Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Police Chief Teaches Parents To Keylog Kids

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the sergeant-script-kiddie dept.

Privacy 505

Hugh Pickens writes writes "LiveScience reports that James Batelli, the police chief of Mahwah, NJ, and his detectives conduct seminars that teach parents how to outfit a computer with keystroke logging software, giving them access to the full spectrum of their kids' online activities. Batelli explains that kids put themselves in potentially dangerous situations online every day, especially on Facebook, where they run the risk of coming into contact with child predators who troll the social networking site. 'When it comes down to safety and welfare of your child, I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children,' he says."

cancel ×

505 comments

Nope (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258722)

I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children

If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online that you need this.. then you forgot to sacrifice something somewhere along the way.

No, you can't watch your kids all the time .. and at a certain age you can't just say "internet only when I'm around" either.

You can however educate your child on the risks out there, and have a good understanding of your childs judgment is.

Re:Nope (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258756)

But... I thought that education was bad! They need to be able to happily live in their little bubbles thinking that society has no bad qualities. Banning/censoring/nannying is so much easier...

Re:Nope (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35258794)

"In order to save the village, we had to destroy it" comes to mind.

Or "never time to do it right, always time do fsck it up and try something even worse" perhaps.

If parents'd done their homework, there'd be no problem. But they haven't, so this guy's "teaching" some half-assed catch-up technique that doesn't scale next to the drawbacks of being highly unethical and is bound to lose the parents their childrens' trust if (inevitably) found out. So the value of teaching this is mostly in how it's eventually self-defeating. The fact that a holder of public trust thinks its acceptable to teach this I find... telling.

As a parent you can insist that no internet access happens unsupervised ("training wheels") until it's time to take off the training wheels. If you don't understand that, then internet access is the least of your parenting worries.

Came to say this (2)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258880)

Happy with your successful first post!

We're a generation bringing in the first generation born into Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, etc.. I can only assume that on Slashdot our kids will be curious of what their parents do online at an early age, and very quickly figure out what they can do online too.

It's a little scary to give kids that kind of access to information, but I'm excited by the challenge. I fully intend to have them on my lap in front of the PC at an early age (among other less stationary activities), and when their old enough introduce them to online media, it's power, and teach/learn along the way.

Until they're teens of course, then that sh*t gets locked-up after sundown :). j/k... maybe...

-Matt

Re:Nope (3, Insightful)

louic (1841824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258952)

It also reminds me of the story of Perceval. As I remember it, a mother brought up her kid in a forest to protect him, after her husband (a knight) was killed in battle. The only thing she achieved with this was that the first time the young boy accidentally saw a knight in shiny armor wandering in the forest, he first thought it was a god, and from that moment on, all he wanted to do was become a knight.

Children need to be protected, but not overprotected. They need to be ready for a society where the naive are being used by the not-so-naive.

Before there were computers and the Big Evil Internet, did parents follow their children everywhere when they were playing outside to make sure they did not accidentally see a porn magazine? (at the time, the older brother of your children's best friend usually had them). Did they rig their kid's Walkman to record everything they said, in order to later check if it was "acceptable"?

Re:Nope (5, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258962)

Reminds me of a girl in my class. She was not allowed contact with any of the other kids. He parents were very over protective. Then at 18, she was old enough according to her parents and was left loose. In about 3 months she became the school slut, because she had no idea how to correctly interact with others.

It is also like kid-proofing your house. Don't. The kid will get some bumps and that is how you learn: by failing.

It is basically the standard: do not take candy from strangers. I was raised in such a way that I would not even take candy from neighbors and if my parents were there and some neighbor wanted to give me candy, I would aks my parents first.

Education on what to do is the best thing you can give your kid. Not only so he won't get raped (which happens way more with people they know then with people they don't) and murdered, but s they have a basis for the rest of their life on how to handle situations.

As a parent you are NOT the babysitter and you are NOT their friend. You are the parent and YOU need to see that they learn as much as possible. Putting them in a cocoon will take the ability to learn away.

Protection is a short term goal. As a parent you need to look at the long term goal. 20+ years from the start.

Re:Nope (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258980)

Remove unacceptable hazards (hot oil, going to a sleep over with a kid you have only chatted to online, and playing in traffic), but don't about acceptable ones (hot metal, p0rn, and other non-life-threatening things).

Re:Nope (2)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258992)

If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online that you need this.. then you forgot to sacrifice something somewhere along the way.

You *are* that out of touch with what your kid does, and it's not because of a lack of parenting. It's because they are free and sovereign creatures. The child you see and interact with everyday is not the full expanse of your kid--it is the expression of words and actions your kid has learned avoids your ire and keeps the allowance money flowing. You hope there is a good correspondence, but it's not guaranteed. If your kid is up against some dark inclinations, he or she will realize that telling you could have negative results, and that not telling you keeps the situation fully under their control. Will they approach you if you try to always be open and loving? *Maybe.* Who even knows how to raise a kid properly? A kid could have a terrible abusive alcoholic father and follow the same pattern that he sees; he could have a terrible alcoholic father and realize how much he loathes selfishness and violence, becoming the kindest person you would ever meet.

Besides that, kids are curious. You can teach them something is bad, and have them fully 100% believe you, and they will still wind up seeking it out.

What it comes down to is teaching your kids to live life in the proper pattern and hope that when they're older the "don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong." Otherwise, all you can do is exemplify those values in a way you think will give them a desire to emulate you.

On this basis, I think it is entirely appropriate to keep tabs on them: or at least let them know the possibility is there. It's not a matter of questioning their judgment: their judgment is stupid and will continue to be stupid long after they leave the nest. It's about keeping them in the habit of third person perspective (how does my deed look when viewed outside my personal selfishness?) and strongly ingraining good habits so that when they go out and flop (the final lessons always have to be learned by experience) they have a nice deep groove to fall back into.

Re:Nope (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259018)

I think there is a huge difference between meeting up with someone they're chatting with online and the other usual childhood "behind the parents back" type stuff that we all did and expect our kids to do (though will probably still freak out over).

Do you think your kid is going to actually put him/her self in real danger? Ok.. then yeah.. surveillance mode, but I would probably use some other tactic then this, and at the very least would tell the kid about it.

Beyond that, I think standard passive monitoring is called for. My parents didn't follow me around everywhere, but they had a pretty good idea of who I hung out with, and always knew where I was. I think the same kind of approach can be taken to the online world.

Re:Nope (5, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259142)

I spent most of my free time for a big chunk of my childhood from about age 8 to 12 down at the local river /stream building damns and rafts with some of the neighbourhood kids about a mile from home.

when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."

In that time I never put myself in any more danger than I did climbing trees in my parents garden. Some danger but no more than the norm.
My parents had a fair idea of roughly where I was and had instilled in me the basics of not killing myself.

When we got an internet connection when I was 12 or 13 they instilled the basics of "don't give out your details online, don't give out your location online" which is really really really easy to follow if you're not an unusually thick child.

being a 13 year old boy I looked at quite a lot of pornography, went on a lot of forums and a lot of chat rooms but not once did I ever get approached by any kind of child predator or anyone trying to dig my location/details out of me.

the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top.
Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.

Re:Nope (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259164)

the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top.
Your children are vastly more likely to run into them in real life than online and it's almost trivial to stay safe.

I agree with you in principle; I spent most of my childhood roaming all over Santa Cruz county, which is pretty big. Walked from La Selva to downtown Santa Cruz and then back to Capitola as a tween... for lack of bus money.

On the other hand, I think the internet does for pedophiles who want to find vulnerable children what it does for lonely men sitting at home looking for pictures of boobies.

Re:Nope (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259182)

when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."

I would be so proud of a child of mine that came up with that. Seriously, the main thing these parents will teach their children is it's okay to spy on people and they shouldn't trust their parents (and that their parents don't trust them).

Seriously fucked up.

Re:Nope (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259082)

he could have a terrible alcoholic father and realize how much he loathes selfishness and violence, becoming the kindest person you would ever meet.

It's possible if they have strong willpower, but this does not usually happen.

"don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong."

Neither of those are very good explanations. Neither answer the question of "why." Besides that, there are far better methods of attempting to reach an agreement with someone than physical abuse.

their judgment is stupid and will continue to be stupid long after they leave the nest.

That really depends on the person, now doesn't it?

Re:Nope (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259132)

Very well said! Every time a story like this comes up, you get people like GP who say, "If you are so out of touch with what your kid does online..." These statements are ironic in the true sense though; the author self-admits that you should be keeping tabs on your kid (by suggesting you're doing it wrong if you're not), then lashes out at tools which enable this in the same breath. It strikes me as a surprising lack of critical thinking.

There seems to be some sort of confusion in the sense that people don't recognize that protective actions by parents are necessarily suggested for every kid of every age until the day they turn 18. Somehow they fail to realize that most parents actually are reasoning adults who are capable of making decisions about when it is and isn't appropriate to give children privacy. They simply see a tool which could be abused and therefore assume this is its only intent, and that therefore makes the tool unjustified (demonstrated so by construction of a straw man example of a child who has outgrown the need for the tool).

Children do in fact not have the same rights as adults. This is correct and appropriate. As they approach adulthood, they should be granted more and more of those rights by their parents, according to that child's development.

The real affront in this article is that this isn't a very effective way to keep an eye on your kids. The assumption is that a keystroke logger will pierce the children's activity. If the child wants to keep something secret, they will only use the monitored computer for updates they're ok sharing, while they use a school, library, or friend's computer for anything else. If you keep the monitoring secret, it represents dishonesty with your child (which might be necessary, but should be avoided except when there's an extenuating circumstance). If kept entirely secret, it will probably do an adequate job for a while, but that secret is ruined the first time you act in any way on the knowledge it provides.

Instead for things like social networks, if you feel your child should be monitored, you should require access to their profile, and you should require that you know who each of their friends are. Especially at younger ages, presuming many parents are acting the same way, this knowing who each of the friends are prevents proxy identities from being effective (other children will not be able to explain who the proxy is, so they can't friend the proxy, and the proxy is therefore of no value).

Children do not have a right to privacy in what they do online. Eventually of course you have to trust your children, but this should manifest by less and less frequent checking of their activity, not by never having checked in the first place.

Re:Nope (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259158)

And there's a transition between those two stages. Just like the first time my kids walked to school "on their own" we followed a discreet distance behind, for a couple of months after we started letting the kids online "unsupervised" we ran key logging. Ok, my son turned out to browse to a lot of websites featuring large-breasted women inadequately attired for the local climate, but I figured that was pretty normal and turned off key logging again.

Nonsense (2)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258724)

They will sacrifice all the dignity, freedom, and independence that child once had.

Re:Nonsense (4, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258870)

And worst of all, the kid will grow up seeing this state of affairs as perfectly normal.

Re:Nonsense (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258916)

so, no down-side then?

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35258940)

If you're building an army of intellectual and emotional zombies, no... no downsides.

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259008)

Apart from World War 3 you mean?

Re:Nonsense (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258986)

You do know that if your 14 your old daughter decides to show her boyfriend her tittles for all fun and games on a web cam that she can go to jail for manufacturing and distributing child pornography and be labelled a sex offender for life! That counts for 2 crimes and the cops are asses and do not care.

I think that is ridiculous but I work for a school district and heard some of these presentations. To me the idea of my kid going to jail for something nearly all teens do now is disturbing. Having a talk or not they are teens and if I own the computers I have a right to keylog. Nearly a third of teenagers get stalked by sexual predators on the net. I have seen men wacking off in cars in front of elementary schools and others following innocent children. It is more common than you think and some parents want to monitor for good reasons.

I prefer to be honest as my kids are not at that age where I have to worry yet. However, I am not opposed to a parent keylogging their kid. Heck people keylog their spouses and so do your employers.

Re:Nonsense (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259096)

if your employer similarly monitors work emails, I expect you will save your own dignity by refusing to work there.

No-Nonsense (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259144)

Walk into work tomorrow then, and threaten to quit unless they turn off the surveillance cameras.

Erm (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258728)

...I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children...

Great argument there, really supporting your cause.

Sexting? (4, Funny)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258738)

And then he arrests them all when pictures of said kids pop up on the computer. Easy felony busts to fluff up a record.

Re:Sexting? (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258774)

Nah, in New Jersey you don't really care about the record once you make chief. At that point you've got at most 3 years before retirement and a permanent paid vacation.

What a tool (2)

Krakadoom (1407635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258766)

'When it comes down to safety and welfare of your child, I don't think any parent would sacrifice anything to make sure nothing happens to their children,' he says."

First off, shouldn't that say that he DOES think that any parent would sacrifice anything blah blah? Second, the parents don't actually sacrifice anything themselves, what they do is violate their child's privacy, which doesn't affect themselves in any way.

Re:What a tool (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258876)

It's easy to fix the privacy issue. I told my children in advance that I was monitoring their computer. I gave them non-admin accounts on the box and informed them that I WAS watching everything they did. Thus informed it's not like I"m spying, they know I'm there.

Re:What a tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35258950)

behind your back, your kids are telling all the other kids how bad a parent you are and that you give them not enough freedom.
online, they are afraid to post anything that may be semi bad
on your computer, they are working everyday to find a way around your watchful eye

within months they will be on 4chan asking for advice and providing tits to anybody that can help them.
bonus points, if they are underaged and provide tits, with you monitoring and saving every move they could get you locked up for child porn.

nah, probably wont go totally like this. although, some of these things will be happening in at least some way.

Really want to lose your children's trust?? (4, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258772)

The age when you cannot say "internet only when I'm around" - 10-12 yrs I guess
The age when the children start maintaining the computers themselves, taking basic precautions against malware,etc -- 12-14 (and then they find out about the parent installed keylogger)
Would you really want your kids not to trust you after the age of 14?

Who keylogs whom? (3, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259102)

Meanwhile, the kids are learning how to install keyloggers on their parents' machines. After, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose's parents. Plus you never know when you'll need a little leverage to excuse those bad grades, trade for being grounded or as an "incentive" for that first car.

The parents have already set the ground rules (that privacy and respect mean nothing) so the kids are only learning fromthat example - oh, and the example from law-enforcement.

The real threat is always in the home (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35258788)

Anybody who knows anything about the Internet and Reality knows that the child predator myth is the creation of law enforcement and other agencies wishing to profit.

Everybody who knows anything about child abuse knows that the vast majority of abuse happens in the home.

So when a child is on the computer explaining to their friends how they are sexually, physically, or psychologically abused at home by their care givers, then their care givers will be one of the first people to find out what their children are saying about them in supposedly private conversations.

These activities are an indictment to responsible parenting, and responsible policing (if there is such a thing, and stories like this always seem to validate my doubts).

Re:The real threat is close to home (1)

MathFox (686808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258978)

I agree that the biggest danger is close to home, family and friends of the family. And while there are "predators" on the net they are far less dangerous than the predators the child may meet in real life. Children are pretty safe with the online equivalent of "don't go with the stranger offering you candy."

What are some good rules of the thumb:

  • Don't talk to people you are not comfortable with.
  • Don't tell where you live. "Near Big City" is good enough for someone until you trust him/her.
  • Be careful with what you show on your webcam.

If you following the advice the Internet is a good place to experiment with political and sexual discussion, pregnancies and STDs come from meeting IRL.

cue 100% of comments... (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258790)

...saying "OH BUT WHAT ABOUT TRUSTING YOUR CHILD / INVASION OF PRIVACY".

OK, how about this: if people didn't want to create another human in their image, they wouldn't have their own children. But since they did, it means they want to keep an eye on their kid to make sure they turn out as they wish, and everyone external to their little genetic collective is regarded as the enemy - preadator or otherwise.

A bunch of childless geeks and fringe case parents who only want their children to be like them in some ways can whine all they want, but this is what parents want. It's as inevitable as human nature.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258800)

You almost sound like you're complaining. Every good parent knows that they should indoctrinate their children with their own pointless personal beliefs instead of relaying actual facts! They can question authority... as long as that authority figure isn't me.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258888)

Ah, but everyone has their own viewpoint and it always colors their interpretation of the facts. It's the human condition, we all think that if everyone saw things the way we do that the world would be a wonderful place. Of course, I'm right and if you disagree it's because you are an idiot. :)

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258990)

Ah, but everyone has their own viewpoint and it always colors their interpretation of the facts.

Sorry, but facts aren't facts without a great deal of evidence supporting them. You can't just claim that your personal belief (religion, for example) is a fact because you said so. That has nothing to do with viewpoints or opinions. That doesn't, however, mean that individuals won't block out evidence that supports a belief other than their own...

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258812)

I don't think it's really about the rights or wrongs of invading your childrens' privacy; look at it this way:

If I found out that my parents had been keylogging my computer use, I'd find somewhere else that I could use a computer that wasn't being logged, at a friend's house or library, school, whatever and then they wouldn't have *any* idea what I was doing on it. On top of that, I wouldn't feel that I could trust my parents with anything that *did* happen, computer or no, because of that.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258826)

All parents observe their children at varying levels of distance and will end up engaging in an arms race with any child who wants more privacy than the parent is willing to provide. This isn't something new to computers.

The policeman here is simply selling to the parents' side because the technology he's hawking coincides with his own interests.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258814)

I don't so much have a problem with the privacy issue. Up to a certain age, I think a parent should supervise what their child is doing online.

More the method.

This seems like a half-ass solution to a problem arising from the sadly typical "both parents work, no one actually raises their own kids any more" society we have now. No, you can't monitor your kids all the time.. and there is an age between the "computer in the living room, only when I'm around" age and the "computer in your bedroom.. I trust you" age.. but this seems like a really bad solution for something that _should_ be solved by actual parenting.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258840)

This seems like a half-ass solution to a problem arising from the sadly typical "both parents work, no one actually raises their own kids any more" society we have now.

I still don't understand why people feel that they must have children. Not only does it contribute to the ever growing problem of overpopulation, but the fact that a startling number parents have children regardless of the fact that they don't have any time to raise them only worsens matters.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259078)

I still don't understand why people feel that they must have children.

Demographic decline requires a compensatory influx of immigrants to keep services going. Many peoples want to preserve their culture as it is instead of allowing massive immigration to slowly efface it.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259092)

That's not a very logical reason, and it certainly doesn't lessen the impact of overpopulation or the fact that they will be terrible parents.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259130)

Of course it's a logical reason. Without robotics like what Japan hoped for, how can you maintain services with falling birthrates? You have to weigh the impact of what you call "overpopulation" against the risk of ethnic strife or cultural loss, and it's reasonable that some believe the latter is the more pressing danger.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (2)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259170)

We have sufficient technology to maintain a population of constant size in comfort with reduced working hours. It just requires us not to continually consume more and to prevent hoarding. But then who can feel like they're a master of the universe?

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258842)

OK, but what if they apply "actual parenting" and monitor their kids' behaviour? Sort of like current Western governments give you a fair deal of freedom (yes, they still do) but watch you closely anyway.

You could argue that it's not actual parenting/freedom if the monitoring is included in the package. But this is a thoroughly minority opinion, because people don't see that as a restriction or potential restriction (clearly, otherwise everyone would be lying in the streets in a mass exercise of civil disobedience).

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258872)

OK, but what if they apply "actual parenting"

Actual parenting (which doesn't include being a paranoid idiot that constantly locks their child inside a bubble).

Sort of like current Western governments give you a fair deal of freedom (yes, they still do) but watch you closely anyway.

In other words, make all of your citizens into potential criminals, violate their privacy, and then pretend to have their best interests at heart. No.

But this is a thoroughly minority opinion, because people don't see that as a restriction or potential restriction

Restriction? No. But it is, however, something that could easily be abused. Secretly monitoring them will likely cause them to trust you even less (note the word "secretly").

clearly, otherwise everyone would be lying in the streets in a mass exercise of civil disobedience

Wait, what? Even if most people disagreed with it, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd protest it. In fact, more often than not, people do absolutely nothing.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258894)

Wait, what? Even if most people disagreed with it, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd protest it. In fact, more often than not, people do absolutely nothing.

This is a matter for philosophical debate, but I consider going along with something when there are many alternatives as agreeing with it in every meaningful sense.

There are various ways you can not go along with government monitoring other than by mass civil disobedience - for example, you could refuse to get a passport; you can refuse to drive; you can avoid use of credit cards; you can accept payment in cash and not open bank accounts; you can walk around with a basic disguise; you can encrypt all communication and try to obscure source/destination (not just on the Internet); etc. But if at any point you say, "OK doing all this is too much of a hassle - I want a proper job so I can have a more comfortable place to live and that means accepting the whole tax/bank account thing," you are agreeing that the government's offer is better than the alternatives.

Read this essay. [floonet.net] Rulers don't exist through a small minority of force, but through a majority of consent. And taking away that consent would very quickly cause the power to crumble.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259002)

That wasn't my point. Obviously, they might agree that their pointless, comfy little lifestyles are more important than things such as freedom, but that absolutely does not mean that they like what is happening. It certainly doesn't help that they aren't willing to protest, but my point was that that doesn't mean that they like that fact.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259094)

Merely "not liking" doesn't really have consequences. At best "not liking" leads to "complaining", seen by the majority as "whining" and summarily ignored.

They agree with an option, and they show their agreement by going through with it rather than going through with any of the other options available to them. This is what matters.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258898)

This all just sounds like something that's gonna blow up when the kid inevitably finds the thing.

Also I think there is a substantial difference between the government/people and parent/child relationships.

My government doesn't know me. I mean, they kind of do.. but the government doesn't have an idea of my personality, my maturity, my judgment, etc. If the government spies on me... I understand it...

A parent on the other hand.... should.

I guess the question I would ask, is if this is an ok thing (as you said, doesn't restrict usage) why not tell the kid. My answer would be that you would basically be telling the kid "I don't trust you and need to monitor everything you do". Maybe kids don't think of it exactly like that, but I think that's the basic sentiment that would come through.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258936)

"Trust" is an overused concept, I think. The only person you can really consider "trusting" completely is yourself. As for other relationships, there are two possibilities:

  1. Your opinions coincide sufficiently with the other party that you can "trust" they won't deviate from what you want them to do;
  2. You "trust" the other party to willingly go against their beliefs in order to accommodate what you want.

Since neither will apply except in the unhealthiest relationships of control (via physical restriction / scaremongering / propaganda), you must expect that everyone is going to go in some way against your wishes. This is why monitoring happens and is especially in demand by modern Western governments and the modern Western parents who both want to efficiently give the impressions of freedom.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258968)

I think "beliefs" is kind of strong there. We're talking about kids talking to the wrong guy on facebook here.

The trust comes in the form of a parent knowing their kids judgment and behaviour such that they feel comfortable enough to not need to monitor them every second they are online. I don't think monitoring should be eliminated entirely, but this kind of secretive, absolute monitoring to me would send a pretty strong message to a kid if discovered.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259048)

A parent may have one or more beliefs:

  • There are genuinely lots of old pervs out there effectively grooming teens for sex - the idea that every male over the age of 24 is a potential kiddie fiddler is very much a belief system about human nature reaching quasi-religious hysteria;
  • The child will somehow be harmed by interacting with anyone on a particular prejudiced list - is there a problem meeting up with someone who is older and male if the guy has no sexual interest whatsoever (e.g. may have a common hobby)? When I was young I used to meet up with older geeks quite a bit and none of them tried to sex me. What would happen if I were a 14 year old girl today with an interest in, say, amateur radio? How would today's hysterical world react to me hanging around a load of 50 plus men in tatty shacks?
  • Is flirting harmful? Is cybersex the same as rape? I wonder how my parents would have reacted to some of my chat logs when I was 15 (in the days when the Internet was a new and scary place and it wasn't "normal" for teens to have Internet access, let alone go online unsupervised), sometimes with members of the same and opposite sex who I knew to be twice my age.
  • Insert all the usual arguments about a physically and mentally healthy 14 year old meeting a 16 year old and them getting up to stuff and it being labelled as statutory rape.

There is one fairly uncontroversial danger: meeting some stranger who will force you to have sex or to be otherwise sexually abused. The risk is obviously non-zero, but how often does that actually happen? How much of everything else is a real danger rather than a fear by the parent subjected onto the child? IOW, how many "wrong guys" really are there? "Wrong"ness is defined by a belief system.

The greatest abuse risk a child runs of abuse (including sexual) is, by a huge margin, from parents/carers/close family.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259034)

"Trust" is an overused concept, I think.

So is paranoia, which is inefficient beyond belief. The result is that you end up wasting a great amount of time and resources on pointless endeavors whilst only succeeding in worsening your relationship with others.

This is why monitoring happens and is especially in demand by modern Western governments and the modern Western parents who both want to efficiently give the impressions of freedom.

They succeed in giving the impression of freedom in the eyes of people who I believe are imbeciles, but it is a mere illusion. If the government, who can change the rules as they please, is allowed to spy on its own citizens and treat each and every one of them as criminals, then abuse will surely follow.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259068)

So is paranoia, which is inefficient beyond belief. The result is that you end up wasting a great amount of time and resources on pointless endeavors whilst only succeeding in worsening your relationship with others.

Deployed effectively, it allows you to nip an emerging hazard in the bud as early as possible. "Your relationship with others" is rarely a concern when there's a power imbalance and you're the one with way more power. Machiavelli writes succinctly on this.

If the government, who can change the rules as they please, is allowed to spy on its own citizens and treat each and every one of them as criminals, then abuse will surely follow.

Depending on how you define "abuse", yes.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259098)

Deployed effectively

The smallest risk or problem is inflated into something bigger than it need be.

"Your relationship with others" is rarely a concern when there's a power imbalance and you're the one with way more power.

I suppose it does not matter to a tyrant who does not care for others and does not care if others help them.

Depending on how you define "abuse", yes.

The taking away of their freedom, violation of their privacy, and the fact that they may change the rules to eliminate those that oppose them at any time (the elimination of privacy helps in this regard). Giving anyone this kind of power will surely not have a good result for the people being monitored.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (4, Interesting)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258830)

That was one of the creepiest fucking things I've ever read. Even if that's exactly what parents want, why on Earth should society support it? Living through your children is not psychologically healthy -- not for you, and certainly not for your children. They're not little mini-you's. They share some genetics with you, they'll obviously share a bit of you based on their upbringing, but they are not you.

If you want to argue you're protecting them... fine. It's a stupid argument and a terrible approach, but at least I can respect the goal. Suggesting you want to keylog your child's computer so you can spy on everything they do and make sure they turn out to be like you in every way instead of just "some ways"... is fucking creepy. There's no other way to put it.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (2)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258862)

Living through your children is not psychologically healthy -- not for you, and certainly not for your children.

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition: it's what you do when you pass on your genes. If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35258924)

Bullshit. You have about a 0% chance of your children being like you.
Genetics have little to nothing to do with personality. Come on this is Slashdot, we've been over this before.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258958)

Yes yes and IQ can be increased just by trying really hard. Sorry, bud, nature's not fair and political correctness won't change that.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259136)

Pardon?
I have two adult children (both boys), both are strong willed with their own personalities. Neither of them are me (or my wife!), and if they`d turned out as "mini-me`s" then I would consider myself a failure. As it is, I now have two friends that are different enough from me to be interesting to socialise with and provde diversity into the wider family.
They both follow some of my traits, both genetic and social. I can do nothing about the genetic - that`s the way it is. The social comes along for the ride - I am a strong male role model (not necessarily the best you understand, but a strong one none the less), children are built to pick up on this and follow those that appear to be in some measure successful. Of course this is instinctive, not intentional - children almost never think the words - "I like them, I`m going to copy them" even if as an adult you can perceive that that is what they`re doing.
If you are considering having children in order to continue / immortalise yourself in some way or to "live through them" then please, please STOP NOW. You will cause them major problems when they finally realise how heavily and intentionally corralled they were (maybe not until the`re 30-40 years old and have wasted the best part of their life trying to be dad) and you already have several serious problems of your own. Live your life through you - it`s the only chance YOU get, don`t waste it in some vain attempt to re-live years you`ve already had through some one else.
Wow, rant over.
PS this isn`t directed at FuckingNickName in particular, more at the thread in general, but your comment did make lots of alarm bells ring.
Welshmnt

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259162)

They both follow some of my traits, both genetic and social. I can do nothing about the genetic - that`s the way it is. The social comes along for the ride - I am a strong male role model (not necessarily the best you understand, but a strong one none the less), children are built to pick up on this and follow those that appear to be in some measure successful. Of course this is instinctive, not intentional - children almost never think the words - "I like them, I`m going to copy them" even if as an adult you can perceive that that is what they`re doing.

Precisely.

It will happen for genetic and social reasons you describe. It will happen whether you claim you intend it to happen or not.

If you as a couple give birth to and bring up a child, you are creating a variant of a miniature you. You as a single person aren't precisely creating a miniature you because (i) you have the genetic input of two people; (ii) you have the environmental input of two people and the wider world; but the greatest part of your child is the genetic and social mix of you and your partner. If you didn't intend this, you made a mistake in having and bringing up children.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259160)

Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition:

Whose definition? Yours?

it's what you do when you pass on your genes.

Genes don't determine every single aspect of one's behavior. Most of it is learned. However, just because that is what is biologically happening, that absolutely does not mean that the parents are actively and mentally trying to live through their child. They may just like children. They may want them to grow up in their own way. It depends entirely on the person, and there is no absolute truth to this matter as you attempted to let on.

If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.

As I said above, genes don't entirely determine a person's behavior. I really do believe that people should adopt (not that you can't indoctrinate an adopted child), but to say that all biological parents are attempting to live through their children is quite the generalization.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259174)

Why do people have their own children?

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259188)

I have no idea. Generalizing all biological parents into people that wish to live through their children isn't really an answer, though. The answer likely varies. Perhaps they ignorantly believe that it's more 'natural' and that is important to them. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps they, for their own reasons (which doesn't excuse the selfishness of contributing to overpopulation, I think), feel more happy watching their own child grow (which doesn't necessarily imply living through them) from birth.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258976)

I wish my children will have the judgement to figure things out without someone looking over their shoulders constantly. Teaching a child to recognize dangers will do far more than watching over their shoulders constantly. Mommy and daddy aren't going to be there forever to hold your hand.

Re:cue 100% of comments... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259080)

OK, but who decides what is a danger? IOW, who decides what is potentially harmful? what is actually harmful?

Re:cue 100% of comments... (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259168)

OK, but who decides what is a danger?

Facts. If I get hit by a car, that will endanger my health.

IOW, who decides what is potentially harmful?

Again, facts. Suddenly running out in the middle of the road greatly increases your chances of being hit by a car.

what is actually harmful?

Something that harms you in a way that you cannot avoid (your health, for example).

In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35258808)

The truth is that most children are more tech-savvy than their parents. I'm pretty sure their keyloggers will catch the installation of their parents keyloggers. ;p

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258896)

Anyone that gives admin access to a computer to their child might as well forget it. But really if you spend some time talking with them and have a good relationship you've got a better chance to know if something is up with them.

Re:In Soviet Russia, Child Keylogs You! (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258926)

Why would they not give admin access to the computer??
Shouldnt the children have the same opportunities to experiment with the computers as the parents did?

"Simple" solution to raising kids: (4, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258832)

Talk to your kids.

Make sure there's an open environment at home where the parents take an interest in the kids and talk about what they've been up to and what they're going to do.

This will (statistically) make the kids want to share what happens in their life, which in turn will make them not do stupid things they'd have to hide.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids: (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258868)

what if your kid's gay? Transgender? What if your kid's being bullied to the extent that they just do not want to talk about it?

Even if you create a perfectly safe space for your child, they may not open up.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids: (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258918)

Sure. Talking to your kids in an honest open manner about all things is no guarantee, but it is still an important factor for having a good relationship with them and keeping them out of trouble.

Re:"Simple" solution to raising kids: (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258948)

After hearing about the rash of news stories about GLBT teen suicides and bullied teen suicides, I don't know if there is a good solution anymore.

These news stories aren't new and the statistics haven't changed, but my total awareness of the problem has been refocused. I mean obviously the first step is to make sure the kid knows you're not a fuckhead who's going to judge them for being different, but what about the next steps? When the kid goes off to college, that's a different story, but, while there's the chance that something could go horribly wrong in terms of social pressure, you really should have your ear to the ground. Particularly when the stakes are so damn high these days.

tl;dr - snooping on your kids isn't so bad if you're responsible and loving and only step in when it looks like shit could get really bad.

Predator thing over the line. Interesting though. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258846)

I've seen lives ruined because of mistakes made in youth online away from the prying eyes of parents.

Parents can't supervise *everything* but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be in the loop. Nor does it mean that they should be completely intrusive.

Most likely, what a parent should know is if your kid's being bullied, if they're being pressured to do drugs, if they're being ostracized, if they're depressed or otherwise that shit is going to go down. Just asking your kids if that's what's going on

Ultimately, I think it's over the line, mostly because when these sessions are taught, they're not taught with any sort of real perspective or context in mind. What's being lost is the potential of a really powerful tool that could be used to help guide kids away from mistakes and pain they should never go through in favor of scare tactics and sensationalism. Sigh.

"Be Prepared" (4, Insightful)

davide marney (231845) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258864)

I like the way the Boy Scouts handle this sort of risk. Far better to be prepared for problems and to know what to do in a dicey situation, rather than try to insulate oneself from all harm (which cannot be done, in any event.) I didn't find it very hard hard to teach my kids how to be safe on the Internet. I would not put a blanket prohibition on keylogging, however. If a child deliberately lies about his online activities, is actively seeking out bad things on the Internet, and has been caught in the act more than once, then monitoring is called for. Then, it's really more about the lying than it is about the Internet.

Re:"Be Prepared" (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258944)

Well put!

This thing really does sound more like a punishment for violating trust than a preventative measure.

Another Substitute for Parenting (3, Insightful)

OzTech (524154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258892)

It is east to always justify things like this in the name of protection and safety. It is the motherhood and apple-pie argument which Americans use to defend all of their actions.

Sadly, it is not a substitute for taking care of your children. Explain things to them, teach and guide by example. Make them aware of what they can stumble into and how to get out. Handled correctly and with educated children, you don't need nanny filters, porn filters, or key-loggers. With 3 children connected to the internet since their early to mid teens, two of whom are now in their early 20's, I have actually practiced this method and it works. Show some respect and guidance, you might be surprised to discover that you get the same in return. Children are a reflection on their parents, so kids who grow up with nanny filters and snooping software, think it is normal and won't have any issue in seeing it used elsewhere for any reason whatsoever.

Teach "internet stranger danger" (2)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258900)

If we teach our kids not to trust random people online in the same as we teach our kids not to trust random people in the real world, online pedophiles wont be a problem.

Kids should be taught that the "Captain Turbo" in that chatroom they like to chat in is not to be trusted in the same way as someone strange who walks up to them in the street.

Outragious (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258910)

This is not the job of the parents. It should be the job of the school to prepare kids for the future (where they will be monitored all the time)

Beat Summary I Have Seen (4, Insightful)

tm2b (42473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258932)

"It is better, and easier, to try to worldproof your children than to try to childproof the world."

Won't someone please think of the children!! (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258954)

I hate the notion that there are innumerable predators stalking children on the internet. The actual number of molestations ect barely registers on the actual list of dangers to a child. But it's just so scary in a parents mind that they will ignore real threats to their childrens lives. Fear triumphs over reality again!

Re:Won't someone please think of the children!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259110)

I hate the notion that there are innumerable predators stalking children on the internet. The actual number of molestations ect barely registers on the actual list of dangers to a child. But it's just so scary in a parents mind that they will ignore real threats to their childrens lives. Fear triumphs over reality again!

Complete moron! I'd just bet that you're too young to have kids at this point, not mature enough etc... One day you will (hopefully not at the expense of one of your kids lives or livelihood) understand what it means to say "I thought it would only happen to someone else".

Sacrifice?! (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258974)

Sacrifice?!

How many lazy bum parents do not really give a toss about what their kids are up to?
How many think education is simply telling off?
How many try curb internet access mainly for legal reasons?
How many try curb internet access for so called moral reasons?

The basic of education in a civilized society is knowing good from bad. (Be good to others but don't be a fool. Others may not be all good. Porn will come your way eventually and you should know that in real life stuff doesn't go like that. Sexuality has a lot to do with respect and NOTHING with taking unfair advantage. Laws are to be respected. Etc...)

Teaching kids about these things takes patience and time. Watching Oprah or Doc Phil and nodding at the TV set is useless unless you get your arse and mind out of that comfy chair.

First get your arse into gear. And only when everything you really tried hard fails, then you start spying on your kids. And BTW, spying you will loose you the respect from your kids.

Install one on parent's computer too (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35258988)

The chief continued... "Because kids are smart they might suspect that their own PC is keylogged, and use another computer in the house to avoid being supervised properly. To avoid this I suggest installing keyloggers in all computers in the household. Now, parents I know are very busy and it is hard to keep up with all this tech, so to help you be a better parent, the department has setup a website where you can register your keylogger and upload its data to our servers, where department specialists will look for any red flags that need to be brought to your attention concerning your child's online activities. Once this program is more widely adopted by your child's friend's families, we will all be able to keep all our children safe online, no matter which computer they use."

Easy solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259000)

Show them the very worst 4chan has to offer. They'll be so scarred they'll never go near the internet again

Teach your kids about decisions/consequences (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259016)

Teaching kids to be sneaky is the answer!? Kids have been "going to their friends house" since the dawn of time. Understanding the lessons of decision making will be of more use to them when you are not around. If they are too young to understand decision making, they are too young to be on Facebook.

The consequences? (2)

Blackajack (1856892) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259038)

There will be many, many kids who will never, ever trust their parents again.

Damn straight-I log what my kids do online (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259040)

Damn straight I log what my kids do online, but I never admit it or tell them about it. We were all young once and we all made poor decisions. It is part of growing up.

I also block content at the proxy server and act really dumb when certain websites don't work at our house from the family PC. "I don't know, did you get a virus or a rootkit somewhere?" is my standard answer. It works on my PC.

Someday they will learn about transparent proxies ... maybe. Until they do, they are "Lusers" and don't need to know anything about our home network security, just like the users inside my company don't need to know. Google and results for proxy are not blocked.

BTW, I learned this from my excellent parents. They knew I was smoking pot and drinking as a teen. They said nothing, but after a bottle of JD disappeared from my room, we entered the "don't ask, don't tell" parent-interaction-method. About 10 yrs ago, Mom admitted to everything - she was pissed about the pot, but her and Dad decided it was a "phase" and to leave me alone if it didn't impact any other part of my life - which it didn't. I was in sports, held a job, got ok grades (As and Bs) and didn't get into trouble anywhere.

Talking with your kids is a good thing too.
Trust, but verify - just like in the business world.

Re:Damn straight-I log what my kids do online (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259148)

Trust, but verify - just like in the business world.

that goes up their with "charity for a price" and "unlimited, up to 5GB"

are you in marketing?

Good grief - key loggers? Be honest with your kids (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259042)

We didn't limit our daughter's online activities - but the computer she used was out in our living room. We explained to her why we felt it mattered, and also explained that it wasn't so much distrust of her as it was concern about a small minority of online denizens she might run into. We didn't spend time looking over her shoulder, but we would on occasion ask her what she was doing at the moment and who she was talking with. And no, we didn't really check - we took her word for it.

You may or may not agree with this, but really the bottom line is this - be honest with your kids. If you're sneaking around behind their backs, don't be surprised if they turn around and do the same thing to you. If you want them to respect you, show that you respect them. Sure, it's not an equal partnership and you certainly need to look out for them, but the goal of raising them right is you should be able to trust them to do the right thing most of the time.

That is how veal surfs the Internet (1)

gig (78408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259054)

If you are going to do this, you might as well just go all the way and crate them up like veal. Why not bug their rooms? Cavity searches every night will protect them from the dangers of contraband.

What amazes me is that we don't have a set of parents set on fire literally every night somewhere in the country. Maybe we do and we just don't hear about it.

In Soviet Russia, kids keylog you! (1)

gig (78408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259062)

I bet these same parents would be so pissed if the kids keylogged them and for example revealed Daddy's porno habits or occasional affairs.

Much easier way to handle this (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259108)

1 Be known as the neighborhood "Tech Guy" and ensure that all the wifi in your neighborhood is secured.

2 when your own internet is setup designate one room as the "com room" LOCK THE DOOR TO THIS ROOM

3 install a computer between the gateway and the router to the rest of the house

4 log and or filter the traffic as desired

5 Profit!

Of course this may result in you raising a Hacker (since if you do your job your kids will need to 1 break into the room 2 figure out how to access the filter computer) but thats not a bad thing. And yes this is mostly a "first pass" method that also requires you to be active in your kids upbringing.

Things are going to get harder... (1)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259116)

With the proliferation of mobile tech like the iPhone, monitoring is going to get harder.

No opinion on the issue, I don't have kids of my own ... No idea how I would go about it if someday I do.

Kids are smarter (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35259128)

Wait until they hear about the key logging software at school, then use it to swipe their parent's card details...

seriously though, technology isn't the answer to everything, communication helps.

its an illegal wiretap for other users (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259138)

a secret keylogger is a wiretap and a five year federal felony. A crime in most states. Generally courts rule parents can consent for their kids if the real intent is to protect them. But often one parent will put it on and watch not only what the kids are doing but what the other spouse is doing. And what about visitors?

Most kids now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35259154)

Most kids now will be able to find and disable keyloggers before the parents have even turned their backs on the and most likely reversed to flow so they can find out what the oldman and Co get up to when they are not around

What a lot of these Fuzz types forget is that kids have no fear of computers if they fritz them up yea so what ,, Dad the computer has died again come and fix it or get the repair man in ,, kids watches dad/repairman type in passwords and usernames and bingo cover blown endgame 1-0 to the kids dont believe me try and see how quickly they crack your plans wide ass open .

Hell i have a 6 year old grand daughter that even knows how to boot off a cd and run fdisk just for the fun of it , I have refused to re install windows now on here machine

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...