FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[sagi58]

...what are you bringing to the table that any parent computer savvy enough to be on a website may have missed?

Don't kid yourself! Being able to post on a website/forum does NOT necessarily make anyone computer "savvy"!
That's pretty basic stuff in today's high tech world.

[CookinFlat6]

So which members here do you think you are educating about anything? And my implication about web savvy isnt down to just using it, its about members on forums who are not savvy enough to spot a pervert in 5 posts?

Im done on this waste of time

[sagi58]

You've taken my comment out of context... again... that's really an annoying habit, you should try breaking!
It isn't as easy as you seem to think it is to teach children anything as they become teenagers and think they
have the answer to everything. Worse, they have the erroneous impression that they are immortal and that
bad things won't ever happen to them.

How different is all that to teenagers who are easily lured by old but rich and famous pop stars? or priests, or teachers, or kids tv presenters

What about when impressionable kids go to the concert and are asked backstage by the roadie to meet popstar...

Those are great examples. But, you are not taking into consideration that social media interactions occur in the home.
You know, that place where children are supposed to be safe?? it's a false sense of security that most of us believe in
to the extent that if our children are on their computers, at home, we believe they are safe from the big, bad wolf.

[What's Burning?]

In the home, the same place where mommie's creepy new boyfriend, or the weird neighbor that's always more than willing to babysit spend time. or the church where parents willingly drop their kids off for Sunday school.

[sagi58]

So which members here do you think you are educating about anything?

I am not trying to educate anyone. That's something you lay claim to, on a regular basis.
I have simply opened up a discussion.

That doesn't automatically mean I know something that no one else knows. That doesn't
mean I'm trying to assert my intellectual prowess over anyone else. That simply means
I'm interested in what others actually think.

I am not interested in lording it over anyone. Get it?

[vaptin]

I don't really get some of these posts, they strike me as a bit petty to be completely honest. I thought it was generally accepted that if you had no interest on a certain subject or topic, you didn't post, and just let the people who wanted to post get on with it.

I mean, on the one hand you have people saying "this thread is pointless" (or to that effect), but aren't they themselves being pointless and not adding value to the thread? , e.g. not really adding to the thread but if I was to be bold; just trying to take a personally motivated pop, or make themselves feel clever by criticising. I mean, its different from disagreeing with the content of a thread, I'm talking about disagreeing with the right to make a thread. I'm more of the opinion people can post what they want, I guess I'm kinda leading on to"I may disagree with your point(or in this case feel it lacks value/ point), but I will defend your right to make it". Ok that's not quite accurately quoted, but I think the content is the same.

Actually, and kinda separately to the above, I think there is stuff that could be discussed on this topic. Maybe people could discuss the different means and advantages or disadvantage of "keeping children safe" - i.e. how effective is "watching technology", can kids simply bypass it, is it needed to supplement a healthy, communicating relationship between parent and carer, or is it just a replacement of the latter (the latter being effective communication) .Is the latter, something that is the fixable solution (e.g. good communication on sexual issues) or is that not reliable enough for the regular fail-safe (e.g. protecting kids) to be placed. How bes to ensure effective implementation of any solutions (an example might be how to make sure parents are in fact educated).

Where do responsibilities lie, and to what extent? Public bodies (e.g. social services, police authorities), parents, the children themselves, schools, internet service providers, website owners/ hosts?

What's burning I guess, brought up the point: is the focus on internet dangers, at the expense of other dangers?

People could perhaps discuss trends, are certain socio-economic or ethnic groups more likely to be perpetuates, are certain ones more likely to be victims? Is this linked to cultural upbringing surrounding views children are taught about umpalumpa and sexual relationships. Is this increasing over time, or decreasing?

I think the above are all potential discussion points.

[sagi58]

In the home, the same place where mommie's creepy new boyfriend, or the weird neighbor that's always more than willing to babysit spend time. or the church where parents willingly drop their kids off for Sunday school.

Yes, those are situations that occur more often than anyone wants to address.
Just as online predators exist. The idea is to raise awareness and to discuss
how to keep children safe.

[CookinFlat6]

I don't really get some of these posts, they strike me as a bit petty to be completely honest. I thought it was generally accepted that if you had no interest on a certain subject or topic, you didn't post, and just let the people who wanted to post get on with it.

I mean, on the one hand you have people saying "this thread is pointless" (or to that effect), but aren't they themselves being pointless and not adding value to the thread? , e.g. not really adding to the thread but if I was to be bold; just trying to take a personally motivated pop, or make themselves feel clever by criticising. I mean, its different from disagreeing with the content of a thread,

Ok in this thread, my first contribution was to say I didnt understand what the point of discussion was aimed at. I picked up specifically on what I see as a massive and dangerous contradiction. Sagi started by saying parents should focus less on obtaining social privacy and more on thinking about real dangers
So I asked what the objective here was, because worrying less on online privacy is worrying less on the single biggest way of preventing the majority of attacks, the online privacy is the gateway between virtual and physical when the perve knows the kids name and address and email etc

And ofcourse once it passes that gateway, another gateway is the kid themselves ofcourse, once these are breached its then like the real world - so whats she saying? do you know?

[vaptin]

I don't really get some of these posts, they strike me as a bit petty to be completely honest. I thought it was generally accepted that if you had no interest on a certain subject or topic, you didn't post, and just let the people who wanted to post get on with it.

I mean, on the one hand you have people saying "this thread is pointless" (or to that effect), but aren't they themselves being pointless and not adding value to the thread? , e.g. not really adding to the thread but if I was to be bold; just trying to take a personally motivated pop, or make themselves feel clever by criticising. I mean, its different from disagreeing with the content of a thread,

Ok in this thread, my first contribution was to say I didnt understand what the point of discussion was aimed at. I picked up specifically on what I see as a massive and dangerous contradiction. Sagi started by saying parents should focus less on obtaining social privacy and more on thinking about real dangers
So I asked what the objective here was, because worrying less on online privacy is worrying less on the single biggest way of preventing the majority of attacks, the online privacy is the gateway between virtual and physical when the perve knows the kids name and address and email etc

And ofcourse once it passes that gateway, another gateway is the kid themselves ofcourse, once these are breached its then like the real world - so whats she saying? do you know?

I feel confident to answer the less on social privacy and more on thinking on real danger. I think its crossed wires. I assume Sagi when she says worrying less about online privacy, means carers should worry less about the online privacy they give to their children - e.g. parents (as in her first example) should be checking what kids are up to online, and not saying their kids should have privacy about what they do online.

I guess you thought she meant, the privacy of the kid in terms of the on-line environment, e.g. she was saying they should be more open about their personal details online, I think she meant my paragraph above.

[CookinFlat6]

I feel confident to answer the less on social privacy and more on thinking on real danger. I think its crossed wires. I assume Sagi when she says worrying less about online privacy, means carers should worry less about the online privacy they give to their children - e.g. parents (as in her first example) should be checking what kids are up to online, and not saying their kids should have privacy about what they do online.

I guess you thought she meant, the privacy of the kid in terms of the on-line environment, e.g. she was saying they should be more open about their personal details online, I think she meant my paragraph above.

Nope I think she meant parents should worry less about the recent public alarm at the policies of companies like FB and twitter, and the increasing anxiety about allowing them on to these social sites in the first place. So I believe she is saying they are worrying about the integrity of the social space instead of worrying about the the kids activity within the space.

Allowing a kid to have their own privacy is a certain once the kid is on the internet, as it comes back to the integrity of the place they are allowed in

She based her parental 'call to arms' on an article that talks about a guy monitoring emails, when we all know that the danger of the internet is that there is not a single thing parents can do to monitor a kid 24 hours who doesnt want to be monitored (how easy would it be to get a new email nor forwarded to Daddy?)

I just like things that are factual or start with a factual basis - its not about monitoring emails 24hrs, its about teaching the kids to be safe themselves and most of all its about the integrity of the space.

[sagi58]

...Ok in this thread, my first contribution was to say I didnt understand what the point of discussion was aimed at. I picked up specifically on what I see as a massive and dangerous contradiction. Sagi started by saying parents should focus less on obtaining social privacy and more on thinking about real dangers
So I asked what the objective here was, because worrying less on online privacy is worrying less on the single biggest way of preventing the majority of attacks, the online privacy is the gateway between virtual and physical when the perve knows the kids name and address and email etc

And ofcourse once it passes that gateway, another gateway is the kid themselves ofcourse, once these are breached its then like the real world - so whats she saying? do you know?

Are you serious?? Do you even read/understand what I posted?
I said:

... More parents should worry less about giving their children the right to online privacy and worry more about the potential for danger, if they aren't watchful.

Re-read that, slowly... parents should worry less about giving their children online privacy and
worry more about the potential dangers inherent if they do give their children online privacy.

As adults, social privacy is a right. NO doubt about it! BUT, this thread is NOT about adults!!
It's about keeping children safe, children who are vulnerable because of their lack of experience
and worldly knowledge. Their right to safety far exceeds their right to online privacy because
they are vulnerable.

In this case, I believe there is a difference between the online privacy accorded to adults and
that given to children.

[sagi58]

I feel confident to answer the less on social privacy and more on thinking on real danger. I think its crossed wires. I assume Sagi when she says worrying less about online privacy, means carers should worry less about the online privacy they give to their children - e.g. parents (as in her first example) should be checking what kids are up to online, and not saying their kids should have privacy about what they do online.

I guess you thought she meant, the privacy of the kid in terms of the on-line environment, e.g. she was saying they should be more open about their personal details online, I think she meant my paragraph above.

Nope I think she meant parents should worry less about the recent public alarm at the policies of companies like FB and twitter, and the increasing anxiety about allowing them on to these social sites in the first place. So I believe she is saying they are worrying about the integrity of the social space instead of worrying about the the kids activity within the space...

That would make you wrong. My one and only concern is keeping children safe online. PERIOD.
Children will experiment, that's how they learn. It is a parent's mandate to keep their child safe.
Their online privacy should take a backseat to their safety. PERIOD.

Social media is a phenomenon that is here to stay. I have no problem with it; however, that doesn't
mean that children should have carte blanche when it comes these sites. Parents are ultimately
responsible for their child's safety and it is up to them to know what their child is doing. Just as
they would want to know where their child is hanging out with their friends in reality, they should
know who their child's friends are and where they are online.

...Allowing a kid to have their own privacy is a certain once the kid is on the internet, as it comes back to the integrity of the place they are allowed in...

First of all, you said "a certain"; but, I'm not sure what is "certain"? Did you mean a certainty?

Regardless, allowing a 10-year-old carte blanche on the internet is a recipe for disaster, regardless of the
integrity of the place they are allowed in. After all, as was already mentioned, even the home, the church,
the school, the neighbourhood a child lives in can lack integrity.

It's worse online because of the anonymity aspect. It's worse because of the lack of parental control.
If parents are to be held accountable, then parents need a certain amount of "control"!

...She based her parental 'call to arms' on an article that talks about a guy monitoring emails, when we all know that the danger of the internet is that there is not a single thing parents can do to monitor a kid 24 hours who doesnt want to be monitored (how easy would it be to get a new email nor forwarded to Daddy?)...

That would make you wrong... again... That article was one of the discussion points I provided.
Yes, it was the first one, so I can see how that might confuse you; but, I did share other, more
personal examples.

Again, my intention was not to suggest that parents be paranoid; but, to discuss what parents
can do to keep their children safe, including not buying into "online privacy" rights for children.

And, yes, it easy to set up a new email account, that's something parents should be aware of.
Some aren't. That's also something that should raise warning flags, in a parent's mind.

And, NO, I do not mean that a parent must monitor their child until they leave the nest; but,
there is an age until which, parents would do well to know what their child is doing online.

[CookinFlat6]

thats silly because unlike at home, its near impossible to breach whatever privacy levels a kid wants to have, thats the point you may have missed. The guy forwarding his kids emails to himself is common sense for any parent able to stop their kid setting up extra ones for added privacy.
You dont seem to have consiederd the industry out there that looks at restricting the kids access to pre vetted and 'safe' spaces, I actually thiought you were talking about this more in depth idea - where sites like Fb etc who proffess to be safe in allowing the freedom to each member yet are suspected of not being too particular about the material they are entrusted to be private with by the kid and parent

Parent says yu can only go on site A, cos they actively ban perverts, and they do this by having access to all their private stuff, and that means they have yours as well, but I dont and I couldnt anyway if i tried because there are so many ways even on FB for you to do things in private - so ill lets you go on FB, now I wll educate you about spotting perves

Apparently we are discussing - ' I am not going to allow you any privacy at all, I am going to monitor everything you do on line, and I know its gonna be hard for both of us, but the slim chance that a pervert might get past you despite what i taught you, and get your address despite you never giving your address to strangers - so sagi is advising those parents without that attitude to change over from 'I cant monitor you 24hrs, I can teach yu, and I can restrict you to vetted sites and I can use software to monitor certain words and keystrokes, but you will not feel like I am intruding same way as if I had a camera in your room at all times'

makes sense

[sagi58]

thats silly because unlike at home, its near impossible to breach whatever privacy levels a kid wants to have, thats the point you may have missed...

I haven't missed that at all. What you're talking about is a specific level of
sophistication that most children do not have when they are younger.
And, I do understand that in their teens young people will do and say things
to ensure their privacy. However, in the first article, the girl is 12-years-old,
the perpetrator is 30 and it's a good thing that her dad was vetting her email.

...The guy forwarding his kids emails to himself is common sense for any parent able to stop their kid setting up extra ones for added privacy...

That's one group of parents. The group whose children are still to young to know/
lack the knowledge that they actually have the option.

...You dont seem to have consiederd the industry out there that looks at restricting the kids access to pre vetted and 'safe' spaces, I actually thiought you were talking about this more in depth idea - where sites like Fb etc who proffess to be safe in allowing the freedom to each member yet are suspected of not being too particular about the material they are entrusted to be private with by the kid and parent...

Thanks for adding that bit to the discussion. I didn't start this thread in order to
lecture; but, to discuss. Not only do I not profess to have all the answers, I also
accept that I may not know the questions that need answers.

...Parent says yu can only go on site A, cos they actively ban perverts, and they do this by having access to all their private stuff, and that means they have yours as well, but I dont and I couldnt anyway if i tried because there are so many ways even on FB for you to do things in private - so ill lets you go on FB, now I wll educate you about spotting perves...

True, parents should educate their children on how to spot potential dangers,
no doubt about it. However, each child is unique and not all children are ready
for certain discussions at the same age. Not all parents are comfortable with
talking about the possible situations that can occur online. Not all parents know
about them, because they themselves are not users of social media.

...Apparently we are discussing - ' I am not going to allow you any privacy at all, I am going to monitor everything you do on line, and I know its gonna be hard for both of us, but the slim chance that a pervert might get past you despite what i taught you, and get your address despite you never giving your address to strangers - so sagi is advising those parents without that attitude to change over from 'I cant monitor you 24hrs, I can teach yu, and I can restrict you to vetted sites and I can use software to monitor certain words and keystrokes, but you will not feel like I am intruding same way as if I had a camera in your room at all times'

makes sense

I can't even be bothered to respond to that, since that's not what I'm saying.

[CookinFlat6]

http://www.gomcgruff.com/

See Everything They Do Online
Facebook (and dozens of other Social Networks), Chat/IM, Usernames & Passwords, Message / Comments / Photos Posts, Email Sent & Received, Websites Visited, Searching & Googling, Keystrokes Typed, Programs Used
Parental Control of What They Do
Full Parental Control of Internet and Computer: PC Use & Time Limits, Blocks *censored* & Other Inappropriate Websites

Now this is a random company making money by charging parents to monitor their kids activity. Anyone could have all those tools free. Even the ISPs now provide free tools for montioring and prtecting kids. For absolutely free anyone could monitor their kids traffic, keywords, keystrokes (anything typed on their PC), remote access, see what they are seeing at anytime, have snapshots of what they are seeing emailed at intervals - all without the kid knowing.
Just like the smarter parents do in real life, keep a close eye whilst allowing the impression of privacy etc

But I understand we are been asked by you to worry less about something we can do something about and worry more about our biggest worries in the first place. So we should now remove the concept of kids having privacy and replace that with overt panicky reaction to an article about a guy and his high tech email forwarding? If he had spent more time bringing his kids up instead of communicating by email then maybe his kid wouldnt be online to make friends in the first place

And in other news parents are advised not to swear in front of the children, apparently some may not be aware that kids are a quick study