Safer Internet Day fights online foolhardiness Young surfers are being encouraged to practise safe computing and use common sense online on Safer Internet Day today. Safer Internet Day is a worldwide user education initiative designed to "promote safer and more responsible use of online technology and mobile phones, especially amongst children and young people". The …
You are in fact the 1st, its me who's probably the 98th as I was going to say the same thing - that means either great minds think alike or it was so obvious that only a complete... urm, yeah the first one actually! ;o)
I don't like the idea of a customised IE 8 though - what's it been customised with? More exploits? A big button to click for help if you suddenly find a Nigerian prince has nicked all your pocket money?
I know lots of morons who post pictures of other people, drunk or not, along with their real names on their facespace pages -- if I found someone had posted a picture of me I would be extremely displeased.
It seems that, in today's arsehole-filled world, it's only safe to hang out with people who don't know you name if you're planning on doing anything an employer or partner, present or future, may not like the look of.
Perhaps it ought to be a crime to post a picture of someone along with their name?
CEOP - great idea in practice (educate the masses, esp. the kids about the dangers out there on the inet) but run by a bunch of retarded budget clawing numpties so not so great in practice.
Their plan is very simple - shout "think of the children" a lot, pressure large, popular organisations into de facto support of what they do and thus gain shed loads of funding which they can 1) spend inappropriately and 2) put on their CV to get a proper job in the future.
It annoys me no end to see a decent idea abused like that. They had a monkey on BBC News this morning radging about Facebook not putting the CEOP button on it, and not so subtly stating that their actions put children at risk. The truth is, any parent or responsible adult letting 5 year olds on the inet unsupervised should be put in nick for a month - it's their job to protect their wards, not Facebooks (or anyone elses).
/rant
For those that hate IE in any shape or form (me included) try the free K9 Web Protection which includes Internet Filtering and parental controls like time restrictions.
The bonus, though restricted to Windows platforms, is it works with ANY browser and does not require the browser to be reconfigured (ie proxy configuration).
I came across it few months back and it is driving the "ankle biter" mad as it is doing exactly what is needs to including filtering search results back from the likes of Google :)
The link for anyone you cant be bothered to use a search engine is http://www.k9webprotection.com
I agree with the comment about the chap complaining about facebook not having the button. Personally, if was building a social networking site (Which I am) I would not put such a button on my site (Without receiving a big bucket of money) as it encourages the witch hunt mentality which is causing a lot of trouble for us adults and results in people like Stephen Conroy of Australia completely messing up the internet for people.
The last thing you want is the government messing with looking after your safety, look after it yourselves. The cure is worse that the crime. And these people think that "protecting the children" is worth should be at any price. They forget that all kids grow up rapidly to be adults for whom it appears that no one gives a shit. I call it the puppy dog syndrome.
although this may be easy to ignore. I think it's U.S. law that there is such a rule. I think Twitter is one, whereas there was serious discussion a while back of whether primary school students being taught to use Twitter responsibly was a good idea: they wouldn't be allowed to.
Am I by now the 98th person to suggest that if children are to browse safely, they shouldn't use Microsoft Intimate Explorer? Or any Windows software?
Am I the first person, more reasonably, to suggest that children also should be taught not to install random stuff on the PC, and not even to trust friends' uncorroborated recommendations of safe software because their friends probably don't know any better!
That would be COPPA, it doesn't actually prohibit sites like Twitter from allowing children under 13, but it imposes fairly onerous requirements for getting parental permission before collecting any personal information from them, including an email address. So many web sites decided it was easier to just ban preteens entirely.
I heard the witchfinder general (aka Jim Gamble) bleating on BBC Radio 4 this morning. This bloke is the sort of nutty obsessive that gives nutty obsessives a bad name, the sort of ranting bigoted Ulsterman who gives... well, you see where I'm going there.
His line reminded me of Bush's "You're either with us - or you're against us". Gamble seems to think that any website or organisation that doesn't fall over itself to do CEOP's bidding is somehow in league with the paedophiles.
The only value of CEOPs latest outburst of Microsoft shill-ery is that a few more people might upgrade to IE8 - not ideal in itself but a damn sight better than leaving them swilling around in the cesspit of IE5.5 and IE6. But that's an IT win, not a child protection benefit.
"Oh won't you think of the children!" No, Jim, because I'm not neurotically obsessive about children - mine or anyone else's. They can look after themselves by and large - just as they've had to do for millenia. What's more, I don't want to fuck the children either. Nor do most other people. You, however, seem to think most people do. That is alarmist wolf-crying.
This morning, I listened with incredulity as Gamble boasted about educating five-year-olds about the danger of online grooming. Eh? Which kids would those be? The five-to-seven year-olds who can conduct fluent lucid IM 'conversations' using developed skills of typing and reading? Christ, at five they can barely point-and-click let alone type and read. I know: I've watched the little bastards. Or maybe, Jim, you mean that the perve hordes are skyping their prey or using voice chat? In which case it aint the kids who need 'educating' it's the parents who leave their little darlings unsupervised with a computer and headset.
The trouble with crying wolf - as the fairytale teaches - is no-one listens to you when a real wolf comes along. In that regard, Gamble (and the rest of the cynics and fanatics who make a good living out of hyperbole about endangered child) do more harm than good. Far too much of the child protection industry is a racket, not a service.
Give us reliable information, Jim, not hysteria. Some impartial, properly-researched, evidence-backed authoritative statistics would be a start. And I don't mean "information" from Esther Rancid or the even madder Lucy Faithful Foundation. Oh, wait a minute - evidence is the last thing Jim and Co want because it simply doesn't support the Daily Mail / CEOP scenario of an ever-increasing army of perve strangers murdering and raping our children.
Forget social networking. Forget stranger danger. Keep it in the family, Jim. Any plans for a browser with a "My step-dad's been fiddling with me" button? Nah. Thought not.
Hey, I recycled a title there, is that "green" too? :-)
There is a full setup which has been running certified courses since years in Switzerland, look at www.hackerhighschool.org. I know some people involved, so call me biased, but I know these guys know their stuff.
I guess collaborating with those people would not have extracted so much tax money to play with..
Sniping aside, I think it's a good idea to teach kids early, but only if it makes them think. Making them scared is stupid, and with the present level of government-needed hysteria that is always somewhat hard work to avoid..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
