🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <m0qn9IQ-0005iVC@inviso.com> robbiew@inviso.com (Beamish Boy) writes:
>"Teach your kids the basics of on-line conduct, or netiquette; use logs
>to monitor your child's activity; set rules (don't chat with strangers,
>don't give out your phone number or address, place adult-oriented areas
>off-limits); and keep an eye on the phone bill."



Neosoft plans to have a Baton Rouge POP within a month or two.  My dad is 
looking very forward to its arrival, and my scholarly youngest brother (9) 
will almost certainly want access.  Well he should have it, considering some 
of the wonderful resources out there...but there is that "other" stuff.

The PC lives in a study off Dad's bedroom, which means he and his wife can 
keep an eye on things.   Also, the Neosoft package uses a parts-bin approach 
(all the standard Trumpet tools, etc.), so Dad can help curtail Jonathan's 
unwarranted explorations by the simple expedient of keeping the newsgroup 
reader on a secured floppy, and letting Jonathan have access to Mosaic, etc.  
(This is in contrast to the Netcom approach, which uses a single proprietary 
reader to do everything.)

Of course, if Jonathan determines to find a way to the "adult" stuff, nobody 
can really stop him for long.

I mentioned to the folks at Neosoft that they should package a "parent-lock" 
account...just like their standard stuff, but the account owner could set the 
acceptable newsgroups at the server with a special password so that the client 
reader never saw them.  They expressed some minor interest...I think it's an 
area which will heat up as internet access moves into more and more 
households, and parents suddenly snap to some of the stuff moving around out 
there...

Just my two cents' worth.

- Dan 

In article <tappd.11.00099EAF@sam.neosoft.com> Dan Tapp,
tappd@sam.neosoft.com writes:
>I mentioned to the folks at Neosoft that they should package a
"parent-lock" 
>account...just like their standard stuff, but the account owner could
set the 
>acceptable newsgroups at the server with a special password so that the
client 
>reader never saw them.  They expressed some minor interest

[snip] 

This is an interesting idea, though I fear it may not be possible. 
First, there's the issue of securing access to the PC at home in the
first place.  I've used At Ease on my Mac for that.  I'd consider NT
workstation on a PC (which happens to come with a nice PPP client!).  

Once you get on a PC and online, at least online with a real pipe, and
offer the kid real apps, there will be no way to stop them.  The only
choice is to give them access to an app set that is curtailed in some
way.  You mentioned only "approved" newsgroups.  But, how do you do only
"approved" web pages or ftp sites?  

There's no simple way for a service provider to do this.  Nor anyone
else, that I can see.

So, we're back to either very stilted brokered Internet experience.  Or,
to basic parenting to help the kid deal with the reality of life.  Be it
on the Internet or not.  

I don't think we'll ever get to call down to the Internet lobby and say
"please turn off the adult content on my PC."  The Internet fortunately
or unfortunately isn't a hotel.  No one is going to make the bed for us
either.

- Bruce Robertson, Senior Technical Editor
   Network Computing Magazine, 713 546-6752
   broberts@sam.neosoft.com (or brobertson@nwc.com)

Bruce Robertson <broberts@sam.neosoft.com> dicit:
>
>I don't think we'll ever get to call down to the Internet lobby and say
>"please turn off the adult content on my PC."  The Internet fortunately
>or unfortunately isn't a hotel.  No one is going to make the bed for us
>either.
>- Bruce Robertson, Senior Technical Editor

Now we know people are serious about the "kids on the 'net" thing.
It's moved from the news sections to the parts of the paper that
people actually read: the comics.
In today's Foxtrot strip, the parents talk blithely about the great
stuff that young Jason Fox can get on the 'net.  Meanwhile, Jason's
upstairs with his friend staring at the screen and commenting "Wow,
Ms. October sure does have big hooters."
Well, okay, I thought it was funny, but that was only one of my
responses...
-- 
Robbie Westmoreland, Dilettante  |  dances with geeks   |  robbiew@inviso.com
 v2.1 GG$/SS-d+(++)H-sg+p?aua-w+v++(---)C++$UV/L+>+++P?>++L>+++3(-)EN++(+++)
    K++W$M!V-po+Y+(++)t-!5j(++)R++>+++Gtv+b++!DB-e++>++++u+@hf+rn-(---)y+
      Why yes, I speak for the entire U.S. government.  Why do you ask?

In article <366sb1$6a9@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Bruce Robertson <broberts@sam.neosoft.com> wrote:
> In article <tappd.11.00099EAF@sam.neosoft.com> Dan Tapp,
> tappd@sam.neosoft.com writes:
> >I mentioned to the folks at Neosoft that they should package a
> "parent-lock" 
> >account...just like their standard stuff, but the account owner could
> set the 
> >acceptable newsgroups at the server with a special password so that the
> client 
> >reader never saw them.  They expressed some minor interest
> 
> There's no simple way for a service provider to do this.  Nor anyone
> else, that I can see.
> 
> - Bruce Robertson, Senior Technical Editor
>    Network Computing Magazine, 713 546-6752

I'm surprised that a Senior TECHNICAL Editor at such a magazine
can't think of half a dozen ways to do this. Indeed it is
technically feasible to make a "safe space" on the Internet
for kids and in some ways it is almost a trivial thing to do.

As for justification, do we hold school classes on the streets
in a red light district or in a bar? No, we create a "safe space"
for youngsters and hold classes there, in the school.

The moderated newsgroup mechanism combined with controlled
feeds (somewhat like clari.*) could be easily adapted
to create newsgroups in which only registered people or
registered sites could post. This would merely involve
a bit of work with shell scripts or PERL scripts. 

Securing the Web or Gopherspace would be a little more challenging
but a start would be a modified Gopher or WWW client that
can only access authorised sites or sites registered with
a central authority.


cruisin' down the information highway, lookin' for a blast
breakin' all the speed limits as I come zoomin' past!
--
Michael Dillon                 Internet: mpdillon@halcyon.halcyon.com
C-4 Powerhouse                  Fidonet: 1:353/350
RR #2 Armstrong, BC  V0E 1B0      Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Canada                              BBS: +1-604-546-2705

Bruce Robertson (broberts@sam.neosoft.com) wrote:

[ much good stuff snipped ]

: So, we're back to either very stilted brokered Internet experience. Or,
: to basic parenting to help the kid deal with the reality of life.  Be it
: on the Internet or not.  

: I don't think we'll ever get to call down to the Internet lobby and say
: "please turn off the adult content on my PC."  The Internet fortunately
: or unfortunately isn't a hotel.  No one is going to make the bed for us
: either.

My .02 cents:

I am both a computer geek and a parent. My son is only 3.5 so despite
being surrounded by computers he isn't quite up to the Internet yet. So far,
though, he has defeated almost every child proof device known to man! :)
When he started taking the child proof caps off of medicine bottles it was
time to (a) set limits and (b) start instilling potential situations he
needed to ask his parents about. 

When he can get something out of the computer thats useful, whether from 
the net, some bbs or etc., we'll be following the same line. What we can't 
do (we believe) is define in absolute terms what may be "harmful" and 
what may be "adult" but useful information or experience. 

If when he's 9 years old he's spending his time downloading pornograpgy, 
bomb making instructions or arranging rondevouzs' with poedophiles 
intsead of following cometary impacts on jupiter or exchanging chit-chat 
with someone on the other side of the planet it's mum and dad who blew it 
- not the net.

Actually, given the perponderance of all sorts of rubbish in the 'or not'
bit of 'the reality of life' and the overwhelming majority (translate into
teen speak of 6 years from now)"really kewl neat things on the net", we're
thinking that leaving by keyboard and mouse will be safer than leaving the
house on foot. 

A vibrant electronic anarchy is the best [ family ] value on the planet. 

Hey, who left that empty soap box in here? 

--
  _===_
  (OZO)  pauldblu@gate.net [ Paul S. Waterhouse ]
  -(~)-  Professional Heretic  | "Politically Correct" is an oxymoron.
  _/ \_                        |  - Someone must have said it before me.

In article <367v23$rtt@tequesta.gate.net> Paul Waterhouse,
pauldblu@gate.net writes:
[snip]
>we're thinking that leaving by keyboard and mouse will be safer than
leaving the
>house on foot. 
[snip]

A very good point.

- Bruce Robertson

Paul Waterhouse (pauldblu@gate.net) writes...
> I am both a computer geek and a parent.
. . .
> If when he's 9 years old he's spending his time downloading pornograpgy, 
> bomb making instructions or arranging rondevouzs' with poedophiles 
> intsead of following cometary impacts on jupiter or exchanging chit-chat 
> with someone on the other side of the planet it's mum and dad who blew it 
> - not the net.
. . .

	Paul, I doubt I can express how glad it makes me to see that an 
actual. honest-to-goodness *PARENT* is saying that.  I've been saying it 
for years (since I was in my mid-teens and discovered this type of 
conversation on a local BBS, actually), and received much agreement from 
my peers -- but very little from parents, who say things like "I don't 
have time to watch my kids!" and "How do I know what they're doing on 
that damned machine?"
	Keep vocal -- eventually we'll get through to 'em.  *grin*

  /-----------------\
  |    J.D. Falk    |	"The vilest abortionist
  | jdfalk@cais.com |    is he who molds the minds of children."
  \-----------------/                     -Anonymous

In article <7DrXkapDln3A071yn@halcyon.com> Michael Dillon,
mpdillon@halcyon.com writes:
>I'm surprised that a Senior TECHNICAL Editor at such a magazine
>can't think of half a dozen ways to do this. Indeed it is
>technically feasible to make a "safe space" on the Internet
>for kids and in some ways it is almost a trivial thing to do.

Hmm.  Trivial?

You say it is easy, then don't show how you'd do it.  Yes, restricting
newsgroups might work, but then you can browse newsgroups via the Web,
where that security might be subverted.  You say it is trivial, but then
don't show how you'd secure the Web access itself or ftp access via
anonymous logins.  I guess that's what I meant.  One piece might be
securable, but not the whole thing, and if you don't get the whole thing,
then the one piece you did get won't matter.

It ain't so easy TECHNICALly, and a technical solution may not be the
right answer.  I think we'll need to be parents as humans, rather than as
programmers.  We'll need to sit beside our kids at the keyboard, rather
than creating programs that do it for us.

Then again, maybe this is just a subtle form of programming our kids.  In
a way, that is what parents do, indirectly or most blatantly obviously. 
I'm about to embarc on letting my 4 year old use my computer, and I think
I'll start with some CD-ROMs.  The Internet will come, but not right off.

- Bruce Robertson, Senior Technical Editor
   Network Computing Magazine, 713 546-6752
   broberts@sam.neosoft.com (or brobertson@nwc.com)

Pardon the lengthy cascade, but I'm crossposting to a couple of new
groups here:

Michael Dillon (mpdillon@halcyon.com) wrote:
: In article <366sb1$6a9@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: Bruce Robertson <broberts@sam.neosoft.com> wrote:
: > In article <tappd.11.00099EAF@sam.neosoft.com> Dan Tapp,
: > tappd@sam.neosoft.com writes:
: > > I mentioned to the folks at Neosoft that they should package a
: > > "parent-lock" account...just like their standard stuff, but the
: > > account owner could set the acceptable newsgroups at the server
: > > with a special password so that the client reader never saw
: > > them.  They expressed some minor interest
: > 
: > There's no simple way for a service provider to do this.  Nor anyone
: > else, that I can see.
: > 
: > - Bruce Robertson, Senior Technical Editor
: >    Network Computing Magazine, 713 546-6752
:
: I'm surprised that a Senior TECHNICAL Editor at such a magazine
: can't think of half a dozen ways to do this. Indeed it is
: technically feasible to make a "safe space" on the Internet
: for kids and in some ways it is almost a trivial thing to do.
:
: As for justification, do we hold school classes on the streets
: in a red light district or in a bar? No, we create a "safe space"
: for youngsters and hold classes there, in the school.
:
: The moderated newsgroup mechanism combined with controlled
: feeds (somewhat like clari.*) could be easily adapted
: to create newsgroups in which only registered people or
: registered sites could post. This would merely involve
: a bit of work with shell scripts or PERL scripts. 
:
: Securing the Web or Gopherspace would be a little more challenging
: but a start would be a modified Gopher or WWW client that
: can only access authorised sites or sites registered with
: a central authority.

I think that this approach is naive, but not *entirely* unfeasible.
Some general points:

(1) There is no way to do this solely at the client side.  Existing
services on the Internet are not reliably marked as to their
suitability for children.  Only by creating centralized authorities on
the *server* side could one add the markers needed to limit children's
access to objectionable materials.  So in the context of what a service
provider like Neosoft can do, Bruce Robertson was quite right.

(2) If the net establishes widely used protocols to allow central
authorities to control what children can and can't see, then those same
protocols could be used to control what adults can and can't see.  We
should be aware of this consequence before we adopt such technology.

(3) There are fundamental problems of scale in any such system which
would necessarily turn a many-to-many interactive medium into a
few-to-many broadcast medium, thus eroding the principal benefit of
computer networks.  You and I would be unlikely to have this
conversation under such a scheme.

(4) The major attraction of distributed document retrieval systems like
the World Wide Web and gopher is that they are *distributed*.  Many
individuals and institutions working in parallel come up with a greater
variety of useful resources than could ever be planned and executed by a
single, centralized organization.  This is fundamentally at odds with
the concept of a central registry of "approved sites".  Furthermore, a
central approval authority would have to be not merely a registration
service for sites which educators had deemed harmless, but would have
to exercise *control* (through a contract or other means) over the
content at those sites.  Otherwise, one would continually find that
yesterday's kid-safe site had today been blemished by objectionable
material.

(5) One fallacy common to proponents of isolated child-friendly
networks is that problems only occur when children can communicate
freely with adults other than their teachers.  In fact, children are
very good at communicating objectionable material to other children.
(I'm sure we can all think of examples from our own childhood.) What's
more, I suspect that the average adolescent (male, at least) is far
more likely to publish objectionable material than the average adult,
which casts doubt on the advantages of isolated K-12 networks.  Only by
limiting the children's ability to publish information -- denying
children access to e-mail, for instance -- could one be sure that an
isolated educational network would be free of objectionable material.

(6) The existing Usenet moderation mechanism is notoriously easy to
spoof.  Any bright 12-year-old with access to the manuals could figure
out how to forge an "Approved:" line.  Any rating or registration
mechanism would have to have complex authentication mechanisms built
into it or face the likelihood of being foiled (probably by the kids
themselves).

(7) Any system based on adding a backwards-compatible restriction
mechanism to existing protocols runs the risk of being foiled by users
surreptitiously gaining access to unrestricted versions of the same
client software.  Thus a kid-safe network would either have to
guarantee that children couldn't download an unhobbled version of
Mosaic, say, or it would have to isolate itself further by using
purposely incompatible protocols.

For all of these reasons, I have my doubts about the usefulness of
attempts to build an isolated "kidspace" on the net.  If you can't deal
with the risk that some children at some time will run into some
objectionable material, keep them off the net and stick to CD-ROMs.
(Or, the cynical might say: keep them locked in a closet and don't
teach them to read.)

-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
-- Systems Programmer and RiceInfo Administrator, Rice University
-- 2002-A Guadalupe St. #285, Austin, TX 78705 / 512-323-0708
-- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

Michael Dillon (mpdillon@halcyon.com) wrote:

[ surprise deleted ]

: can't think of half a dozen ways to do this. Indeed it is
: technically feasible to make a "safe space" on the Internet
: for kids and in some ways it is almost a trivial thing to do.

: As for justification, do we hold school classes on the streets
: in a red light district or in a bar? No, we create a "safe space"
: for youngsters and hold classes there, in the school.

[ snip ]

There is already some "safe space" on UseNET (e.g. the k12 hierarchy) and 
on the net at large (KIDLINKS '95, for example). 

It is *relatively* trivial to restrict access to these areas since they 
are easily identified and form a relatively short list. However, such 
"safe spaces" are not relevent to the discussion of wide ranging access 
to networks (whether BBS or Internet or whatever) by children. That is, 
unless we take steps to restrict children to *only* these safe areas. 

Even if possible, such a scheme would subtract most, if not all, of the 
intrinsic benefit to be gained by accessing the vast array of services 
and information on the net that is not necessarily identified as "child 
safe".

In many cases, attempts to sanitize information in schools using the 
"safe place" justification has led to homogenized text books, 
outright book bannings and, in places, outright suppression of fact.
This is known outside "safe space" as censorship. 

As for safety, do we lock our kids in school twenty four hours a day?
No, we let 'em out into the real world with its red-light districts and 
bars. Since neither of these are 100% secured against entry we supervise 
our kids, we teach them and we get them interested in the majority of the 
universe that is neither a den of iniquity nor a pub.

Censorship has been technically feasible for a long time. Its education 
that works.  
 
--
  _===_
  (OZO)  pauldblu@gate.net [ Paul S. Waterhouse ]
  -(~)-  Professional Heretic  | "Politically Correct" is an oxymoron.
  _/ \_                        |  - Someone must have said it before me.

Prentiss Riddle (riddle@rice.edu) wrote:
: Pardon the lengthy cascade, but I'm crossposting to a couple of new
: groups here:

: Michael Dillon (mpdillon@halcyon.com) wrote:
: : In article <366sb1$6a9@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: : Bruce Robertson <broberts@sam.neosoft.com> wrote:
: : > In article <tappd.11.00099EAF@sam.neosoft.com> Dan Tapp,
: : > tappd@sam.neosoft.com writes:
: : > > I mentioned to the folks at Neosoft that they should package a
: : > > "parent-lock" account...just like their standard stuff, but the
: : > > account owner could set the acceptable newsgroups at the server
: : > > with a special password so that the client reader never saw
: : > > them.  They expressed some minor interest
: : > 
: : > There's no simple way for a service provider to do this.  Nor anyone
: : > else, that I can see.
: : > 
: : > - Bruce Robertson, Senior Technical Editor
: : >    Network Computing Magazine, 713 546-6752
: :
: : I'm surprised that a Senior TECHNICAL Editor at such a magazine
: : can't think of half a dozen ways to do this. Indeed it is
: : technically feasible to make a "safe space" on the Internet
: : for kids and in some ways it is almost a trivial thing to do.
: :
: : As for justification, do we hold school classes on the streets
: : in a red light district or in a bar? No, we create a "safe space"
: : for youngsters and hold classes there, in the school.
: :
: : The moderated newsgroup mechanism combined with controlled
: : feeds (somewhat like clari.*) could be easily adapted
: : to create newsgroups in which only registered people or
: : registered sites could post. This would merely involve
: : a bit of work with shell scripts or PERL scripts. 
: :
: : Securing the Web or Gopherspace would be a little more challenging
: : but a start would be a modified Gopher or WWW client that
: : can only access authorised sites or sites registered with
: : a central authority.

: I think that this approach is naive, but not *entirely* unfeasible.
: Some general points:

: (1) There is no way to do this solely at the client side.  Existing
:  <SNIP>

True, but here is a quick (ok not so quick) and dirty way to do it.

NEWS: A single news sight which only carries a small sub-set of the news-
      groups.  Now, have some groups of people which lookover the postings
      (hold on, don't start screeming yet)  These people would do this on 
      their own time, as they read news (say a hundred+ folks)  If they
      felt the posting was "bad" they send a message to the news server.  If
      N people send the message, the posting gets yanked.  The "youth" server
      would have a delay between when it recieves a message and when it
      posts that message.  This site would be mirrored.  The person running
      the site would have to do periodic checks to see what is being canceled
      by whom.  

	Problems:
		It puts too much control into a few peoples hands.
		It would have to be provided by a com. server.
		Some college/company/??? may think that their folks
		  only need this sub-set.



 (2) If the net establishes widely used protocols to allow central
: authorities to control what children can and can't see, then those same
: protocols could be used to control what adults can and can't see.  We
: should be aware of this consequence before we adopt such technology.


Yep.
: (3) There are fundamental problems of scale in any such system which
: would necessarily turn a many-to-many interactive medium into a
: few-to-many broadcast medium, thus eroding the principal benefit of
: computer networks.  You and I would be unlikely to have this
: conversation under such a scheme.

The above scheme should not have this problem.
: (4) The major attraction of distributed document retrieval systems like
: the World Wide Web and gopher is that they are *distributed*.  Many
: individuals and institutions working in parallel come up with a greater
: variety of useful resources than could ever be planned and executed by a
: single, centralized organization.  This is fundamentally at odds with
: the concept of a central registry of "approved sites".  Furthermore, a
: central approval authority would have to be not merely a registration
: service for sites which educators had deemed harmless, but would have
: to exercise *control* (through a contract or other means) over the
: content at those sites.  Otherwise, one would continually find that
: yesterday's kid-safe site had today been blemished by objectionable
: material.

Nope, some groups will be willing to state that they are, and will remain,
"clean".  If those groups change there mind, or become un-reliable, they
are pulled from the list.  It will be a VERY small sub-set of the list, and
misses the whole beauty of the web.  But it might make a parent more likely 
to put their child on the net at all...

: (5) One fallacy common to proponents of isolated child-friendly
: networks is that problems only occur when children can communicate
: freely with adults other than their teachers.  In fact, children are
: very good at communicating objectionable material to other children.
<clip>

I think I have covered this.

: (6) The existing Usenet moderation mechanism is notoriously easy to
: spoof.  Any bright 12-year-old with access to the manuals could figure

Agreed, and should not be an issue above.

: (7) Any system based on adding a backwards-compatible restriction
: mechanism to existing protocols runs the risk of being foiled by users
: surreptitiously gaining access to unrestricted versions of the same
: client software.  Thus a kid-safe network would either have to
: guarantee that children couldn't download an unhobbled version of
: Mosaic, say, or it would have to isolate itself further by using
: purposely incompatible protocols.

So things would be something like:
    -  Have an account on the commersial site "joes-net"
    -  Have the owner able to password-limit some options on joes-net, now
       downloading "unhobbled" software is of no real help.
    

There are a lot of potential problems with this plan, but a provider like
AOL or netcom may find it profitable.



: For all of these reasons, I have my doubts about the usefulness of
: attempts to build an isolated "kidspace" on the net.  If you can't deal
: with the risk that some children at some time will run into some
: objectionable material, keep them off the net and stick to CD-ROMs.
: (Or, the cynical might say: keep them locked in a closet and don't
: teach them to read.)

While not a parent, I would like to have some other option. (I always have
been a fence sitter)  I don't think the net is "bad" for anyone over the age
of 12, but ......


: -- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
: -- Systems Programmer and RiceInfo Administrator, Rice University
: -- 2002-A Guadalupe St. #285, Austin, TX 78705 / 512-323-0708
: -- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

Mark Brehob

In <366sb1$6a9@uuneo.neosoft.com> Bruce Robertson
<broberts@sam.neosoft.com> writes:

>Once you get on a PC and online...
>there will be no way to stop them.
>You mentioned only "approved" newsgroups.  But, how do you do only
>"approved" web pages or ftp sites?  

>There's no simple way for a service provider to do this.  Nor anyone
>else, that I can see.

I disagree with the 'Nor anyone else' part -- see below.

I believe the real problem is not that you can't find a mechanism to
limit access, but that it's impossible to list in advance what should
be permitted and what should not.  It's like somebody saying 'give me a
mechanism so I never see a TV show that I don't like'.  Obviously, one
has to ask 'but which shows are those?', to which the answer is, 'how do
I know if I don't see them first?'

Thus the real solution is parental responsibility and supervision.
Any parent who expects a service provider to assume this responsibilty
is probably not a very good parent.

But the situation is really not too bad.  I can't imagine anything on
the Internet that would cause actual harm to a child.  I can imagine
lots of things that would cause discomfort to the *parent*.   So
parental supervision is needed:  This way parents can protect children
from things that would discomfort them (the parents).
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com

In <7DrXkapDln3A071yn@halcyon.com> mpdillon@halcyon.com (Michael Dillon) writes:

>As for justification, do we hold school classes on the streets
>in a red light district or in a bar? No, we create a "safe space"
>for youngsters and hold classes there, in the school.

This is not a good analogy.  Shielding children from harm by keeping
them inside a certain building, having street crossing guards etc., is
quite different from preventing exposure to words and pictures on a
screen.  The first is common sense, the second is paranoia.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com

Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@rahul.net) wrote:
: In <7DrXkapDln3A071yn@halcyon.com> mpdillon@halcyon.com (Michael Dillon) writes:

: >As for justification, do we hold school classes on the streets
: >in a red light district or in a bar? No, we create a "safe space"
: >for youngsters and hold classes there, in the school.

: This is not a good analogy.  Shielding children from harm by keeping
: them inside a certain building, having street crossing guards etc., is
: quite different from preventing exposure to words and pictures on a
: screen.  The first is common sense, the second is paranoia.
: -- 
: Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
: also:  dhesi@cirrus.com





I must disagree.  Have your read alt.sex.stories?  I suspect that a _young_
child reading a.s.s might get the idea that the postings there are
"normal" (rape, child molestation, etc) 

We do need to protect our children from certain exposure.  Words, written and
spoken, have a significant impact on children.  Think about a parent saying
"I don't love you" as an extreme example.  Words, pictures, and ideas can
hurt us all.  The difference is that adults (supposedly) can "take things
with a grain of salt" and have experiance to guide them as to what is
true and important and what is not.

It is the parent's responsiblity to insure that their child is not exposed
to things the parent thinks will harm the child.  Therefore, it is not
unreasonable for parents to want a "safe playground" for their children
on the net.  Sure they will have to pay for it, (probably via some provider)
but the desire for such a playground should not be labled paranoid, 


Mark Brehob

In article <36dqgi$12nd@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
Mark W Brehob <brehob@cps.msu.edu> wrote:
>I must disagree.  Have your read alt.sex.stories?

	Have you read some of the disclaimers there? I don't see how
any kid of minimal IQ could understand that this is "normal".

AB^2
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can have my encryption algorithm... when you pry my cold dead fingers
from its private key."       -John Barlow, "Decrypting the Puzzle Palace"

In article <36cgga$598@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
Mark W Brehob <brehob@cps.msu.edu> wrote:
>Prentiss Riddle (riddle@rice.edu) wrote:
>NEWS: A single news sight which only carries a small sub-set of the news-
>      groups.  Now, have some groups of people which lookover the postings
>      (hold on, don't start screeming yet)  These people would do this on 
>      their own time, as they read news (say a hundred+ folks)  If they
>      felt the posting was "bad" they send a message to the news server.  If
>      N people send the message, the posting gets yanked.  The "youth" server
>      would have a delay between when it recieves a message and when it
>      posts that message.  This site would be mirrored.  The person running
>      the site would have to do periodic checks to see what is being canceled
>      by whom.  
>
>	Problems:
>		It puts too much control into a few peoples hands.
>		It would have to be provided by a com. server.
>		Some college/company/??? may think that their folks
>		  only need this sub-set.
>
	One other problem is that it won't work. USENET is not an isolated
system, theres more than one way to get your news... point your NNTP host
at somewhere that does have what you want to read etc. Even if you only
give the kid an email account you can still mail places and if you know how
to do it retrieve gifs from binaries.erotic. Without totally restricting all
connections to the outside world (ie having an isolated network and not
being on the Internet at all) someone can always find a way to retrieve the
info they want. And the kids are the brightest of all.
	Better to treat them like responsible adults. If a kid wants to
download a porn gif s/he can find a way to do it. You restrict that
and they can just walk across the street and buty a dirty mag. Of you
consider exposure to this wrong then the solution is to educate the
kid better about this. Personally I dont think you achieve anything
by censorship except to make some topics which are perfectly harmless
and natural (eg sex) into big moral issues.

-Mark
-- 
The ECafe (NEXUS-London)
Email: info@ecafe.org
WWW:   http://www.cyberspace.org/u/ecafe/www/index.html

mpdillon@halcyon.com (Michael Dillon) writes:

>I'm surprised that a Senior TECHNICAL Editor at such a magazine
>can't think of half a dozen ways to do this. Indeed it is
>technically feasible to make a "safe space" on the Internet
>for kids and in some ways it is almost a trivial thing to do.

	And any technically inclined person can also think of a dozen
ways around the "safe space" There's no way, short of packet filtering,
to create a "safe space" Maybe the appearance of one, but anyone can go
anywhere on the internet, with a little knowledge.

>The moderated newsgroup mechanism combined with controlled
>feeds (somewhat like clari.*) could be easily adapted
>to create newsgroups in which only registered people or
>registered sites could post. This would merely involve
>a bit of work with shell scripts or PERL scripts. 

	And then little Billy points the nntp newreader as a different
news host, and you're beat. Or, goes browsing with gopher or even
Mosaic.

>Securing the Web or Gopherspace would be a little more challenging
>but a start would be a modified Gopher or WWW client that
>can only access authorised sites or sites registered with
>a central authority.

	So then they ftp a non-broken gopher or Mosaic client, and you're
beat again.

-- 
               John Henders  BOFH  Wimsey Information Systems. 
               Vancouver's original internet service provider.
               Dialup SL/IP and PPP for Mac, DOS and Windows
               Voice: (604) 421-4741, FAX: (604) 421-4742

Mark Cheverton (ecafe@c2.org) wrote:
: In article <36cgga$598@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
: Mark W Brehob <brehob@cps.msu.edu> wrote:
: >Prentiss Riddle (riddle@rice.edu) wrote:
: >NEWS: A single news sight which only carries a small sub-set of the news-
: >      groups.  Now, have some groups of people which lookover the postings
: >      (hold on, don't start screeming yet)  These people would do this on 
: >      their own time, as they read news (say a hundred+ folks)  If they
: >      felt the posting was "bad" they send a message to the news server.  If
: >      N people send the message, the posting gets yanked.  The "youth" server
: >      would have a delay between when it recieves a message and when it
: >      posts that message.  This site would be mirrored.  The person running
: >      the site would have to do periodic checks to see what is being canceled
: >      by whom.  
: >
: >	Problems:
: >		It puts too much control into a few peoples hands.
: >		It would have to be provided by a com. server.
: >		Some college/company/??? may think that their folks
: >		  only need this sub-set.
: >
: 	One other problem is that it won't work. USENET is not an isolated
: system, theres more than one way to get your news... point your NNTP host
: at somewhere that does have what you want to read etc. Even if you only
: give the kid an email account you can still mail places and if you know how
: to do it retrieve gifs from binaries.erotic. Without totally restricting all
: connections to the outside world (ie having an isolated network and not
: being on the Internet at all) someone can always find a way to retrieve the
: info they want. And the kids are the brightest of all.

Actually, I had not thought about the ability to do this via mail.
The "point the news reader at another location" is easily beat by only 
allowing a menu driven access (no shell access) and a hardwired
newsreader.  The E-mail I had not thought of.  Perhaps
put a line in the header of all outgoing e-mail which sex-related
mailservers would be asked to not send replies to (of course no one
could stop them......)

That actually genrates other problems, like IDing the fact that they are
children.....  OK, I must concede that point (and therefore the whole 
ball of wax.)  bummer.

: 	Better to treat them like responsible adults. If a kid wants to
: download a porn gif s/he can find a way to do it. You restrict that
: and they can just walk across the street and buty a dirty mag. Of you
: consider exposure to this wrong then the solution is to educate the
: kid better about this. Personally I dont think you achieve anything
: by censorship except to make some topics which are perfectly harmless
: and natural (eg sex) into big moral issues.

Actually the dirty mag is not supposed to be sold to them (at least in
most (all?) states in the US.....)
Also I agree with the "harmless and natural" to some extent, however
I do feel (I DON'T know) that many of the things in alt.sex.stories
could be harmful to children.  Ask a child psychiatrist what they think.

Mark Brehob 


: -Mark
: -- 
: The ECafe (NEXUS-London)
: Email: info@ecafe.org
: WWW:   http://www.cyberspace.org/u/ecafe/www/index.html

In article <36iltu$l2n@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
brehob@cps.msu.edu (Mark W Brehob) wrote:
> Mark Cheverton (ecafe@c2.org) wrote:
> : In article <36cgga$598@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
> : Mark W Brehob <brehob@cps.msu.edu> wrote:
> : >Prentiss Riddle (riddle@rice.edu) wrote:

> : at somewhere that does have what you want to read etc. Even if you only
> : give the kid an email account you can still mail places and if you know how
> : to do it retrieve gifs from binaries.erotic. Without totally restricting all
> : connections to the outside world (ie having an isolated network and not
> : being on the Internet at all) someone can always find a way to retrieve the
> : info they want. And the kids are the brightest of all.
> 
> Actually, I had not thought about the ability to do this via mail.
> The "point the news reader at another location" is easily beat by only 
> allowing a menu driven access (no shell access) and a hardwired
> newsreader.  The E-mail I had not thought of.  Perhaps
> put a line in the header of all outgoing e-mail which sex-related
> mailservers would be asked to not send replies to (of course no one
> could stop them......)
> 
> That actually genrates other problems, like IDing the fact that they are
> children.....  OK, I must concede that point (and therefore the whole 
> ball of wax.)  bummer.

Don't give up so easy. A Mail User Agent can be modified to make use
of mail servers difficult. It could prefix every subject line with
the string [AGE10] or [AGE7] or whatever the kids age is. This 
would likely screw up mail servers that use the subject line.
Then the first lines in the message could be a brief intro like
  
    Another message from John Q. Kid, age 12 at the XYZ
    School in Zebraville CA. Teacher: mjones@xyz.zebra.ca.us

I believe many mail servers use "quit" or "end" to recognise
the end of the command list. This could also be automatically
prefixed to the message.

Now it is true that kids COULD get a hold of porn magazines and
they COULD order porn videos to be mailed to there home, but there
are many physical obstacles to overcome for them to do this.
Therefore, most of them never do such things. It is our 
responsibility as parents to make a reasonable attempt to provide
safe spaces for our children.

Even though we know that those safe spaces could be breached
from within (drugs, teenage pregnancy) and from without
(schoolkids held hostage), we still want to do the best we
can to create that safe space. That's why some big city schools
have armed security guards and it's why some parents choose
to live in small towns or send their kids to private schools.

What I am saying is that we have to attempt to create 
safe kidspaces on the Internet and that it is not that
difficult technically to do so at the present time.


cruisin' down the information highway, lookin' for a blast
breakin' all the speed limits as I come zoomin' past!
--
Michael Dillon                 Internet: mpdillon@halcyon.com
C-4 Powerhouse                  Fidonet: 1:353/350
RR #2 Armstrong, BC  V0E 1B0      Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Canada                              BBS: +1-604-546-2705

In article <xaVZkapDlDZU071yn@halcyon.com> mpdillon@halcyon.com
(Michael Dillon) writes:

[quotations deleted]

   Don't give up so easy. A Mail User Agent can be modified to make
   use of mail servers difficult. It could prefix every subject line
   with the string [AGE10] or [AGE7] or whatever the kids age is. This
   would likely screw up mail servers that use the subject line.  Then
   the first lines in the message could be a brief intro like

       Another message from John Q. Kid, age 12 at the XYZ School in
       Zebraville CA. Teacher: mjones@xyz.zebra.ca.us

   I believe many mail servers use "quit" or "end" to recognise the
   end of the command list. This could also be automatically prefixed
   to the message.

I would sincerely hope that a child of mine would be bright enough to
get around this.  You forget that most serious hackers cut their teeth
while they are literaly cutting their teeth.  When you have a lot of
time and energy, as well as natural curiosity, you figure out how to
access what you want to get to.  Also, one of the nicest things about
the Internet is the fact that a person can be judged by what they
choose to type, not their age, race, educational ranking, etc.  If a
14 year old has something important to say, some people might dismiss
that persons writing out of hand, if they know the 14 year old's age.
I'd hate to see that happen because of fear-based policies.

   Now it is true that kids COULD get a hold of porn magazines and
   they COULD order porn videos to be mailed to there home, but there
   are many physical obstacles to overcome for them to do this.
   Therefore, most of them never do such things. It is our
   responsibility as parents to make a reasonable attempt to provide
   safe spaces for our children.

You make it sound as if a safe physical space is somehow more
important than a safe psychological space.  In other words, just
because a parent attempts to physically isolate a child from all of
the nefarious evil elements at large ``out there,'' doesn't mean that
the child will not attempt to experiment with whatever she can get her
hands on when the parent is not around.  I think we need to pay more
attention to *why* children turn to drugs, violence, promiscuity, and
the many other things that parents are afraid of.  Obviously, we as a
society do not provide for the needs of many of our children, so they
turn to ``bad'' behaviour.  These are not problems caused by
technology, so we shouldn't look to technology to solve them.

   Even though we know that those safe spaces could be breached from
   within (drugs, teenage pregnancy) and from without (schoolkids held
   hostage), we still want to do the best we can to create that safe
   space. That's why some big city schools have armed security guards
   and it's why some parents choose to live in small towns or send
   their kids to private schools.

   What I am saying is that we have to attempt to create safe
   kidspaces on the Internet and that it is not that difficult
   technically to do so at the present time.

You're right.  Make all over-protective parents access the Internet
through Prodigy and America Online, and let those companies screen all
postings and e-mail for objectionable content.

   cruisin' down the information highway, lookin' for a blast breakin'
   all the speed limits as I come zoomin' past

Let's analyze this quote for bad influences to children:

cruisin' -- joy riding

lookin' for a blast -- gratuitous pleasure seeking

breakin' all the speed limits -- scoffing at the law, which is
supposed to protect your safety, as well as that of others

I hope parents can successfully protect their impressionable children
from your quote, because it could lead to delinquency.

--
Brian Patrick Lee <blee@media-lab.mit.edu> <lee@tcm.org>
PGP 2.6 Public Key available via finger and keyservers.
Stated opinions are personal, not institutional.

> 
> That actually genrates other problems, like IDing the fact that they are
> children.....  OK, I must concede that point (and therefore the whole 
> ball of wax.)  bummer.
> 
Not actually a bummer, the main point here is educate the child.  Good
child/parent relationships is what will win or loose in the end.  Besides,
the problem with trying to create locks on the internet is that it would
be account specific. If Billy's parents lock him out of bianaries.erotic
and Joey's parents don't-Billy goes to use Joey's computer!!

Steve*smidea@halcyon.com

In article <BLEE.94Oct3010305@media-lab.media.mit.edu>, blee@media.mit.edu
(Brian Patrick Lee) wrote:

> 
> You're right.  Make all over-protective parents access the Internet
> through Prodigy and America Online, and let those companies screen all
> postings and e-mail for objectionable content.
> 
> 
I agree!  The bottom line to me is that technology should not be asked to
replace what a parent should be doing.  That is, educating the child on
what is out there and helping them to satisfy their natural curiosity with
the benefit of an adult, hopefully the parent, to interpret what is out
there.  This issue is no different that educating a child on sex,
religion, or any other "adult" subject.  The answer will never be to hide
it from the children, the answer is in a strong positive relationship
between child and parent.

Steve*smidea@halcyon.com

S. William Mele (smidea@halcyon.com) wrote:
: In article <BLEE.94Oct3010305@media-lab.media.mit.edu>, blee@media.mit.edu
: (Brian Patrick Lee) wrote:

: > 
: > You're right.  Make all over-protective parents access the Internet
: > through Prodigy and America Online, and let those companies screen all
: > postings and e-mail for objectionable content.
: > 
: > 
: I agree!  The bottom line to me is that technology should not be asked to
: replace what a parent should be doing.  That is, educating the child on
: what is out there and helping them to satisfy their natural curiosity with
: the benefit of an adult, hopefully the parent, to interpret what is out
: there.  This issue is no different that educating a child on sex,
: religion, or any other "adult" subject.  The answer will never be to hide
: it from the children, the answer is in a strong positive relationship
: between child and parent.

: Steve*smidea@halcyon.com

Actually, you seem not to agree.
Some group like AOL, CompuServe or ****** should provide this service,
with no promises.  We will TRY to keep your child in "HappyNet" but
will not promise it,  All for the low low price of *******

Tech should not (and cannot) replace a parent, but a parent can use
it to help raise a child.

Mark
.

Words, pictures, and ideas may cause some harm, but the policing of same to protect kids who may be eavesdropping where they are not welcome will certainly cause harm. It is not unreasonable for parents to want a "safe playground" on the Net, as long as their desire goes no further than creating one themselves, with their own money. It is unreasonable to want the rest of us to accept turning all of the Internet into a "safe playground." The worst happens for the seemingly best of reasons. Put a password on
 your copy of Procomm, but don't turn the freeway into a sidewalk because your kid ran into traffic.

In article <smidea-0310941019480001@blv-pm1-ip24.halcyon.com>,
S. William Mele <smidea@halcyon.com> wrote:
>Not actually a bummer, the main point here is educate the child.  Good
>child/parent relationships is what will win or loose in the end.  Besides,
>the problem with trying to create locks on the internet is that it would
>be account specific. If Billy's parents lock him out of bianaries.erotic
>and Joey's parents don't-Billy goes to use Joey's computer!!

There's another issue:  I don't want to educate *anyone's* children.  The
net is not a babysitter, I don't want to use a kinder, gentler language
because minors might be watching.  That's -not my problem-.  I choose to
distance myself from children (difficult, because parents seem to think
children have the right to go almost anywhere and do almost anything and
still be considered gifts to society).

When I want to be in an atmosphere of children and all it entails, I will go
to -them-.  I don't want holds placed on me because the mass of parentia are
shirking.  (A good portion of my home is annoyingly childproofed already...
washer, stove, 'fridge, medicines...)

Keep your kids, and your fingers, away from my account, please, and we'll
get along fine.

tsalagi@netcom.com writes:

 >In article <smidea-0310941019480001@blv-pm1-ip24.halcyon.com>,
 >S. William Mele <smidea@halcyon.com> wrote:
 >>Not actually a bummer, the main point here is educate the child.  Good
 >>child/parent relationships is what will win or loose in the end.  Besides,
 >>the problem with trying to create locks on the internet is that it would
 >>be account specific. If Billy's parents lock him out of bianaries.erotic
 >>and Joey's parents don't-Billy goes to use Joey's computer!!

 >There's another issue:  I don't want to educate *anyone's* children.  The
 >net is not a babysitter, I don't want to use a kinder, gentler language
 >because minors might be watching.  That's -not my problem-.  I choose to
 >distance myself from children (difficult, because parents seem to think
 >children have the right to go almost anywhere and do almost anything and
 >still be considered gifts to society).

I will agree that there are a lot of ill-behaved children out there, but the
attitude of people who treat children as though they are no business of
theirs and act as though they wish there should be no children.  Are you
willing to give up every benefit that having children in the society bestows
on you?  Examples:
  Social Security and many kinds of insurance depend on younger peoples'
    premiums to pay current obligations to older people
  Younger people probably make up a current part of the market for whatever
    product or service you make your living by selling, either directly or
    indirectly.

Are you willing to invest effort and set up a procedure to insure that you
do not in some accidental way benefit from children now or at some time in
the future when they may no longer be children?

 >When I want to be in an atmosphere of children and all it entails, I will go
 >to -them-.  I don't want holds placed on me because the mass of parentia are
 >shirking.  (A good portion of my home is annoyingly childproofed already...
 >washer, stove, 'fridge, medicines...)

 >Keep your kids, and your fingers, away from my account, please, and we'll
 >get along fine.


Having said what I said above, I believe it is the responsibility of parents
to know what children are doing and to take responsibility for it rather
than requiring that the net or the world be made "childproof".  You also
have to keep in mind that the forces of censorship are really not interested
in children, they just want to control you and me and will use whatever
convenient excuse to accomplish that goal.

-- 
  R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)313-762-9765   ___________________
  Humanities & Social Science,  GMI Eng.& Mgmt. Inst.    /   _____  ______ 
  Flint, MI 48504      ellis@nova.gmi.edu               /        / /  /  / /
  Gopher,chimera,nn,tin,jove,modems, free code is best!/________/ /  /  / /