70 per cent more boys had called in about seeing porn online
Were they complaining or boasting?
Kids as young as five should be taught how to stay safe online, with tips and advice coming from their mates as well as teachers, a UK children's charity has said. The NSPCC said that online abuse was one of the major child protection issues today, as kids see more and more porn and are encouraged or coerced to make their own …
Were they complaining or boasting?
This reminds of me of hearing about the son of the directors of a company I used to work for. His son was suspended from school for peddling porn. It turns out that his son was videoing the late night trailers for the soft porn cable and satellite channels, putting them all together and duplicating and selling videos of it. Given the soft nature of it all he really wasn't sure whether to be angry about it or proud because of his son's entrepreneurship.
Also I recall reading a survey about kids taking drugs, where something like 80% of them said they had taken drugs. Including one that was completely made up.
Kids boast, especially about things they should not be doing.
I'd be proud of his business sense, but a little annoyed that he was violating copyright to do so, then give him other ideas of what he could sell at school.... there is always a market for something beyond the closed school gates... and not all of it has to be dodgy.
A mate of mine started doing that. We had school dinners which were kinda meh, overpriced more than anything. The year 11s were allowed off school grounds for lunch. So he'd take orders for the chippy, go buy a huge order, and make 50p - £1 profit per order.
What I'm wondering is this.. Why are kids as young as 5 ON the internet? Seriously if I ever have kids (god forbid, I say that for their sakes not mine) they aren't getting on the internet until they turn 8 at the earliest, unless I'm there with them.
We used to have the crappy surveys at school every few months and we'd always, without fail, put YES to every dodgy or dangerous activity and write some rubbish on them. We'd never any of these things, we just thought it would be a laugh to annoy people, that's what kids do!
"The charity's phone-in helpline ChildLine said that compared to just one year ago, a whopping 70 per cent more boys had called in about seeing porn online, ..."
If I want to see porn online, I have to make a reasonable effort (hint: it's not worth the effort).
How are these kids doing it? If the are being shown porn or being sent links to porn, then this is an issue for child protection authorities and the police. If they are actively seeking it out themselves then that raises all kinds of questions.......
frank ly, you have actually been on the internet right?
"hot bitches get nailed"
Perhaps the point is that young kids have learned (from where?) that such a phrase will get them to porn, rather than to an RSPCA site about the dangers of leaving your family pet in the garage on a hot day?
That took me to Screwfix!
But what happens if you type in screwfix?
Just tried that in Google search. The first ten pages were all screwfix links....and then I got bored.
But what happens if you type in screwfix?
Ads for Escort agencies?
Wait! Nick Woodruffe, I think you are being groomed.
Hah, I remember at school, back before safesearch actually did much of anything, we'd just type 12345567890 into google images and it'd turn up SO MUCH PR0N
Then of course was the hilarious moment, we were doing an RE project on different religious things, one of the girls decided she was going to do the bibles opinion on homosexuality. First site she visited 'god hates gays' or something had been hacked. An endless stream of non stop gay porn popups. It was hilarious, and because the school was still on IE4 or something rediculous it had no popup prevention.
Maybe they learn it from comment sections (llike this one) that generally aren't banned... Maybe we should ban comment sections?
Kids should not be left unsupervised on the internet its as simple as that.
Its parents who need lessons in using the internet so they can keep their kids safe not 5 year old being told what to do.
Parents often won't let their children go to the end of the road unsupervised but think nothing of letting them spend hours unsupervised on the internet.
As far as the end of the road? That's very, very dangerous - there should be a law against that kind of thing. After all there are paedophiles behind every bush and gate down the street so it must be a mercy or arrogant luck that any of the poor innocent children actually make it to the end of the road, let alone back again.
We'll ignore the fact that almost all child molestation is carried out by a close family member of course. It's the exceptional cases that make the news, and often these wind up being a close family friend or family member anyway.
At least fix it right...
The NSPCC, for some reason, have this all wrong. While it's good to educate the kids, this isn't actually the cause of the issue. It's the parents.
I'm sure we've all seen it at some point, but parents let their children have laptops or iPad's with no parental controls and don't supervise them. They go to their rooms, alone, with just the laptop/iPad and themselves. They can go on whatever they want, when they want, and the parent doesn't know. Of course, the parent finds out when their child is the subject of "sexting" or finds an indecent image they have downloaded off the internet. Then it's everyone's fault BUT that parent for not taking a damn in what they are looking at.
An example of this would be my girlfriends 9 year old sister, given an iPad for Christmas by her mother. She never looks at what she's up to, and as far as the mother is concerned all she is doing is using FaceTime to speak to her friends. So on Sunday, I'm walking up the stairs and I can hear that Miranda's woman's voice (I can't stand her, and no one in the house can stand her either). I pop my head in the bedroom of my girlfriends sister and she's watching an episode of Miranda. I asked her what she was watching, and she said she was watching Tracey Beaker (LIE!). I told her that Miranda wasn't suitable (not because it's crap, but the language etc) and told her mother. The mother in law asked the 9 year old, and apparently she wasn't watching it although it was a good third of the way through the episode judging by the play bar at the bottom. The mother, like an idiot, took her word for it and didn't check it.
This mother in law isn't an isolated case, there'll be millions of families like this up and down the country. They need back bone and to stand up to the child and say "We're having a desktop down here in the living room, and you will go on it when I'm around". That is really the easiest way of combating children seeing things they shouldn't see, but alas for some reason this country/society seems to think it's the responsibility of others, not themselves, to police what their children see.
It's an absolute joke.
I agree with the sentiment, but Miranda?!
Surely Miranda is only suitable viewing for children. Its certainly not an adult programme. You're kidding yourself if you think they don't already know more swear words than you do.
You think Miranda will corrupt the minds of the young? Check out the rude Countdown clips on YouTube - they'll cause a revolution....
I should have written it in what I said that the mother in law said it wasn't suitable because of it's content. I just think it's unsuitable for any general viewing because it's crap.
Agreed, if for the children, at least do it for the sake of your bandwidth.
Child + YouTube = no more bandwidth, just a black hole where your quota was...
Great story, just clarify one thing - she wasn't your girlfriend's OLDER sister, right?
I can clarify that the 9 year old sister to my 24 year old girlfriend is indeed the younger sister :)
Yes I agree that kids should have lessons in how to stay safe online, but I believe that parents should be able to get lessons in how to secure their connection for their own kids and not expect someone else to do it for them.
If my kids see porn online, it will be down to one of two things either I havent secured my internet properly to keep them from seeing things that I believe are not safe for them. Or the little shits have become more tech savvy than me, which means I have to up my game.
But (and this is what I hope mainly) I am raising my kids to talk to me if they have problems, so that they can come to me with anything, knowing Im not going to go ballistic at them. If people took more interest in their kids and what they are doing online and in general then this wouldnt be a problem (IMHO)
Being "safe online" means not giving their personal (or my credit card) details to strangers and not agreeing to meet those strangers IRL.
Seeing a bit of human flesh (accidentally or not) or reading something which some adults may not be comfortable with them reading is not "unsafe". It may be undesirable for whatever religious, moral or educational purposes but safety does not come into this.
And the only way to make kids safe online means explaining to them what and why they should not be doing. Relying on any technical blocking and filtering would mean totally missing the nature of the threat and the methods needed for its mitigation.
Very well stated sir, censoring the problem is not the answer, all that does is leave them unprepared for that one time safesearch isn't on....
Now here is irony for you - Microsoft (of all companies) did actually make that same point a while back.
We have a couple of vectors here that need to be checked.
- Parental guidance: parents need to have an idea how the Innertubes work or you're shot straightaway. You cannot educate kids if you don't have the basic understanding yourself.
- Education: kids should be able to find age specific education, be it online (but that could turn into a honeypot itself) or at school, which (to me) seems the natural place for it, provided the teachers have a clue as well
- Technology: we have *some* measures that can filter age-restricted material, but, to be honest, from experience I found that kids tend to settle on a number of sites. Once you have those, you can white list them. I wouldn't depend on blacklists because that's a game of whack-a-mole. This is also why you must educate the kids - that safety net will eventually fail.
But donate some cash to ChildLine and it will all go away... until next year and the next fundraising session, that is.
They aren't really asking for our money - well, not directly.
In 2011 the government gave £11.2 million of taxpayers' money to Childline:
Big 'charities' like the NSPCC just lobby government for their money these days. It's so much less hassle than collecting the money from ordinary people.
So what they're saying is "Keep funding us beyond 2015, or paedos will sex every child in England."
ISTR seeing their adverts on telly most nights.
'Course - They have to blow the money on something not related to Fixing the Problem. Because Fixing the Problem means that they are either out of business or have to learn new skills to solve new problems - just like the politicians, really: It's both easier and safer, career-wise, to compound the problem while pretending to solve it!
I've not actually got my hands on any IPv6 gear in anger yet... what's it like setting up filtering compared to IPv4? I mean, I can and have set up at the firewall access to BBC (News, Weather and BiteSize) and Wikipedia only for all traffic from all devices save my 'grown ups' laptop. Easy peasy. No social media, no email, no photosharing, no YouTube, no iPlayer etc. Will I have to relearn a skillset?
Wouldn't it be possible to just do it by domain names and get it to reject any request that involves passing a raw IP address (whether v4 or v6)?
Is that how IPv6 works? Named packets? Is DNS a thing of the past? I should go and read up on this...
> Will I have to relearn a skillset?
A skillset like parenting?
yep, just use opendns.
Free to register and use. Just pick the categories you want to block.
I'm sure the DNS is still involved (unless you ARE typing those number/colon messes) but whether that's actually in the packets, I have no idea. I imagine it can be done in the router, whitelisting would probably still work (depending on the model).
I really am glad I don't have to concern myself with any of this...
Can they actually read or type well enough to go and seek out pr0n? Surely if they are clicking on pictures on some child friendly website it's unlikely they'd stumble across something unsanitary.
Or maybe we should praise the pr0n and the Internet for significantly increasing our children's literacy levels (albeit in one fairly specialised area).
Actually my 5 year old can use a pc well enough to turn on, goto google and search for things he wants to find, usually he ends up going to you tube and watching lego videos or playing games on lego.com
he has no interest in porn obviously (puberty is a fair few years away!) so I doubt he'd find it on purpose, and would be unlikely to follow a link if he saw one.
Well, I would be more impressed if the kids can find the pterodactyl-porn.
If only every parent whose kid was exposed to porn was as sure as you are that your kid isn't looking at it... Oh wait, they are!
Even if every ISP in the land followed a voluntary code and sent out a letter when the customer signs up explaining how to go to a website set up by the ISPA for parental control software and making parental controls ridiculously easy to set up on their routers, I still don't think it'd be enough.
Putting a solution on a silver plate is still too little for that group of parents who aren't particularly interested in parenting.
building parental controls into the router is the right way to do it.. but I've yet to see a router with any kind of filtering as an option...
building router controls into the parent is the right way to do it.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds