That's a pretty cool article. Oh man, I'd be all over remote desktop if any of the guys in my apartment next year ever end up getting macs, mwahahahaha!

I guess your also rummaging through your kid drawers and reading your daughter diary..

Someday your kids will stop talking to you, hang out with unknown friends and try drugs... And you'll be there asking yourself where you lost them

everyone needs there bit of privacy, especially kids. If you don't show them trust, who will ? You're talking about acting as the 1984 big brother as if it was a good thing !

anyway

This is a great article. But what happens when your 12-14 yr old surpasses your own computer knowledge. He/Shee will do whatever they want and you will be none the wiser. In fact that may already be the case for our friend Mr. LeVitus. Just something to think about.

Dear Control Freak:

Actually, I don't rummage their drawers or read their diaries... and as far as Remote Desktop and chat logs, the kids know we're doing it and agree to it as it's not negotiable if they want to use the Internet without direct adult supervision. So far it seems to work pretty well.

As for being a control freak... I'd rather be called that than an irresponsible parent.

B.

They won't surpass my knowledge of OS X for a good long time, if ever. Frankly, they're not much interested in how things work as long as they can chat, surf, and get e-mail.

But you're right - it's something to think about...

B.

Jeez, you really trust your kids, don't you? How do you ever expect them to trust you? And how would you like it if your wife observed everything you did on your computer? You might not be doing anything wrong, but it still wouldn't be very nice. Everyone deserves privacy, and everyone deserves trust. Have your kids really done anything to deserve so little trust?

Monitoring people's behaviour like that should be illegal without written consent. It'll only cause your children to get angry with you when they realise other children's parents aren't taking the role of 'big brother'.

Quote

Doctor Mac wrote:
Dear Control Freak:

Actually, I don't rummage their drawers or read their diaries... and as far as Remote Desktop and chat logs, the kids know we're doing it and agree to it as it's not negotiable if they want to use the Internet without direct adult supervision. So far it seems to work pretty well.

As for being a control freak... I'd rather be called that than an irresponsible parent.

B.

I actually hadn't considered Remote Desktop for this kind of use, but I think it's clever.

I disagree with those who ascribe this to Big Brotherism. In my eyes, this is the equivalent of putting the computer in the living room. Generally speaking, the kids are less likely to be doing things that their parents wouldn't approve of if there's a chance that Mom & Dad will catch them. By putting the computer in the living room where Mom & Dad can see what they're up to, the kids will be better behaved on-line.

Of course, if you have two kids, do you put both computers in the living room? Suddenly, your living room is starting to look like a computer lab. Also, lots of people keep the TV in the living room. So when my kid is doing an assignment, I don't want to distract him by watching some show on TV. The average family living room is not necessarily the most conducive place to study. What then?

With Apple Remote Desktop, the kids can have the computers in their room and yet have the same concerns as they would if the computers were in a more public place. I think this is a clever use of Apple Remote Desktop.

I'm not sure I agree with logging chats, though, because I do think that there is a certain amount privacy in conversations. First, there are two (or more) people involved in a conversation and you may hear things that are definitely none of your business (eg, my daughter's friend talking about her father's drinking problem). While I can appreciate the need to know who your kid is talking to--is it some 50 year-old pervert?--knowing the contents represents some shaky ground. There's a fine line between monitoring and voyeurism.

The analogy I would use is placing a tape-recorder on your kid so you can record all of the conversations they have all day with every person when you're not there. Sure, there could be some benefits. But if my daughter is talking about the cute boy in her math class with her homegirl, I really don't need to know about it. When he asks her out on a date, then I get involved.

Bob's critics are way off base. It is absolutely the responsibility of parents to monitor what their kids do on the Internet. Absolutely, positively, completely, and in all ways is it their duty to both the public at large and to their kids, too, to do what Bob has described.

In fact, the above charges are so absolutely ludicrous it boggles my mind. We are talking about children here. Kids. Kids who aren't even close to being adults.

"Police state?" "Big Brother?" That's the most juvenile thing I can imagine being said about this, and it reveals a massive amount of ignorance about what those subjects are actually about.

What Bob is doing is called being a parent. It's called taking responsibility for what his kids are doing. It's called being involved with the growing up process that his kids are going through. It is a demonstration of what the vast majority of parents are not doing in this country, as we have instead a nation of parents who can't be bothered to take responsibility for anything their kids do at all.

That in turn has led to the real and actual attempts at censorship and control that the real Big Brothers in this country are perpetually trying to foist off on us in the name of "protecting the children."

Indeed, his system is far better -- far, far, far better -- than any of the software filters on the market. Hell, if parents simply did their job, as Bob is doing, we wouldn't need those horrid pieces of software to be on the market in the first place.

If the people who wrote those posts are parents, then I fear for your kids. If you are children, you will one day laugh at the ideas you now hold.

Privacy: Assuming they have earned it from their parents, children deserve a degree of privacy, but they also deserve parents who will actually pay attention to what they are doing. What Bob has described seems to me to be a wonderful balance between establishing rules and monitoring the behavior underneath those rules. Without one, the other is meaningless, and it again boggles my mind that any rational adult could post the kind of blathering drivel that those above posted.

I've met Bob's kids, unlike anyone else posting here, and I imagine that part of the reason they are such good kids, and are as smart and creative as they are, is because of the care that Bob and his wife have given them.

Bryan
Editor
TMO

This article really scared me...

Yes, it is absolutely the responsibility of parents to pay attention to their children, but using surveillance as a tool scares me. One of the most important duties of a parent is to deserve the respect from their children, but using the methods described above frightens me. What are you afraid your children will do? It should be pretty bad things before I would even consider using these methods.

In my country surveillance is more or less illegal unless there is a suspicion that illegal activities takes place.

There are other ways of paying attention that are much, much better, for instance by being there and paying attention their person, rather than their activities. I recommend trying them. If a parent is observing the activities as they can catch them when do something wrong is being a bad parent.

i agree that parents need to keep informed about their children, but monitoring their conversations is just plain wrong. If one of his kids is a teen then they should at least hold that responsibility themselves. Kids need to be able to figure things out themselves or are at risk of losing their individuality.

Quote

Bryan wrote:
Bob's critics are way off base. It is absolutely the responsibility of parents to monitor what their kids do on the Internet. Absolutely, positively, completely, and in all ways is it their duty to both the public at large and to their kids, too, to do what Bob has described.

In fact, the above charges are so absolutely ludicrous it boggles my mind. We are talking about children here. Kids. Kids who aren't even close to being adults.

"Police state?" "Big Brother?" That's the most juvenile thing I can imagine being said about this, and it reveals a massive amount of ignorance about what those subjects are actually about.

What Bob is doing is called being a parent. It's called taking responsibility for what his kids are doing. It's called being involved with the growing up process that his kids are going through. It is a demonstration of what the vast majority of parents are not doing in this country, as we have instead a nation of parents who can't be bothered to take responsibility for anything their kids do at all.

That in turn has led to the real and actual attempts at censorship and control that the real Big Brothers in this country are perpetually trying to foist off on us in the name of "protecting the children."

Indeed, his system is far better -- far, far, far better -- than any of the software filters on the market. Hell, if parents simply did their job, as Bob is doing, we wouldn't need those horrid pieces of software to be on the market in the first place.

If the people who wrote those posts are parents, then I fear for your kids. If you are children, you will one day laugh at the ideas you now hold.

Privacy: Assuming they have earned it from their parents, children deserve a degree of privacy, but they also deserve parents who will actually pay attention to what they are doing. What Bob has described seems to me to be a wonderful balance between establishing rules and monitoring the behavior underneath those rules. Without one, the other is meaningless, and it again boggles my mind that any rational adult could post the kind of blathering drivel that those above posted.

I've met Bob's kids, unlike anyone else posting here, and I imagine that part of the reason they are such good kids, and are as smart and creative as they are, is because of the care that Bob and his wife have given them.

Bryan
Editor
TMO

As a parent of 3 daughters, b-ball coach in elementary school, and working with kids in summer camp to me it is absolutely incredable the drivel Bob is getting over the monitor of his kids. To not shows your kids you dont care about them, the attitude of "kids will be kids" or kids deserve constitutional style privacy is an excuse for an adult to do nothing. Sadly for far to many parents it is easier to do nothing and let kids be kids.
mac-nulty

We're not saying parents shouldn't monitor they're children to some extent, but checking their chat logs is going TOO far. A limit has to be drawn between good parenting and a prison cell. You have to give kids some of the freedoms they experience in the world or even in other kids' houses, or they're just start questioning why their parents are so strict - if they see their own parents as being unreasonably strict it will eventually cause them to fight it. It's basic psychology...

Quote

Guest wrote:
As a parent of 3 daughters, b-ball coach in elementary school, and working with kids in summer camp to me it is absolutely incredable the drivel Bob is getting over the monitor of his kids. To not shows your kids you dont care about them, the attitude of "kids will be kids" or kids deserve constitutional style privacy is an excuse for an adult to do nothing. Sadly for far to many parents it is easier to do nothing and let kids be kids.
mac-nulty

I am firmly against any internet filtering for adults. But with all of crap that kids can either "run into" or deliberately google for, I think it's a parent's repsonsibility to control what kids see and do on the internet. Ideally, it would be the best of all worlds if I could sit and watch over my kid's shoulder when they were at the computer. Unfortunately, that's just not realistic in my family. My solution has been to install the Dansguadian/Squid combination on my computers. Squid is a web proxy that forces all web requests and responses to go through Dansguardian, the actual filtering software. Apple even links to this software from the Apple Web site. Dansguardian is very configurable. It can be set up to be just as tight (Draconian) or loose as you wish, It can also be setup so that specified users (read that a Mom and Dad) can bypass the filtering. I know this is not perfect, but it's not too bad either.

Wow, I just want to give Bob support for being an involved parent. Some other the people who have slammed him for it, I am guessing, are either teens themselves or do not have children. If I were 15 or didn't have kids, I might agree with them - but as a parent of two daughters and one teenage son, you need to know what your children are doing.

First, telling your kids what you can do and letting them know the rules is not creating a "police state". This is like saying they can come home whenever, use the car whenever, not have to do homework before playing... the list could go on and on. Setting rules helps establish a level of trust. In Bob's case, it sounds like his kids pushed the envelope a few times and got caught. Hmmmm, kind of like having consequenes and responsibility. Personally, not a bad thing I think.

Second, in terms of logging the chats - yes do it! Do you need to read them all the time? Maybe not. Perhaps setting up a solution like "if you break the rules, then I will read your chat logs to know EVERYTHING you have been up to." This is also critical should your child go missing OR be abused yet not tell you about it. The chat logs can provide great leads if the child is not there or if the child is embarrased/ashamed. It is a tool and an unfortunate reality in today's world.

Third, you are an idiot if you think your kid won't be abducted or seduced and abuse by someone - even if you have a son! The reality of it is many male children get abused but we tend to think of "our daughters" and the need to save them from the "perverted 50 year olds". How about perveted 17 year olds? Or 14 year olds? My wife works for our state's Health and Welfare system for adoption and foster care. She sees the results of abuse every day and it is not pretty. This year alone there have been three instances of people abusing when contact was made via the internet. Two were boys, one was a girl. All were over the age of 13. Oh, we don't live in Cali or NY either. And this was just in her small region of the state - there are 5 others. Oh, and the last thing - one guy came across state lines and was a "religious leader" in his small community in his home state. Police think he has been doing it for years, tracking victums via the net and driving here to meet them for sex.

Yeah, don't get involved. Let your kids do whatever on the internet. Just like why should you ask them who they are going to hang out with? Why should you care if they hang out in "pot lot" or go to keggers? If that is how you think then please keep your DNA out of the gene pool. I am sick of parents that care more about themselves then their kids (ie. using the net instead of the TV to babysit now) and end up raising other humans just like them - the ones that don't take responsibility for anything. Really, your kids deserve better. They deserve, and most want, your attention - despite what they might say.

Bob wrote a good article succinctly describing a couple of decent ways to keep kids accountable while using the computer. As a parent of teenagers and a teacher (computer) of teenagers I know full well the range and depth of trouble kids can get into via the web these days. Bob's suggestions are quite similar to the measures I take both at school and at home.

What is disturbing to me here is the attitudes of some writers who see this active parenting as an invasion of kids privacy. While that is an easy argument to make, it also fails to consider the potential for harm when there is a lack of supervision. Putting it bluntly, do you want your 12 year old daughter seeing the graphic pictures that are now so pervasive on the web? Or do you think instead it might be wise to check the web sites she is visiting?

To look at this through another model. Let's imagine you took your daughter to a mall full of bookstores. Let's pretend that every second or third store was an adult bookstore. Would you:

1. Drop her off at the door and tell her you'll pick her up in a couple of hours?

2. Warn her not to go into those nasty bookstores and pick her up in a couple of hours?

3. Stay with her, or be sure you had some way of knowing that she would not be going into the wrong store?

If you chose one or two then you can't possibly be a parent. Or if you are a parent you are far too naive as to what a kid in that situation will actually do. Years of experience has shown me that all kids, from all backgrounds, will try to see stuff they know they "shouldn't." And years of experience has shown me that kids do not recognize the true dangers of unrestricted internet access, as other writers here have accurately described.

And lastly, comparing monitoring internet use to reading a diary completely misses the point. A diary doesn't display porn by turning a page. A diary doesn't contact a pedophile. Privacy has its limits when it comes to our children's safety. Thank you Bob for some good suggestions.

"[...] Some other people who have slammed him for it, I am guessing, are either teens themselves or do not have children. If I were 15 or didn't have kids, I might agree with them - but as a parent of two daughters and one teenage son, you need to know what your children are doing."

While I agree with you that you are ultimately responsible for your child and their acts, I do think it's sometimes worthwhile to at least consider the opinions of others "outside the box."

I am not a parent. I am one of those "fun uncles" who tends to let kids do what they want, though watching what they do to make sure they don't hurt themselves severely. I've seen parents who smother their children in order to protect them from dangers that they don't understand.

Fun story: Several years ago, I went with a parent and a group of children to the beach. We "lost" one of the kids--we got distracted and didn't notice that one of the kids was missing. Needless to say, the parent was frantic and ready to call the cops. I said, "Let's just stand here visibly in the open and wait to see if she finds us." The parent went off to look for her while I stayed with the other kids in a visible spot. Sure enough, about five minutes later, the kid showed up. Then we stood around for forty-five minutes waiting until the parent got back from checking with lifeguards and the police. Then the kids and I went to the beach while the parent went back around to the lifeguards and the police to tell them "Never mind."

The parent was frantic and desperately afraid for her daughter, which I understand completely. However, as an outsider, I was able to put a bit of "rational thought" to the process. In the end, I was right. It could have happened the other way, I admit. But this parent was all too ready to expect the worst.

I've heard the, "Oh, you don't understand because you don't have kids" line countless time. But I'd also point out that, as a parent, you may be too close to the problem. You might want to consider the opinions of the 15 year olds who complain that it is overly-restrictive because there's a possibility that your teenage son feels the same way. I'm not saying you have to agree with them--in the end, it is ultimately your responsibility--but to dismiss their feelings and arguments with a wave of your hand is inconsiderate.

With that in mind...

"[...] in terms of logging the chats - yes do it! [...] This is also critical should your child go missing OR be abused yet not tell you about it. The chat logs can provide great leads if the child is not there or if the child is embarrased/ashamed."

Why would your child not tell you about it? They may be embarassed, they may be afraid you'll blame them or punish them. One could argue that the way you treat your kid will relate to how they treat you. As some of the alleged 15 year olds have pointed out, creating an adversarial "Police State" in their minds may not inspire the kids to come forward when they really should.

"[...] It is a tool and an unfortunate reality in today's world. [...] This year alone there have been three instances of people abusing when contact was made via the internet. Two were boys, one was a girl. All were over the age of 13."

I hate to sound cruel and heartless, but you'd first need to give me some evidence on how many kids turned the abuser down before you tell me how many kids didn't. Second, you'd need to tell me how many kids didn't get contacted at all. This is one of those things that gets blown completely out of proportion because it's frightening.

The "It's an unfortunate reality in today's world" is the telling phrase. Honestly, when I was a kid in the 1960s and 1970s, there were pedophiles, too. It was an unfortunate reality in yesterday's world. There aren't more pedophiles today than there were in the 1960s and 1970s as a percentage of the population. The difference is that, with improved communication via the Internet, it's easier for them to interact with your child. Thus, educating your child is no longer just for those kids who live in the big cities anymore.

I won't argue that both you and your children should be aware of the threats and should deal with them. I don't argue with spot monitoring through Apple Remote Desktop. However, logging everything that they say--and more importantly what is said to them by people who are not related to you--crosses a line, in my opinion.

What do you do when one of your son's friends tells your son he smoked pot at a party last weekend? Do you tell the kid's parents? Call the cops? While your son might have agreed to have his conversations monitored, his friend certainly didn't. Oh, and before you use the argument that you need to know about his friends, do you think it's okay to monitor his friend's conversations with people other than your son? Heck, after all, he could be a druggie and he just hasn't mentioned it to your son. How about his friend's friends? And his friend's friend's friends? Perhaps you should also research your son's friend's parents. It might be okay to bug their phones and house, just to make sure that your son's friend is being raised in an environment which you think is acceptable. After all, you're doing all this to protect your children--a perfectly admirable goal as a responsible parent.

And how about discussions about other people. When your son tells a friend, "I hear Tommy's Dad is a homo", what will be your reaction when you next encounter Tommy's Dad at the over-40 basketball tournament?

As I said above, there's a fine line between monitoring and voyeurism and I think that generally logging chat conversations crosses that line. There may be situations where logging is a good idea, so I certainly wouldn't want to remove it from a parent's arsenal. But I'd also take a lesson from the adult world. Before the police can listen to a person's conversations, they have to get permission from a judge and show probable cause. I think a parent should at least have a specific idea of what they are looking for and from whom before they monitor their kid's conversations.

Guest (the one above this post), I admire the principle you are adhering to, but you're just plain off base in trying to apply it to children.

The difference between the police monitoring our conversations and a parent monitoring a child's conversation is simple: Adults have the right to privacy from the state (at least for now) and children do not have a right to privacy from their parents. There is no comparison, and there are no Big Brother issues here. None. Zero.

Children are being taught how to live in this world, and until they reach their majority, that teaching process should include such things as parental monitoring.

Reading the above post, I think you may suffer the Cool Uncle Syndromeâ„¢ (also suffered by some Cool Auntsâ„¢) of thinking that kids are siomply miniature adults. This is particularly easy to do when the kids in question are unusually smart or well-spoken. They aren't little adults, however, they are kids, especially when they are as young as Bob's kids.

*********

I learned long ago that when someone is behaving in a seemingly irrational manner, as your arguments quite frankly appear irrational, there is usually a reason for it, and that reason is almost always that the observer and the doer have access to different information. In that light, as you seem cogent and well-spoken, you must be perceiving some aspect of this whole thing differently than I do. That is almost always the root of misunderstanding.

Indeed, perhaps I can fix that for you: I would guess that when Bob's kids get to be older, say 16, 17, or maybe 18 before they leave the house, the computer rules for them will change. I say that without knowing Bob's mind, and am not presuming to speak for him, but my point is that in this case, Bob's kids are bloody well children. They are young. They aren't even "young adults" -- they are children.

They are not responsible for their actions, at least not literally and legally, and they are still learning how to grow up and be adults. They are still learning right from wrong, and they are still learning, through experience and teaching, how to make good choices in life.

This knowledge does not come about magically, and we can not simply turn kids loose and trust that they will intuitively make all the right decisions. Rather, one can not be a responsible parent and do it that way. The sad reality is that many kids today have been set adrift in just such a manner, and we see the results all around us, every day.

Bryan - you say Bob's kids are children. Not teenagers, not even young teens, but children. I'm guessing we're talking 6-9 here then. If that's the case, exactly what does he think his kids will do?

"If we catch you using the computer (e.g. the Web, e-mail, instant messaging, DVD, etc.) for inappropriate purposes, you lose your computer privileges for at least a week."

What inappropriate purposes does Bob expect his kids to use the computer for? I'm assuming we're talking about porn, piracy, Anarchist Cookbook, that sort of thing. If I were Bob I'd be worried that my kids even wanted to find that stuff at 6-9. 11+ sure, that's when they get really curious about that stuff, but if they're wanting to look for porn at the age of 6 then there's something gone seriously wrong already.

I think spot checks using ARD is perfectly reasonable when a kid is 15 or younger. But the child should always be aware that dad is watching, so if they're chatting to Tiffany about their newest crush they can hold off on saying something embarassing. If they're up to no good it would probably be apparent as soon as the observation starts. Basically, the spot checks shouldn't be any different to popping into their room and looking over their shoulder for a few seconds, to check that everything is okay. Watching them without their knowledge, even if they know it's possible, is crossing the line in my opinion.

As for logging chats, I think chats should be logged. They should not ever be read though without a good reason. If Amber gets into trouble at school with Tiffany then seeing what they've talked about recently, with Amber present to explain or justify what's said, is reasonable. If Amber runs away the logs would indeed be a potentially valuable too. Reading chats logs as a matter of course is just plain wrong and stinks of parenting just as bad as the sort who show no interest at all. Have the logs there, and make sure the children know they are, but also have an agreement that they will only be read if the child is in trouble or danger, or you have good reason to believe they will be. And even then only the relevant chats should be read.

Checking a browser's history isn't an issue in my book. Seeing what web pages they've visited isn't an invasion of privacy, and I'd view it as very similiar to monitoring what magazines they buy.

What Bob seems to be doing here is giving his young children access to computers, and giving them the sort of access they just shouldn't have at their age. I would not let my 6 year old use instant messaging, just as I wouldn't let them have a mobile phone. I'd let my 9 year old use instant messaging, but only to talk to pre-approved buddies. I'd give them limited access to the internet, but no way would I give them free reign. After all, they're kids. You can't put a 6-9 yo in a the same situation as a 13-14 and say "Do want you like, but I'll watching you to make sure you don't do anything wrong!" You need to make sure they can do what they like without the idea of them doing anything wrong even entering their heads. If they *want* to find porn at that age, then the problem is much deeper routed and more worrying. You're putting them in an adult situation and then treating them children. Not only that, you're putting them in an adult situation and treating them like children who can't be trusted.

I'm not a parent but I am a teacher, and I've seen the effect that things like this can have on kids. Either treat them like children or treat them like adults. Anything else just confuses them at an impressionable age. Of course, every situation differs, and if this works for you then great. If you children understand what's going on and agree to it then I'm certianly not going to tell you how to raise your kids. I do think routine reading of chat logs is wrong though, however you justify it.

I think what I've described is appropriate for a teen and a barely-pre teen.

As for "privacy," both have all the privacy they want on the telephone, as well as for snail mail and in-person conversations. As for their diaries (if either one even has one -- I wouldn't know), I wouldn't look without permission.

And by the way, notice that word, permission. Both kids have agreed that we may read their logs and history files as a condition of being able to use the Internet without an adult present.

Bottom line: I think we provide a reasonable balance of protection and privacy considering their ages.

3 years ago, when my kids began using the computer for internet purposes, I read them the riot act. Any inappropriate activity and you will lose you for computer piviledges for a determined amount of time. I warned them that I had systems in place to check up on them. (basically just me checking logs and histories periodically) I explained that they have my total and complete trust until they do something to lose it.

Now my son is 14, my daughter is 11. I noticed recently that my son (while with a friend over) was do a little adventurous surfing. Nothing too bad, but beyond what I think is appropriate for a 14 year old boy.

This is the only breach that I have noticed in 3 years.

This past weekend I have implimented the Apple Remote Desktop approach to monitor both kid's activities more closely.

With my daughter, she chats only with her close friends, plays "Mini-Clips" games, and does homework. That's about it.

My son is a different story... he has a very keen interest in computers, is learning HTML and LOVES his iBook. He is learning this stuff with leaps and bounds. Presently, he is the administrator of his iBook, but I know his password (manditory rule). He has no idea that I am now set-up to monitor his activities in this fashion. The next step would be me becoming the administrator and simply setting him up as a user with limited access. I may do this anyway regardless of another violation.

Hormones and curiosity are kicking in. If he was going to "page3.com", I wouldn't worry too much, he's just curious. I remember what is was like to be 14, trying to get a peak at a Playboy at the local news stand. My fear is all of the other crap on the web that could warp a young man's impression about what love and sex are all about.

My wife and I separated 2 months ago, and now I need to get things configured so I can monitor him when has his iBook at his mom's house. Hopefully this will not be too difficult to set-up.

I agree that it is both necessary and important in taking proactive, responsible approach to you child's well being.

Thanks Bob, this was a wonderful article and very timely for me... good parenting.