Microsoft recommends parents filter the internet

By Brett Winterford on Mar 17, 2010 7:53 AM
Filed under Security

Research fingers parents for not monitoring children's online activity.

Microsoft Australia has released research showing that Australian families are not doing enough to monitor the internet use of their children - findings which are likely to be used by both advocates and opponents of the Federal Government's mandatory ISP-level internet filtering scheme.

The software giant surveyed 1000 Australians in an online poll and found that "more than 60 percent of parents allow their children to surf the net unsupervised and unrestricted at home."

One in five had discovered their children viewing material deemed 'unsavoury', one in three found their children had communicated with strangers, 36 percent had found their children had downloaded software without permission and 12 percent discovered their children had given out personal details.

Only half (58 percent) of parents had their home PC in a visible or "public" area of the home such that a child's use could be monitored.

"Don't be in the dark about your children's online lives," warned Stuart Strathdee, chief security advisor at Microsoft Australia.

"The Internet opens a new world of information, socialising and entertainment for children - but it also presents new risks - such as online predators, personal information disclosure, exposure to inappropriate content in web sites, messages, file downloads and within games and audio/video multimedia."

Whilst Microsoft used the findings to plug the family friendly filtering options available within its Windows 7 operating system, the research tactfully plays into the arguments for those for and against mandatory filtering.

Opponent Google, by contrast, has attacked the filtering proposal.

Senator Conroy and the powerful Christian lobby have both argued that the risks to children presented by internet threats cannot be left to the family unit to mitigate.

They argue that a technical solution (a mandatory filter for RC-rated content) needs to be implemented at a macro level.

Opponents of internet filtering have argued that a child's welfare is as much the parent's responsibility in the online world as in the offline world - with ISP veteran Simon Hackett expressing the view that his version of filtering is "simply to put the family's PC in the living room."

What do you think? Can parents realistically manage the internet use of their children or do they require Government intervention?

Microsoft recommends parents filter the internet

14 comments in this discussion

"I don't understand, nor will I ever, this growing trend of encouraging parents to become more and more complacent. Perhaps encouraging is the wrong word, but the constant need organizations, ..."

By Drummo

Tags

internet, filtering, censorship, microsoft, family, pc

Microsoft hikes profit on cloud and entertainment

Microsoft releases Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

Pirate Party wins right to contest federal election

Breaking Stories

HP, ACCC reach agreement on warranty case

NBN Co launches 25/5 Mbps fixed wireless services

DFAT satisfied with Passports system

iiNet fined $102,000 over Naked DSL bus ad

Neural networks, Google and cats

Comments: 14

snoofy Mar 17, 2010 8:48 AM	Parents who actually want to take an interest in their children's online usage can do so with education and a common sense approach. As one of these parents, I do not want or need the government making decisions on the content my children can or can not have access to. That is part of my job as a parent. The filter is a CENSOR and I don't trust the Government one iota to implement it or maintain it correctly. Lazy parents who see the internet as an electronic babysitter and who see the filter as being a way that they can be even less attentive to their offspring can choose to opt for the false sense of security that the filter will give them. Make the filter opt out. Simple.
FrankJackson Mar 17, 2010 9:06 AM	The filter is useless. Especially kids will want to know how to bypass the filter - if not to view material they are not allowed to then purely just to say that "I Can bypass the govt. filter". The filter should not be opt in or out ... it should not exist - once the mechanism is in place the potential for abuse is there and inevitably someone will abuse it. The simplest method to bypass the filter would be to use anonymity websites (Anonymous http proxy sites). An example is www.guardster.com ... click on the free proxy link and off you go surfing the net bypassing the Gov. filter. No software or hacking needed... just a web address. If the govt. decides to stop you accessing these sites its already stepping over the line and Oz is then within arms length of becoming "AusChina" The best way to give parents a more secure method to control what their kids see is to use a gateway filter. a bit of hardware that checks all traffic coming into your house and blocking what you dont want coming in. Its not 100% secure - nothing is - but to bypass it is not a simple task. Censorship & mechanisms to censor is wrong and should not exist. Would everyone like it if all of the days news had to run past govt. first to get aproval before media can publish? Even if govt promises they wont stop anything - they just want to see what's the news before you do? No opt out ... no opt in ... no filter ... no censorship. That only compromise is that there is no compromise.
Sams Mar 17, 2010 10:01 AM	I'm pretty sure that if someone did a study of the cases of child abuse/harm through exposure to the Internet, they would invariably find that the problem is caused by unsupervised and unfettered access to the 'net, and that no amount of filtering by the currently proposed scheme would have prevented it. Maybe someone knows of a study that already exists. I'm sure that Conroy would be happy to ignore it.
funkyg Mar 17, 2010 10:26 AM	I like snoofys comment an opt out system would be good. However I do agree with some of the other comments that there would be some cool factor in getting through a filter which may lead to kids testing by looking at the content that's banned. It really is as easy as the previous commentor says too, just find yourself a proxy in another country and your home free. Personally I like a combined approach. Browsing in open areas, opendns with some filtering (which I set for my kids, not the government) and MS steadystate on a PC or take a disk image on a Mac to undo any program additions I do t know about.
brownbear Mar 17, 2010 10:30 AM	The proposed filter will NOT prevent children accessing inappropriate material. All that the Government is proposing to filter is material that would or has been refused classification (RC) by the Classification Board. This does not include X18+ and R18+ material. Parents are not helped by this Government proposal at all. Parents need to ensure that the computer being used by their children is in an area of the house where it is easily seen by anyone, such as the family room. They need to have the computer set so that each child has an individual log on and that the appropriate levels of content restriction is set. The most important thing is for the parents to teach their children about internet safety the same as they teach them about road safety.
Charles Mar 17, 2010 1:03 PM	Conroy might not like being listed with such countries internet filters however it's deserved. He is giving the government the same ability. It's already show it won't just block child porn or whatever they claim it will. The scary thing is, he is demanding and expecting the Australian Government be blindly trusted with extreme information censorship abilities. That demand for blind trust is actually quite a scary thing. It's quite worrying a govt minister wants that level of trust given and that many australians will just blindly give it. No name bureaucrats able to block any website secretly, with no checks, no accountability... not a good thing and so is in the same leagues with china and the rest. No one should ever give up such freedoms of information and though in blindly trusting their government. Name one histrocial example where giving extreme censoship powers and giving up rights and blindly trusting officials has ever worked out? The power can be abused and always is. It's already shown it does more than what people are sold on.
anonymous Mar 17, 2010 1:05 PM	It may be tempting to think that an opt-out filter would meet the most important objective here (of allowing Kruddman and Conboy to claim they have saved all the children), but we may need to think this through. If opt-out was available, it would not be long before the religious and political classes would claim that kiddies could access naughty things where opt-out had been selected. The govt could then easily impose compulsory secret censorship on everybody, since the whole system would already be in place.
ryntyler Mar 17, 2010 3:41 PM	Certainly parents can do all the necessary supervision by simply not putting the computor in the kids bedroom. Going to a little trouble every now and then to quickly run through the comps history will be all the extra precautions needed. It's easier than controlling what books are allowed in the house. Of course the parents who dont give a damn won't bother but that is no reason for Conroy to stick his nose in our lives. Edited by brettwinterford: 17/3/2010 08:31:55 PM
Mordd Mar 17, 2010 5:18 PM	It all comes down to if you want a kid to do something, tell them they can't or they're not allowed to. Put the filter in place and for many teenagers bypassing it will become the new "young techie" rite of passage for many.
cobrasixtysix Mar 17, 2010 5:33 PM	Its absolutely the parents/guardians responsibility to restrict/control/guide what children do on the internet...period.... A Government Filter will cause many many issues not the least of which will be the ability for Governments to cover up issues that they dont want the public to know about. This is just another step in the direction of a Police State, beware.
btone Mar 17, 2010 5:33 PM	The 'powerful christian lobby'?! Maybe with self seeking political bottom feeders but with the general public? Please...
Ace Mar 17, 2010 5:58 PM	@btone, powerful because they easily influence/manipulate large amounts of gullible population. Lets face it, you have to be pretty gullible to blindly follow something that despite 2000 years of trying, still lacks any evidence of ever having existed. I wouldn't be suprised if God had spoken to Conroy and said an internet filter was the only way he could avoid the the fires of damnation. I heard that when God asked Conroy what brain he'd like, Conroy thought he said train, and asked for a slow one.
legless Mar 17, 2010 6:09 PM	Up to a certain age it is always the role of parents to guide their children. That's just part of being a parent. Ancient ancestors had to really only protect their children from being eaten by wild animals. Throughout the ages parents have needed to keep them safe but modern parents have to be far more vigilant as "predators" are trying to get at the kids from all directions. It's always going to be more of a problem as technology advances but if parents don't want that responsibility they should not give them any access to the net or mobile phones or even allow them to go outdoors. Better still, they should not have kids if they won't do their jobs as parents. Parents should monitor their childrens' internet access until they are of an age when they can be trusted with some of their own safety. This means educating them about the dangers of being online and what comprises suspicious behaviour from others online who might be out to harm them. There are always going to be things parents don't want their kids to see for one reason or another but really how many kids are exposed to child porn online? How many adults are for that matter? Some parents won't want their kids viewing scenes of war or read about murders or things that go against their religious views. Should the government jump in and filter all of that for the good of all children? Of course not! It is not a government's job to do it on a massive level that affects everyone, but the job of parents to make individual decisions about their own children. Where will government meddling end if we allow it to start? ... and if Conroy and his supporters don't like being lumped in with the likes of the governments of Hu Jintao, Kim Jong-il, Ali Khamenei, and others, they should either pull their heads in or get very used to it.
Drummo Mar 18, 2010 8:15 AM	I don't understand, nor will I ever, this growing trend of encouraging parents to become more and more complacent. Perhaps encouraging is the wrong word, but the constant need organizations, governments, and religious bodies feel to 'step in' and 'assist' with the upbringing and in this particular case, sheltering, of children is getting out of hand. The 'family unit' doesn't, and shouldn't (bar cases of welfare) include a big brother entity. Parents failing in their duty should not be coddled. Best intentions eh...