Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
As far as I can tell nobody making either phones or phone software has made a simple block contact function built into the phone, it's default in all IM's so I can't see a reason why I have never seen it on cellphones. This would allow the user to stop phone bullying just by stopping that number from contacting them, simple.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
... like not giving them a mobile phone until they are older.
I am not a parent, (thankfully), but i do find it rather worrying that parents seem to take so little responsibility for anything to do with protecting their child.
Can't a parent monitor a kids phone (i.e. look at it regularly to see text and pics)... perhaps even use its removal as a punishment. Or use its use as a reward... i.e. kids cannot have their phone back until their homework is done.....
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
I'd have thought that, rather than giving a child a PAYG phone, it would make more sense for parents to give them a contract phone with a usage cap, and take advantage of facilities like the O2 Bluebook, which would allow the parent to see all texts and their content, sent and received. That and an itemised bill should allay many fears.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
Is it just me or does anyone else think that giving young children mobiles is just plain idiotic ? .
My stepson is 9 in a few weeks and his dad has promised him a mobile . The kid has maybe 5 friends he talks to in school every day . He doesnt go wandering farther than earshot so why the hell does he need a mobile ? . All this rubbish about its for safety what utter tosh he never goes anywhere farther than the damn television .
Things like this make me mad . Its just another excuse for shoddy parenting . And then what do they do . Moan like hell because the kids run up a huge bill downloading crazy frog ringtones . Well you gave em the darn thing you muppets .
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
Are these the same parents who demand that mobile phone masts be kept away from their precious little snowflakes at all costs?
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
"Purveyors of porn don't generally want under-age customers as they lack money to pay for the content, allaying the concerns of 51 per cent of parents."
This has to be the most ridiculous non-sequiteur I've seen on El Reg for a while.
The only parents whose concerns are allayed by this are fucking stupid ones. Any kid can grab their parent's CC number and look at porn. That's a simple fact of life. The idea that the porn industry doesn't have an *interest* in this happening is either (a) horrendously naive or (b) a complete fucking lie, depending on who's saying it.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
Here's how to protect your 10 year old kid from inappropriate content: Don't buy them a fscking phone!
You're very much welcome.
-dZ.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:24 GMT
Older than 18 - yes, knowing Pink Floyd albums - no; but try me on Cat Stevens or the Incredible String Band!
Mine's the one with a built-in wind-up gramophone.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 13:59 GMT
"parents still reckon their kids aren't being protected from inappropriate content."
If it is such a great concern for the parents, why give the kiddies a phone at all? If you must slide over one of the cheap "phone only" units, perhaps with the oh so cool e-ink or e-paper or e-"whatever they call it now". So what if you have to order it directly from the factory, it cost 30 [quid, euros, dollars] so it isn't a big deal if it winds up down the loo and the odds someone will want to steal it drops to nil.
Paris because I needed something to match the title.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 15:05 GMT
has had a phone since six (soon ten). It makes me worry less and I think it makes life safer for her too.
And yes, "all my friends have better phones than I have" is what I have to try to bear, as expected.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 15:05 GMT
Four years ago, in my son's 6th grade class (11-12 year olds), there were only two out of 30 kids without a phone - my son, and another kid. That's 93%.
Now both of my kids (high school age) have phones, but it's only for calling us if they have to stay over for club meetings, or soccer practice canceled, etc - they have pay as you go phones.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 16:04 GMT
I'm not sure I could name something by either of them.
Anyway, my sprog got their phones when they got to high school and started doing after school stuff (and they're too young to drive and too far away to walk...really). Pay as you go works just fine...no camera...no whatever....just a simple phone.
Posted Tuesday 21st April 2009 16:04 GMT
If parents are worried about the sort of things their kids might see and hear on a mobile phone, WHY DO THEY LET THEM HAVE ONE?!!
I really wonder if the peace of mind afforded to parents by giving their kids phones (e.g. cancelled club meets etc.) is actually justified? For example, the two children beaten half to death by two other children in Yorkshire recently had their phones stolen by their attackers. In fact, since the attack was motivated by theft, the immediate question anyone might ask was, did having mobile phones actually create the risk?
Posted Thursday 23rd April 2009 15:11 GMT
I doubt the actual possession of the phone was the trigger as much as the fact the perpetrators COULD do it (and probably figured they would just get away with it) and certainly didn't care about the consequences of their action on the other kids. Cat-o-nine comes to mind.
Back to the article
