var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
October 3, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Bleh. I don't think we need products marketed to children any more than theyalready are.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
October 3, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

if they were just selling, say, what percentage of kids went to a certain website, I don't think it would be a big deal. But there is something creepy about reselling people's IM logs, even if the names are removed.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 4, 2009 1:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: Anonymous data is a misnomer. Companies take your data (particularly your phone number and email) and sell it to unverified 3rd parties. That's not speculation...that's fact.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
October 3, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: it is wasting resources to give up privacy, I could understand if the program was free, but there charging a monthly fee to use it and on top of that making additional money by selling off personal information.

PS if someone wants free parental control, there many free web proxy servers that offer this, no software slowing down the PC needed

all parents need to do is change the proxy settings then lock the children down to a limited user account where they cant change the proxy settings

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
October 3, 2009 7:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Razor512: yeah, if they want kids' opinions and chat logs they ought to be paying the kids [parents] for them and not getting paid twice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
October 3, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Razor512: openDNS can also do a decent job blocking predefined categories, with a user-definable whitelist. (although i think you can get around it by using the site's direct IP, which doesn't always work with some of the larger sites)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston19283
October 3, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony:

instant messages, blogs, social environment communities, forums, and chat rooms.

I don't know if they are selling actual IM logs (didn't read the press release), but content posted blogs, communities, forums and chat rooms is available for the public to read (unless it's in a password protected area).

When you install this software, you're giving it permission to look at exactly what your kid is doing online, for the purposes of blocking unwanted content on the incoming side. If all they are doing is looking at the number of times Hanna Montana is mentioned, and noting that it's increased 500% from last week, or noted that the work \"sucks\" is in the same sentence a lot, I don't have a problem with that. It's no different than the data aggregation on Amazon or any other website that tracks what people are searching for, buying or talking about.

Hey, it could even help if they notice a lot of kids talking about how their favorite toy bursts into flames - the software notices that have massive of kids posting about that all over the country, someone might put it together and realize the tickle me elmo dolls have have finally gained sentience.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 4, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston19283: Based on the article, they are selling actual conversations. And most people put real names in as part of conversations. How do we know they review those to make sure no names are there?

The answer to the last question is that a computer does it, and uses a third-rate filter that doesn't work very well. The other answer is they don't even attempt it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 3, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston19283: \"The company says that it delivers the unsolicited raw conversations in real time. It gives marketers immediate, unique information about what teens are saying in their own words.\"

This statement makes it seem like every word from every conversation, which in my view, should be illegal. There is no fucking way I'd let anyone sell my complete chat logs, even if my name weren't attached. That's way over the line.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
threadislocked
October 3, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony:
I agree.


That is an invasion of privacy to spy on someone's kids. Now any pediphile could just get a job at one of the companies, or even just pay for access to your childs communications.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Willmeister
October 3, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

so theyre selling things to the parents on what theyre kids are doing and adding more to the price tag by selling more detailed info on what theyre doing?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
October 3, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet the most likely place this data would wind up is in the hands of malware developers, social engineering to trick people into infecting their computers, is more effective on children than on adults.

It is also targeted at stupid people who are willing to pay to give up their privacy.

it doesn't matter if they offer a opt out (it needs to be a opt in process),
these companies make it opt out but hide it in such a way that people will have no idea whats going on unless they really inspect whats going on.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 4, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Razor512: Hehe...like people who pay MORE for a sports car with a manual transmission (or get an automatic transmission in a sports car in the first place)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
October 3, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a kid. She's too young to do nefarious things online right now, other than the accidental (she can spell/read so it's possible she could try to enter a URL that sounds innocent but turns out to be porn).

As she gets older, I really hope to have taught her some sensibility about life and computers and the 'net so I don't have to nanny-bot her. I don't want to censor her.

We'll simply keep computers in highly visible locations as much as possible (already getting harder with web-enabled phones and all of that) and have regular talks about sensibility and responsibility, and make it damned clear that she gets trusted as long as she doesn't do clearly stupid/forbidden things, and if she does, the trust goes away. AND SO WILL THE COMPUTER.

I'd only buy nannyware if I had a habitually problematic kid. Which could happen, I'm not naive. But I think most kids aren't assholes or idiots unless they're pre-treated as such.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
October 4, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kaceetheconsumer: That's pretty sensible. Set the boundaries and enforce the penalties if the boundaries are broken.

Way to go; you sound like a good parent.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
j-o-h-n
October 3, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kaceetheconsumer: I know some people find this hard to believe, but it's not going to kill your kids to see naked people -- even naked people doing \"weird\" things.

I remember one day when our son was in that phase and thought typing \"big butts\" into google image search would be the funniest thing ever. Instant teachable moment.

(we do keep all the computers in the den though)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 5, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know some people find this hard to believe, but it's not going to kill your kids to see naked people

@j-o-h-n: It also won't kill your kid if they don't see underage girls getting slime violated by tentacle monsters.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
October 4, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@j-o-h-n: There are online predators to consider. You need to know what your kids are doing on the Internet, who they're talking to, etc. Training doesn't always prevent someone from being manipulated into giving their personal info or harassed, stalked. Don't even get me started on sexting, which can incur criminal charges for those involved.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
October 4, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@j-o-h-n: It's not about naked people or even sex...it's attitudes expressed in pornography.

Believe me, I am no prude. My kid sees me naked all the time because she walks in on my showers. Whatever. It's just the human body.

And sex is no big deal either. I have no qualms about explaining sex to her and she's already asked some basic questions and received some basic answers.

But I really don't need her to end up on a site that objectifies any gender in any way. I don't want her to think that lesbian sex is a way to turn on men...if she turns out to be a lesbian, I want her to reach that through her own healthy means, not via male-centric porn.

And if she wants to get into BDSM later in life, that's her business, but right now she's 4 and we have enough trouble with tantrums and hitting and don't need to associate it with any kind of pleasurable activity, thanks.

I think she can wait a long time before being exposed to any kind of sexual lifestyle, be it mainstream or alternative.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
colorisnteverything
October 3, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kaceetheconsumer:


The only stories I have heard of good kids going bad was when the parents didn't talk to their kids or when the computers were located in private areas - like kids bedrooms.


I grew up in a generation where having a computer in the house was once a luxury and where having your own computer was unheard of until you were in college.


I got my first computer in senior year of high school and that was SO cool for my friends. They thought my parents were the best lol.


I never did anything on the computer because I knew mom and dad would kill me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
October 3, 2009 7:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@colorisnteverything: Agreed. We were never allowed a TV or a computer in our rooms - that was a luxury only kids with cool parents had! All screens were located in trafficked communal areas.

Of course, you can have a kid who waits until their parent leaves the house or goes to bed to cause mischief, but there's greater risk involved on their part. It's also still easy for kids to accidentally stumble on something, so talking about good internet habits and explaining what to do is necessary, but keeping screens in public areas is just as good as a blocker to monitor your kids. Plus it shows them that you trust them to make good decisions, which is always nice.
I'd disable web access and maybe text on my kid's cell phone though. It's not necessary at their age, it's costly, and it's becoming a big in school distraction.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
October 3, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@colorisnteverything: Yes, I've heard only bad things about letting a kid have their own fully loaded computer in their bedroom. If it's not inappropriate networking, it's game addiction or something else. Or hell, just being up late and not sleeping.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
October 3, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kaceetheconsumer: if needed you could ask your school if you could use their proxy server, the DOE has multiple proxy servers that are set up and run by them and all of the schools around the country will just connect to them, the proxy offers pretty much all of the parental control you could want, and best of all it can be set for each user account on the PC so you can have unrestricted access for your self and the kids will have the locked down access like they would get on a school computer.

most parental control programs that are overpriced and slow the computer down, they can easily be disabled by writing a simple batch script which ends the task of the process (works even if disable the task manager)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Fett101
October 3, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm going to found a company to Cryogenically freeze children straight through puberty. No need for all this messy 'parenting' nonsense.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 4, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Fett101: And when they wake up, it will be a new era with prostitutes at every McDonald's and orgies in Congress.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Fett101
October 4, 2009 10:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dondegroovily: At last, reason to watch CSPAN! Then elections will start becoming more like Miss America contests where the hottest win.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ArcanaJ
October 3, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Fett101:

Oh, please. Not everybody has the luxury (or OCD) to hover over their kid every second of every day, let alone every online session. You have to let them go and hope what you taught them holds sway. But parenting is a process and letting go happens in degrees.

This kind of software is just a back-up tool for those who find themselves in the midst of those degrees.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bushi
October 3, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

1. Not totaly evil would be making it opt in.
2. No such thing as hiding identitie in this type of data. Techcrunch has a good run down but basically if you get a age and zip code one other small price of data you can figure out the person like 90% of the time with ease.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Tawnie is Monster Mashing
October 3, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

*stands on soap box * A good parent would not need parental control software. They keep the computer out of the bedrooms, watch what their kids are looking at and pay attention to what the kids are doing. That would require actual parenting though and I am still convinced it does not happen enough. *gets down from the soap box*

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
heypal
October 4, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tawnieknight@gmail.com looking for a google wave:

You are clearly not a parent. Nobody who is a parent would ever say: \"A good parent would never...\" While I agree that parents should pay attention and not enough of that is going on, you sound like an idiot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tawnie is Monster Mashing
October 4, 2009 10:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heypal: Actually I am a parent. I have a daughter that is a tween as she prefers to be called. I follow everything I said with her.


@Con Seannery: The parents of the columbine boys trusted them to have their computers in their rooms. So do parents whose children meet predators in chat rooms and on facebook.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 5, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tawnieknight@gmail.com looking for a google wave: So the Columbine shooters killed people with their computers? How did I not hear about this?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
October 4, 2009 2:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heypal:


A good parent would never fail to vaccinate their children.


A good parent would never become a parent without a stable financial foundation.


A good parent would never need parental control software because they'd actually have taught their child about responsibility, self-control, and the world in general before letting them loose in what amounts to the wild-west of the modern age.


Why is it that people won't let their children go clubbing, but have no problem with allowing them to do whatever they want on the internet with absolutely no one-on-one supervision?


Alternately, some parents have no problem letting their children run around the city unsupervised, but go apeshit whenever there's some article about the dangers of OMGINTERNETCHAT.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
October 3, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tawnieknight@gmail.com looking for a google wave: I disagree with this stance. Right many kids are responsible enough to have their own computer in their rooms. What you've said applies to those who do not fit in that category I mentioned.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Tawnie is Monster Mashing
October 3, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Most parents can easily do an internet filter through any router as well just look at your router manufacturers website for details. That is free as compared to paying a subscription for software.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fredfreedom
October 3, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So Nannyware turns out to be just a data mining and marketing tool? Who'd a-thunk? And, Bushi, of course they can't do this as a \"less evil\" opt-in... Because who on Earth would opt in for corporate spying? But you are correct, Bushi, about the myth that the aggregate data is somehow anonymous... and when kids mention names, addresses, emails, schools,health and sexuality issues whether their parents are fighting and more, it becomes not just NOT anonmymous but totally specific for the corporate marketers and other scam artists... Yes, stupid people really are paying to get spied on.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 4, 2009 12:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fredfreedom: The program has become what we were supposed to be protecting the kids from (ie spyware)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
WorldHarmony
October 3, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's BS for the company to say they don't know who said what. Many kids send out a remarkable amount of personal information, such as addresses, phone numbers, full names, school information, etc.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ArcanaJ
October 3, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Opt out option or not, the idea that the software makers would use parental trust, a trust they cultivate to sell a product marketed to help protect their children, to then spy on those children in order to make a profit, is repulsive.

Worse, part of that trust cultivation involves a marketing strategy designed to scare parents to death in the first. Pedophiles, bullies and porn, oh my!

What's next? Cell phone manufacturers that sell everyone's private conversations to the highest bidder? Why stop there? Let's put recorders and transmitters in home smoke alarms! Baby monitors! Hell, even the clothes we wear!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 4, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ArcanaJ: Actually...cell phone companies give away your conversation data for free...to the government.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ArcanaJ
October 5, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep: I know and I'm not happy about it. I think the whole Homeland Security thing is a sham, but there's not much I can do about it until it's time to vote.

I meant cell phone companies that would choose to profit off of customers twice; first through normal billing, then through selling conversations.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
strathmeyer
October 3, 2009 10:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Parents can opt out of this data collection while installing the software, so it's not entirely evil.\"

I guess we know how Hitler could've gotten away with killing all those people.

How does this not violate international data collection laws on children under 13?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 4, 2009 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@strathmeyer: Hitler...that's a little harsh. Maybe Chairman Mao.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
October 4, 2009 2:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@strathmeyer:


I was wondering about the legality of this as well. The laws don't cease to apply just because a parent has installed the software.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
KTK1990
October 3, 2009 10:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Too bad there isnt a free program that monitors that, chat logs, screencaptures, find site passwords, track when the kid goes there, and doesnt go outside the local network. Or doesnt collect that info.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
October 4, 2009 2:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KTK1990:


There is plenty of software available to do that.


Most of it is illegal if anyone other than you and your child use that machine.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KTK1990
October 4, 2009 11:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: Really? I had trouble finding that. I found alot of pay software, but no free software.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kyin
October 4, 2009 2:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really? They need spyware to tell them what kids are saying on the internet? Have they checked bash.org recently?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
October 4, 2009 1:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everything I read about data sales tells me this is wrong, that it's not personally identifiable. Everything I know tell me it is and companies are either idiots or bastards.

I don't really care because you have to be a moron in the first place to buy such software...it's because you can't talk with or watch your kids in the first place.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","");