Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J.D. Baldwin)
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:03:17 +0000 (UTC)
In the previous article, ronniecat <ronniecat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'd probably be very liberal about where I'd allow them to explore;
I'd certainly allow them to IM and play games and so on; but I would
expect that if there was something they were uncomfortable doing in
the living room while their dad and I were watching TV, or where we
might wander in, they probably oughtn't be doing it. Is that
ridiculously strict? I've always thought it was the very best
innoculation for internet predators chatting up kids and sending
sexually explicit chat and pictures, just for starters.
I run a secured proxy host with SquidGuard (filtering software) to
catch the worst of the crap out there, and to log IM traffic. The
kids (14yo boy, 15yo girl) are on notice that I reserve the right to
review the logs or their browsing history or anything else they do
online, but in practice they are trusted to behave themselves.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@xxxxxxxxx|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- From: ronniecat
- Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- From: peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- References:
- FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- From: Mike Beede
- Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- From: ronniecat
- FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- Prev by Date: 2-18-FUNKY
- Next by Date: Re: Funky (2-17)
- Previous by thread: Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- Next by thread: Re: FBOFW 2/17 Guest Appearance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|