by mark on March 31, 2009
Speaking to a customer who was trying out ComputerTime, I was asked if ComputerTime did parental control types of things. What she really was asking was, “Does ComputerTime do internet filtering?” Some people think the terms are synonymous. But parental control software is a more general term and can refer to different types of control.
Blocking and Logging Parental Control Software
Most parental control software that hit the market over a decade ago, primarily monitored or blocked websites along with other internet related activities. Some software went as far as spying on kids every activity.
Website blocking software has never been extremely effective*. To be effective, the database of sites that need to be blocked has to be complete. But everyday, tens of thousands of new domains are registered. Old domains expire and are acquired by people who put up different web pages than the previous owners. If you feel comfortable utilizing a tool that may only be 90% accurate — that’s better than nothing — but don’t rely on it for real protection.
I Spy with my 25 Eyes by nickhall
Tools that give parents detailed logs of websites visited, every keystroke typed, and even screen snapshots seem a bit creepy. Just because parents can monitor every aspect of their kids online lives, is it the right thing to do? Parents will take different sides on this issue. Parents today should think back to when they were kids: If your parents clandestinely listened in on your phone conversations, or trailed you in their cars at a distance, using parabolic microphones to listen to your conversations across the parking lot, would you resent or respect them for how they handled your upbringing.
SoftwareTime’s Approach to Parental Control
SoftwareTime’s stance is that the best web filter is the watchful eye of the parent. Ensure that computers are located in a public area of the house and if you choose, set limits that disallow use of the computer at times that you won’t be around to keep an eye on the activity.
ComputerTime encourages responsible use of computers. Kids push against boundaries, not always respecting limits. They don’t always act in their own best interest, and ignore consequences. Parental guidance is required. ComputerTime helps parents to provide this guidance, but does not replace parents.
With ComputerTime, it’s you, the parent, that still sets the rules for how long and when your kids can be on the computer. You can be strict with the limits that you set, or you can be flexible and let the kids manage their time within relaxed constraints if they have shown themselves to be more responsible. Since you’re only managing time with ComputerTime, it’s a less intrusive type of parental control.
Things Are and Aren’t Different Today
Kids with cell phones, the web, IM, email, FaceBook, MySpace… It’s a whole new world.
But kids themselves, they haven’t changed all that much. The aspire to be trusted, respected, loved, appreciated, etc.
The best way to handle our children in today’s technology-saturated world is similar to what our parents would have done when we were kids:
- Have a good, open relationship with our kids where they feel comfortable talking with you. Spying on them would joepardize that relationship, so don’t do that.
- Provide guidance. Teach your kids good values and responsibility so that kids can do the right thing whether that be at the playground, the mall, or online.
- Pay attention to your kids. You’ll know when something is wrong; attentive parents notice subtle changes in kids behavior and moods when they are in trouble.
- Give them roots and wings
Do you agree with this philosophy? Do you think parents always be aware of exactly what’s going on? Overtly or covertly? Leave a comment below.
—-
A quick shout out to my friend Brett, who posted about his fears and uncertainties about how to best handle the issue of how much privacy he should give his kids when they’re old enough to get onto the Internet. It’s a problem that a lot of parents wrestle with, and inspired me to share my two cents.
by mark on February 24, 2009
“Your kids may be in danger!” says the news media. They know fear gets people’s attention; attention let’s them sell advertising. The truth may just be less attention-grabbing.
Is the Internet a dangerous place where evil lurks and kids are at risk? Do we need to worry?
No. Probably not. Recent findings from a task force created by 49 state attorneys general suggests that parents can relax.
Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown. There is no significant problem after all according to the report.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal criticizes the report and insists that “Children are solicited every day online. Some fall prey and the results are tragic. That harsh reality defies the statistical academic research underlying the report.”
Actually, most of the children are being solicited online by other children, and most children that get involved with adults online are actively pursuing such activity. Statistics don’t always tell the whole story and the fear mongers will withhold details if it doesn’t serve their purpose.
The whole report can be found here: Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies.
Porn and violence have become more prevelent in various media, yet teens are having less sex and there is less real violence. Is there a relationship there? Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds asks, are porn and violence good for America’s children? Then he says:
Maybe the porn, and the videogames, provided catharsis, serving as substitutes for the real thing. Maybe. And maybe there’s no connection at all. (Or maybe it’s a different one — research indicates that teenagers, though safer and healthier, are also fatter — so perhaps the other improvements are the result of teens sitting around looking at porn and videogames until they’re too out-of-shape and unattractive for the real thing…) Most likely, the lesson is that — once again — correlation isn’t causation, despite policy entrepreneurs’ efforts to claim otherwise.
In another report, video games do not lead to violence.
If we can trust these reports, then kids are not at increased risk of physical harm. Good! How about other detrimental psychological effects? Does it affect their brains? They’re social skills? Will it give them ADD?
Psychologist Dr. Helen Smith asks, Do social websites harm children’s brains? Helen points to the news about a neuroscientist, Susan Greenfield, who refers to sites like Facebook, Twitter and the like and says, “My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment…”
Wait a minute… haven’t kids of all ages, over the past century, been attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights? Don’t all teenagers have small attention spans and live for the moment? That’s a safe bet.
But let us not be so quick to be entirely dismissive. Parents are witnesses to their kids growing up around 24/7 cartoon cable channels, Internet access, Facebook, YouTube, cell phones, and instant messaging. Many have seen that when they don’t impose limits, hell breaks loose. Raising teenagers regardless of technology is one big exercise in imposing limits.
So what’s a parent to do in the absense of a definitive study that gives us clear results on if technology is beneficial or detrimental? Set limits, of course. Make sure the kids are finding time to do all of the other things that kids should be doing. Everything in moderation. Take everything the media tells you with a grain of salt and trust your parental instincts.
Here is a smattering of additional links that I’ve collected over the past few months that I want to share, but don’t feel like addressing individually right now. Enjoy.
Digital Overload Is Frying Our Brains
More ‘Screen Time’ Linked to Poor Fitness in Girls
How the Internet Damages Our Culture
Culture Makes the Internet Cruder, Not the Other Way Around
Study links TV and depression
What are your thoughts on all of this?
by mark on March 22, 2008
There is disagreement over a National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) study that makes a case that people are reading less and kids are in trouble as a result.
The NEA study is ignoring online reading, according to Steven Johnson in his article Dawn of the Digital Natives. He contends, “if you actually read the report, what you find are some startling omissions – omissions that ultimately lead to a heavily distorted view of the Google generation and its prospects.” He points out that “The NEA makes a convincing case that both kids and adults are reading fewer books. “Non-required” reading — ie, picking up a book for the fun of it — is down 7% since 1992 for all adults, and 12% for 18-24 year olds.”
But the NEA report also shows that younger children are making progress in their reading abilities. Teenager’s reading scores have only dropped by about 1% in 15 years. Is that Alarming? It doesn’t seem to be.
Kids as well as adults increasingly read more online, and in Johnson’s estimation, they are “exercising the same cognitive muscles” whether the words are represented in ink or pixels.
The NEA hit back, saying that Steven Johnson misrepresented the report. Sunil Iyengar is the director of the Office of Research & Analysis at the NEA, and he says that they did not exclude online reading from their analysis. He says their data comes from studies “…asking people how frequently they read anything whatsoever for pleasure — a category so broad as to include text of any length in any format through any medium, from books to cereal boxes to, yes, computer screens.”
Then Iyengar parades additional statistics which seem to support the NEA’s claims.
But as you read both of these articles, the notion that Johnson and Iyengar are both cherry picking statistics to support their arguments emerges.
Iyengar ends with some honesty that suggests we need to put this debate on hold for a while because we really don’t have all the answers: “Now is the time for educators and intellectuals to produce sound empirical studies of the risks and benefits of electronic media.”
Perhaps it’s not the medium as much as the quality of the content that makes the true difference in kid’s becoming smart.
Until a clear answer emerges, a policy of moderation in using online media is probably the safest path, and encouraging reading is never a bad thing.
Hat tip to Kevin Arthur for linking to the articles mentioned above. Here are additional book related links from his great blog, Question Technology:
