copy the entire contents of the DNS server into THIS multi-GB file with all the domains pointing to 0.0.0.0 (<- this parses faster than using 127.0.0.1) then, simply delete the sites you want to allow.

APK

Re:Even better (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918776)

Do not speak His name! He just aquired the Eldritch Killbox.exe, the most powerful program in all existence! Combined with His Button of Restart and the aforementioned Host File of Invisibility .. He possess the ability to take on Death.2012.trj_kern itself!

Windows Phone 7 is great too (3, Funny)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903498)

Once its used up your allowance [engadget.com] nothing gets past it at all.

Re:Windows Phone 7 is great too (3, Informative)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903538)

From your link:

It seems to be related to the automatic "Feedback" in the settings menu being enabled by default. It seems to periodically send MS large packets of data. Turn off the automatic feedback to eliminate this.

The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903510)

...is Windows 7.

Seriously, I get a solid 5 fps more in vista with the exact same settings, and that's on games where the sweet spot is 'tight' like GTAIV. My free copy of 7 sits unused.

Ok, so this is a bit off topic, but why did everyone think 7 was better. I just can't figure it out.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903580)

Vista had a lot of shitty drivers at launch, as they moved to a new driver model. If a product doesn't give better tangible features than it breaks when you upgrade, no matter how improved the core is no-one will give a shit. What was improved for non-gamers, Aero and ..... yeah.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903984)

What was improved for non-gamers, Aero and ..... yeah.

Lotsa stuff:

  • Windows Explorer (quit bitching about the "Up" button and try a breadcrumb!)
  • Internet Explorer (... of course it still sucked, but it was improved)
  • USB storage and digital cameras
  • Security Model (yes, yes, UAC is annoying as fuck, we get it)

....bah fuck it. Just because I liked Vista doesn't mean I'll ever convince anyone else that it was good. One thing I did notice though: Vista and 7 don't have that "entropy" that Windows XP and its predecessors did. Previous editions of NT all kept getting slower and slower the longer it had been since your install date. NT6 doesn't do that. It's quite nice.

One thing that made me smile though: I got to talking with a fellow I know who has worked for Microsoft for the last 15 years or so about 6 months after Windows 7 launched. I pulled him aside, patted him on the shoulder and said, "I have to thank you and your company for releasing a product that has truly shown everyone what a wonderful product Windows Vista really was."

Had we not been in public, I swear I would've made the man cry :D

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904312)

The best thing of Vista I noticed in my short experience was that it required rights escalation at every important change. I was shocked (although I should have expected it) to read people were disabling it, or even that there was an easy option to do so.
I am happy that the OS asks me whether I want to install something, for that increases the chance it will also ask me when it starts installing a virus. I am unhappy that it is possible to disable this. It should be so deep in the OS that a simple one point allow all screwups is impossible.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904478)

The best thing of Vista I noticed in my short experience was that it required rights escalation at every important change. I was shocked (although I should have expected it) to read people were disabling it, or even that there was an easy option to do so.

My partner got a laptop that had Vista on it and finds this annoying (if it is what I think it is, I've not used Vista apart from looking at her laptop when something goes wrong on it). If something was going to happen, the laptop would freeze for a few seconds, with no warning, then make the background darker and pop up a message. It would even do this if you were in the middle of something. Its not so much what it was doing that was objectivable, more the speed (or lack thereof) it took to do it, and the inability to do anything else while it was loading its pop up box.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904744)

The secure desktop is actually the most annoying thing about UAC, specifically because it interrupts you and forces your attention to an administrative decision.

There's a security policy that lets you disable the use of the secure desktop for these prompts though.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (2)

MareLooke (1003332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903582)

Better marketing.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903604)

sounds like you need better hardware..My win7 x64 plays all my games just fine, Crysis included.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903650)

sounds like you need better hardware..My win7 x64 plays all my games just fine, Crysis included.

I should hope it would. My XP machine from a couple of years back plays Crysis fine. The question is, on the same hardware does win7 run it better or worse than XP?

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903914)

When I was fighting a RAM compatibility issue with my motherboard, I tried installing XP x64 and x86. 7 outperforms XP on my box in every way. Of course, YMMV, but I feel it really is better overall than XP, especially regarding productivity and the task bar improvements in general.

Re:7 vs XP (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904264)

This is the comparison I am reviewing. I'm really becoming a member of the Good Enough club lately. Not so sure why the EC didn't review Windows 7 in that study but oh well..
For ideological reasons I am waiting for Windows 8. Vista, fine, it's gone. 7 was "Fix Vista". So to me that leaves Windows 8 to "do something" interesting to see if it can really knock XP off the perch in a Tech World Agrees manner.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (-1, Offtopic)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903618)

Have you stopped to think that perhaps the problem is your video card and not your OS?

I am amazed at how smooth the graphics are in my games with Win 7 ultimate 64 bit, but then again I have 2 Nvidia Geforce 470 graphics cards in SLI mode... you get what you pay for you know. Win 7 gave me a pretty crappy FPS when I just had my GeForce 9400 GT running. But then again so did linux, when I actually managed to run something under wine.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903788)

So Vista has a better video card than Windows 7?

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (2)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903640)

why did everyone think 7 was better. I just can't figure it out.

Because it is. It sounds like you've got some troublesome hardware or a badly configured system.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

Dan1701 (1563427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904132)

Windows Vista suffered terribly from a bug possibly caused by too-rigorous DRM implementation; it caused file copy and move to be extremely slow; the entire OS also gave the impression of bloated sluggishness. Windows 7, by contrast, is really quite nippy and has decently fast file copy etc. Admittedly you don't get virtual desktops as per Linux and MacOS and the security side of things is still a bit ropey, but the overall impression is of a much improved OS (and this is a die-hard UNIX geek saying this, too).

The only real gripe I have regarding Windows 7 is some truly boneheaded decisions regarding drivers that Microsoft seem to have made, which we discovered a few months back.

Take one fairly standard PC, with an unusual USB keyboard. Ubuntu Linux supports everything out of the box with the install CD. So does Windows 7 Enterprise. But Windows 7 Home edition doesn't recognise the keyboard. This, frankly, is a pretty daft way to do things; you're way more likely to encounter weird hardware in the home market than you are in the heavily controlled and standardised Industry market, so skimping on the drivers on the Home edition doesn't make much sense.

Apart from that, I agree with Microsoft: Windows 7 really is the best Windows ever. Give it a few decades, and it'll be almost as good as Linux...

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (2)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904516)

I agree, Windows 7 is not perfect by any means but isn't bad and it's better than Vista. That driver story does seems like a strange choice of theirs.

Personally I think the worst part of Windows 7 is the search box. They appear to have removed as much functionality as possible in order to be able to fit it in the top-right-hand corner, like Apple did. Unless I'm missing something I can no longer specify case sensitivity or whether or not to search in sub-folders. They didn't even include an animated puppy to cheer me up!*

*this bit is a joke

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906024)

I agree with you on the search box, but feel obliged to point out that abomination was introduced in Vista, not Seven. The thing I really miss about it is the ability to search within files. Windows XP I could easily search for, say, *.txt containing the string 'Chat log backup 2009' - something I do need to do, as I use text files to list which of my many hard drives things are stored on. Under Vista or Seven, that's completly impossible without using a third-party search utility.

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904848)

The only real gripe I have regarding Windows 7 is some truly boneheaded decisions regarding drivers that Microsoft seem to have made, which we discovered a few months back.

There's hardware out there that just hasn't received proper Windows 7 support. It comes from the Vista era, and it would work great in Windows 7 if the driver's didn't suck, but you won't buy any new hardware if you can run Windows 7 on the new stuff. My Gateway "netbook" (subnotebook is more accurate description) with AMD R690M chipset is a great example. The graphics driver for Vista that works with it is newer than the graphics driver for Windows 7. The recommended Windows 7 driver makes my machine lock up and experience graphics corruption, and I am using a driver which doesn't say up front that it will work at all.

What a load of crap (1)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34907250)

I'd like to see some proof that the slow copy in Vista (which was fixed before sp1) was caused by a DRM bug.

I've never heard of Windows not recognizing a USB keyboard. Why don't you cite the hardware or we'll assume you are just trolling for Linux

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34904992)

Because it is.

Did you forget to finish your thought, or am I futilely communicating with a child?

It sounds like you've got some troublesome hardware or a badly configured system.

Then I must have the same troublesome hardware that everyone else is using; the majority of people get higher gaming benchmarks on Vista. (explorer and desktop management excluded - they did throw in more crap to speed that up a bit - though, not much use to me).

It sounds to me like you actually purchased a copy of 7 to upgrade with...am I wrong?

Re:The only thing worse than Vista... (1)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34910828)

Ok, so this is a bit off topic, but why did everyone think 7 was better. I just can't figure it out.

Even more offtopic, it's like the Obama campaign: people wanted a change so bad they actually believed in it.

Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (5, Insightful)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903522)

As long as you aren't ready to let your kid run free on the internet and see all there is to see, use white-lists. Anything else is doomed to fail.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903858)

I don't see that option in Mozilla/Seamonkey or Firefox.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

Warma (1220342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903874)

I know I'm probably a bit immature and this is not even on topic, but these posts endorsing or even accepting censorship of the internet always feel depressing. I remember how in my youth, Internet was one of the free territories, disjoint from actual reality - where parents and other boring adults could not function and thus had no authority over.

Sure, I saw my share of Japanese women in dubious activities, but why should anyone care? Seriously. What about the kids of the future? Where do they go if they just want to see some porn or play unnecessarily violent videogames?

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (4, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903988)

If you read the report on this page [lse.ac.uk] "Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings" you'll see that some children were negatively affected by what they saw on the internet -- mostly ones that saw violent pornography.

I think there's little reason to block things if a teenager is actively searching for them, but there are good reasons to prevent a nine year old child seeing something unpleasant, for example children can have difficulty separating fantasy from reality. For the same reason, advertisers here aren't allowed to advertise a violent horror film during a programme children are likely to see.

The blocking software/services are managed by parents, and I don't see any difference in principle between blocking web content and hiding your 18+ films in the back of a cupboard.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904120)

What's a nine year old doing online alone?

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904268)

What's a nine year old doing online alone?

Perhaps something they don't want their parents to see, but not necessarily something their parents wouldn't want them to do.

(Example: sending messages to a friend.)

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904336)

Put the pc in the living room, you don't need to sit next to them & read every link they click to know what they're doing.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (3, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904350)

Let him. Just use a Whitelisted system. There are Kids Browsers out there. If he wants a site in his browser, "he has to ask IT". That's the mentality we should promote, not "the net is too big and scary".

I'd rather a kid gets to do things without mommy and just know in the background that say when he turns 14 he can get "the adult internet".

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34910966)

Let him. Just use a Whitelisted system. There are Kids Browsers out there. If he wants a site in his browser, "he has to ask IT". That's the mentality we should promote, not "the net is too big and scary".

It's a good idea but the net is big and scary so, lets be realistic and honest about it. Whats appropriate is for a child to be able to develop the skills to use it properly. That means, if your idea is to become effective, that it's also necessary to discuss their choices. Understanding the choices develops the relationship with the child and helps them to make their own decisions responsibly. If a child knows you are going to monitor their website choices there is a better chance that they will start to associate consequences with their choices.

But your premise is right on. Society molly-coddles children too much instead of making them take responsibility for their own actions. Letting a child use the internet is analogous to letting a child use a knife. Instead of showing them how to use it and then saying "But be careful if you use it incorrectly it will cut you and that hurts" we just blunt the knife until it's ineffective. The damage the net can to to an impressionable mind is just not as obvious than that from the knife. If a child is taught how to use the net then the chances they will be able to educate and entertain themselves are increased.

Re:scary (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34913676)

We both agree on "developing the skills". Let's say there's two entirely different classes of skills. One skill level is much like muscle memory. It's that Tyrrany of Choice problem, which a child is less equipped to handle. He needs raw time just to sign on to KidMessenger and just chatter without every session being monitored by BigParents.

Then a couple of years later, say age 12, they get to peek at the Grownup Internet which STILL has KidMessenger, and a lot of L33t stuff ... and a lot of sharks. So then they can have a Lesson on Skills Using the Adult Net. Then they can go back to their nice cozy Kid System for another week.

When they finally get "Parental Say So" to the Adult Net, they'll have had time to process risk evaluating clicks.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904894)

If you live in the USA, you know that every major kids program and related advertising out there lures them to shopping-related content and educational activities --the ads say "Please ask for your parents permission to go online and play with Dora [flash games with your favorite TV show chars]."

If you know Americans, who are king amongst the time-spent-vegging-near-the-TV world, you'll also know the sad reality that parents don't monitor their kids closely... they unwittingly teach them from ages 3 and up that the TV as a babysitter device since it keeps them from wrecking the house and all. Sadly, the computer is starting to capture that role for the older kids, and parents just say "I left you playing that Nickelodeon channel game and fell asleep"

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904810)

A little known fact is that starting in 2006, MS gifted its Vista and later OSs with Parental controls [microsoft.com] enforceable for non-admin accounts. It blocks DVDs, games and even has time-of-day restrictions (uTorrent-like-scheduler GUI) and website white-lists / blacklists (the latter has logging avaiable to any Admin account also), the same as any modern TV's for off-the-air TV in the USA.

The problem is that few people know or care to use these controls. Fortunately, you guys may benefit now that you know. I don't have Seven, and it rubs me the wrong way that the demo video I linked lacks the "Windows Web filter" button... they may have moved it elsewhere or "decided" we don't need this kinda power anymore.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34906686)

Use Windows Live Family Safety for Windows 7. The reports it generates puts together data from all machines on your home network, and the parental controls for your home network can be controlled from anywhere with its online integration.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904016)

I personally agree on not hiding the facts of life from kids, but I am going to make it perfectly clear what is acceptable and what isn't. I also respect some parents wishes to regulate the their kids internet usage more carefully. Making that as easy as possible might prevent stupid parents from extorting law makers to drawing up stupid and pointless regulation for the sake of protecting the children that end up spoiling the internet for everyone.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904160)

How old were you when you got access to the Internet for the first time? I think I was 14, maybe slightly older. This was with a 14.4Kb/s modem initially, so most web browsing was done with images off and I spent most of the time in IRC or similar chat systems. I could probably have met some pedophiles there, but there were so few children online back then that I don't think there were any about.

The Internet today is quite different. Access is pretty much ubiquitous, so children are getting online before they are even teenagers, and it's a much larger and more commercial network. I'd consider parents not exercising some control over what their nine-year-old child looks at online to be just as irresponsible as not exercising some control over what films or TV shows they watch.

That doesn't mean that the Internet in general should be censored, but it does mean that I don't have a problem with tools in operating systems, browsers, and routers, that make it easy for parents to keep an eye on what their children are doing online.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34905712)

That's up to the parent to decide. The previous poster doesn't look like they're advocating censoring the internet, they're advocating that if the PARENTS of CHILDREN (you know, the people who get to decide what is good for children) take the correct measures if they deem it necessary. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I firmly believe that parents should take an active role in showing and teaching their children about the internet. On the flip side, I think children should be given enough slack to make some mistakes of their own or they'll never learn to be decent people.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903920)

There are easy enough ways around that, too. It's almost impossible to lock down a machine someone has unrestricted physical access to, especially for those who don't have the technical skill to know all the various workarounds. Hell, it's difficult for those who do have extensive technical skill.

The solution here is lower tech. As long as you aren't ready to let your kid run free on the internet and see all there is to see, supervise them while they use it. And realize that's not even a perfect solution, as their friend might have a smartphone.

If you haven't taught your kids to be responsible and thoughtful, preferably by example, nothing else you do is going to work. If you have, then them seeing a naughty picture is not the end of the world.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904018)

The solution here is lower tech.

I don't have kids, but I remember what it was like to be one. I consider being able to bypass a firewall to be a means of proving your readiness to view pornography.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904970)

Does bypassing them without doing any educational growing up count? You won't feel the same if you think you're turning off your firewall because your kid is "grown" when someone else did all the work.

They can learn from other kids in their classes, just like they learn the rest about sex without our help and from links in their gaming forums. We've already seen 13-year-olds asking how they can bypass security at forums, and they usually good receive tips on proxies and default router passwords (which no slashdotter will fall for, but we're only a small portion of the real "victims" here.)

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904134)

Not if the restriction is on the connection, not on the machine. It would be relatively simple to build in a child safe interface into common home routers that the parents can manage adding white-listing to the "kids" network.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904226)

Routers already have this ability, and mine to my knowledge will allow either black or whitelisting. Unless you have your router in a locked and guarded room, though, I'd reiterate the point of physical access. Most common home routers have a pretty simple way to reset to factory defaults by holding a button on them.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904688)

Res-etting hardware is not a traceless crime. Any kid doing it will get caught very very fast , since the router will stop working without its ADSL/pppoe settings for most cases and in others, reset to defaults for unknown reasons is immediately obvious + the parents passwords stop working. And then the kid is in for quick lesson in what the world thinks of tampering with other peoples hardware through one serious loss of privileges.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (2)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904144)

I would add that if your kids access pornography through google cache or translation services, it means they were actively looking for it, hence they are ready for it. The goal of parental control is to prevent kids from accidentally stumble on sexual content. But you will never manage to prevent them from getting it once they become a little bit tech-savvy.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (2)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904896)

Well worded.

Besides, kids from slashdotters know how to run a Live Disk and, when necessary, use the old modem to access the net.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906864)

And soon will be renting access to their proxy server or VPN to other students at school

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34914978)

By that stage I'd hope my daughter would be kind enough to cut me in on the proceeds...

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917494)

...in exchange of sexual favors.
The cycle is closed.

Re:Whitelisting, not blacklisting damnit... (2)

awol (98751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904416)

My kids are heading towards this age and I feel this area is very complex.

I don't want my kids to be afraid to surf anywhere, but by the same token, I want to know where they are going, but then again I can imagine that there are things they might want to research that they don't want me to know about. So my regime at the moment is... everything will be logged through the access proxy installed at our home. Except for periods of time where they can go and look at anything they want, but during these times, they must be supervised by an adult that we trust, of which we know enough that are sufficiently broad minded that I know there is nothing they couldn't go surfing for if they wanted to.

In particular I am thinking sites about sexuality, drugs, medical issues or other controversial topics that theor parents could never understand.... :-)

If this goes well, they will be allowed to surf unsupervised and unlogged as they get older.

Some problems do not require technical solutions, or rather do not require gatekeepers but perhaps better chaperones.

100% is possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903536)

Disconnect from the internet, only way to get 100% success rate

Re:100% is possible (2)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903632)

Don't forget the door to your room when you are in the act of creating personal backups with your better half....

Re:100% is possible (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903638)

Actually it isn't. or do you think there was no porn before the internet? Playboy is what 50 years old? Hell most kids think looking that the lingerie section of the catalog is good enough too.

The problem is kids are smarter than their parents can understand they are. by the time I was 8 I had figured out the basics of Sex. that man sticks his thingie into a woman = kid. My parents didn't bother teaching me anything about it until I was 16.

Kids can figure out things easier than their parents as they don't have the preconceived notions of artificial limitations that adults do.

Re:100% is possible (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904024)

Actually it isn't. or do you think there was no porn before the internet? Playboy is what 50 years old? Hell most kids think looking that the lingerie section of the catalog is good enough too.

Most European kids can just look at billboards or TV adverts for that.

I could see Page Three of The Sun (etc) as soon as I was old enough to read a newspaper, but that never showed someone giving a horse a blowjob, which was the first electronic porn image I saw (emailed to the whole class by someone at school's older brother when I was 11). Accessible printed porn doesn't show anything violent or especially abnormal.

Re:100% is possible (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906156)

Disconnect from the internet, only way to get 100% success rate

No, there is another way to be sure!

openDNS content filtering (4, Informative)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903540)

"OpenDNS gives you the option to block dozens of categories on your networks, for free. From social networking to job sites, from gambling to video sharing, from webmail to alcohol and more: with OpenDNS, you make the choice about what's available on your network" link [opendns.com]

Re:openDNS content filtering (4, Informative)

Feinu (1956378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903706)

OpenDNS Basic is ranked at 22 of the 26 solutions that were tested, scoring below average on all four categories: Functionality, Effectiveness, Usability and Security. The list is available here [europa.eu] .

Interestingly, Mac OS X ranked as the best solution, scoring better than all the tested purpose-built options.

Re:openDNS content filtering (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906178)

Interestingly, Mac OS X ranked as the best solution, scoring better than all the tested purpose-built options.

Then why the hell is the article about Vista?

Next we'll get "User share tests show Debian is above average".

Re:openDNS content filtering (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903724)

...and does not know about many sites, and does not block new sites ....

Something that is 80% effective is worse than useless for protection

All this proves this that filtering in all browsers is rubbish (even IE) and should not be relied upon, internet filtering software is better but still not as effective as it needs to be

The only two solutions are :

1) Don't let your kid on the internet at all - Not practical nowadays
2) Supervise your children ....rather than trying to let technology do it for you ...

Re:openDNS content filtering (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904348)

I keep seeing people praising the many virtues of OpenDNS on various blogs and forums relating to this subject. Their praise is so unrestrained, I suspect now that OpenDNS is running some soft of astroturfing campaign. Or perhaps just one one very active supporter patroling the same sites as me.

Not this comment though. His history is too diverse - this one looke genuine.

Re:openDNS content filtering (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34905278)

Apart from appearing in some tables, the report gives no real data as to the methods used to produce the results in relation to OpenDNS, as such it's next to useless. According to the web site 'OpenDNS basic' utilizes a whitelist, as such it would totally block all non-whitelisted content.

Re:openDNS content filtering (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34905982)

And I'm sure the 10e-8% of the internet that allows you to look at is very educational. /s

If you use a whitelist, you're basically asking the user to find a way around it.

A great cite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903542)

Nothing like an article that is light on details that comments related to said article start off with a flamewar.

I just love the ingerity of the cited sources around here.

It works because... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903562)

...it crashes every time you try to visit a website.

Parental resposibility (and article correction) (4, Informative)

tomknight (190939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903564)

Very interesting area. Before people start saying that parents need to take control themselves (instead of letting software do their job for them), I as a parent of a seven year old believe I should do both. Be around to help, as well as give my daughter freedom and independence. She's not daft, but there is always the chance (especially on flash-games type sites) for interesting popups to... diversify her web and life experience. I use k9 filtering to help avoid this sort of thing. Wow, this almost sounds like a customer testimonial, sorry....

Anway, the article sadly has a duff link in it. The report's *really* at:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/projects/filter_label/sip_bench2/index_en.htm [europa.eu]

The full report PDF is:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/sip_bench2_results/report_jan11.pdf [europa.eu]

See also:
http://www.yprt.eu/sip/ [www.yprt.eu]

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903592)

P.S. Yes, my browser of choice (Opera) does help by reducing most popups, but of course IE still works on my PC and that's a different kettle of fish entirely....

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903630)

Personally I don't have much of a problem with this "interesting" stuff popping up unexpectedly. The only filter that I use is called AdBlockPlus (and that's not intended to block adult stuff, it just blocks the unwanted part). Oh well and the pop-up blocker in FF of course (are there actually any sites still using pop-ups?).

Short of ads, the only way to see adult material is to intentionally go for it. Via Google searches (you may want to switch on SafeSearch - by the time they're interested enough to switch it off most other filters will be bypassed too) and the like.

For the rest I pretty much agree with you. Let them play. And be around to keep half an eye on what's going on. As for your P.S.: I don't know about IE much; it doesn't have a Linux version available.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34909716)

Short of ads, the only way to see adult material is to intentionally go for it.

You must be new to web forums.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

JunkmanUK (909293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903652)

Well said. It's important for my kids to be able to experience the fun and freedom of the internet without "extra-curricular" interference. There's no difference between that and my deploying a spam filter to remove the 'unwanted annoyances'!

I use k9 as well so I can agree with your "testimonial" ;)

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903838)

Very interesting area. Before people start saying that parents need to take control themselves (instead of letting software do their job for them), I as a parent of a seven year old believe I should do both.

Oh, I've never seen anybody on Slashdot say that parents using software at home to keep stuff away from their kids is ethically objectionable. Quite a few people have (rightly) pointed out that it's not perfect, in fact cannot be, and that clever kids will likely find a way around it sooner or later (and my bet is on "sooner"), but that's a different thing.

What people have been very strongly opposed to is the idea that filtering of some sort should be a) mandatory (legally speaking) or opt-out; or b) performed at the ISP level.

I know I don't mind anyone installing a filter to keep their daughter away from "adult" websites (which I may add is not limited to sex and violence), as long as they don't try to interfere with those websites themselves, or the general Internet.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903978)

>>>there is always the chance (especially on flash-games type sites) for interesting popups to..... diversify her web and life experience.

I don't see any harm if my child sees a nudie pic or two.
And for the really nasty stuff, would not see that
unless she's deliberately searching for it.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34908894)

And if you ever have children, you are certainly free to raise them in that manner. Meanwhile, I will raise my kids as I see fit, and would appreciate it if you would not condemn me for it.

Commodore64_love, pro-choice on everything (that they agree with).

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34914738)

>>>would appreciate it if you would not condemn me for it.

Strawman argument. I did nothing of the sort. I expressed MY opinion one what I would do with MY child, and said not one word about yours. Dumbass.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34918434)

I expressed MY opinion one what I would do with MY child

In a tone which says "I'm a better parent than you". But you just keep on being your trollish self. Makes it that much easier to downmod you :)

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (0)

Bidouleroux (711298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904284)

Here's an idea: talk to your child about sex early (and I mean very early, like 5-6 years old). That way you won't have to bother with a useless filter and they will be better able to protect themselves against sexual predators. And don't worry about them having "premature" sex or whatever. Once you've satisfied their initial curiosity about sex they won't do it until they feel an urge for it at adolescence. Now, having "the talk" with your teenager is another matter. If you did things well though, you shouldn't even have to have it.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

kcitren (72383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904460)

The whole "parents should take responsibility instead of using software" thing is a crock to begin with. To use a car analogy, it's like saying you shouldn't put seatbelts in your kids car, they should learn how to drive better. Multiple levels of protection, up to a point and cost permitting, are always better.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906090)

The best filtering of all is to use duff links! Nothing beats a 404 error for all-family viewer suitability!

Anyway, what value is there to a report that covers an obsolete OS that no-one can buy anymore? And everyone knows that the only reason Vista scores well is it makes everything difficult for everyone. That doesn't mean it's "safe", it means it's a horrible user experience.

If Vista counts as safe I have an even better tool to enhance that safety; squirt insulating foam in through your computer's fan outlets. Give it an hour and I can guarantee it will never display anything remotely child-unfriendly, to anyone, ever again. Not even Vista can promise that level of total safety. Although it tries, it really tries.

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34910878)

Be around to help, as well as give my daughter freedom and independence.

But she is only seven years old! She is not a teenager to start considering about her own life, she is a kid. And what "web experience" are you talking about at this age? Is it now an essential part of a child's education?

Re:Parental resposibility (and article correction) (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34914562)

This is at least partly about playing on a computer, not necessarily anything to do with education. I let her use it with me in the area to help out if needs be, the same way I let her climb trees in the park. I can't always see her (like when she's clambering through the yew and laurel hedges/bushes) but we can both find each other if needs be.

OS for webfiltering? (4, Insightful)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34903572)

Hang on, so a superseded, widely meh-rated / derided OS, is the key to web-filtering? As the saying goes, might as well buy a jumbo jet for the peanuts...

Re:OS for webfiltering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903692)

Yes, it's good at restricting the user in every possible way. It's not news.

Re:OS for webfiltering? (2)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904202)

They didn't investigate Windows 7; presumably this investigation was started when Vista was the newest OS, though that's a very long time to compile a report. In any case, the conclusion was that Vista's inbuilt parental controls are better than most other 3rd party filtering software, and Mac OS X has no parental controls.

At a guess I'd say that Windows 7 would get the same result as it's kept most of Vista's features.

feature or bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903616)

I experienced content not being available due to IE bugs and/or non compliance (CSS, cookies, SSL problems), and now this would be considered a feature :p
Marketing is awesome \o/

Because the sites don't work in Internet Explorer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903674)

Coming soon to Firefox 4: *NEW FEATURE* Content blocking, 100% effective at blocking nasty content. Disables CSS2 and CSS3 support and replaces it with a much safer presentation layer built on Java Swing (via ActiveX and VBScript) and Flash Player. Now you can rest assured that the only pages you'll ever see are your safe and friendly ultra-secure 128bit RC4 encrypted yourbanknamespeltwrong.com and falsebook.com favourites.

EC! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903680)

<american>OMFG it's the European Socialist Commission (see what I did there?). They have no right to evaluate good capitalist American products. I've always known that Vista is waaaay below average in content blocking.</american>

Black screen of death (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904000)

Yah, nothing gets past the Vista black screen...

No Dan's Guardian in the list (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904074)

It looks like they're only considering options that install into a browsing computer. That leaves some highly-rated solutions like Dan's Guardian [dansguardian.org] off the list.

It's like Tetris on a 5 mile screen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34904488)

"Microsoft's much-maligned Vista operating system has been named in the top three of 26 tools tested by the European Commission to filter out web content deemed inappropriate for children." ..."And named the top tool tested to filter out any product not owned by Microsoft."

Not really a result to be proud of (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34904550)

Given that the test included only two operating systems [europa.eu] and the other one (MAC-OS) beat Vista this is hardly a result to be proud of. Its a bit like saying you compared a Tata Nano [tatamotors.com] , a Volkwagen Golf and a load of other forms of transport for motorway cruising (push-bikes, wheelbarrows, etc) and the Tata Namo came in the top 3.

Vista had child blocking right... no, really! (1)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34906898)

As someone who espoused the virtues of protecting your children online with the proper tools and configuring them, without barring them from using the computer, I found that Windows Vista made a huge leap forward in terms of integrating online safety with an operating system. Sadly, with Windows 7, Microsoft removed this integration from the OS, removed some abilities and made it a downloadable aspect of Windows Live Essentials while downgrading it's functionality.

With a properly configured Windows Vista machine, I could confidently allow an 8 year old child to browse the internet unmonitored as there was no way they could see anything they weren't supposed to, even accidentally. The Windows 7 downloadable Family Safety has many issues which has sadly removed my confidence in the product.

This is completely true. (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34907058)

Really.

Since the computer is basically unusable with Vista, all pernicious web content is unaccessible from it. Along with the rest.

But yeah, our children are safe.

Replacing your computer with a big rock on your desk also works as a great web filter.

Crysis runs the same in Vista and 7 (1)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34907300)

but I realize Slashdot isn't interested in benchmarks when it comes to taking cheap shots at M$. Let's try to get in a few more Vista bashes while we can.

Re:Crysis runs the same in Vista and 7 (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34913826)

A Vista system that is prepared to run Crysis is, obviously, not a web-safe environment.

It's worse still: Children are exposed to the malicious violence of videogames, which rots their brains and makes them violent, addicted, and psychotic.

You should replace your computer with a rock immediately. Think of your children.

(While you are at it, send me your then-underused computer so it can be properly purified)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?