In-Reply-To: <199504072107.RAA11113@clark.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Fri, 7 Apr 1995 xerxes@clark.net wrote:

> Why do you want to cut access at the server level? Everyone downstream gets
> cut off.  The problem is kids, right?  So let's protect kids, and let
> adults alone. Why not provide a specialized, parent-customized, client
> application, or add-on, that blocks reception of "filthgroups" at the local
> client side?   Let parents specify the settings they want to enforse on
> their own kids using the parents' account.  The same thing with teachers at
> schools.
Unfortunately, most kids are very computer literate.  My son could program
in BASIC by the time he was 7, he could reconfigure windows by the time 
he was 9, he could bring up TCP/IP by the time he was 11.  He showed his 
Mom how to get on the internet.

> Kids under 18 can't contract for an account in most states anyway, right? 
> And you are not reaLLY SO WORRIED ABOUT 16-17 year-olds, right?  It is
The problem is that the kids use the parent's account.  Ironically the
age of consent in many states is 14, but they can't read sexually explicit
materials until they are at least 18.  On the other hand, they can watch 
gratuitous violence as soon as their parents will let them.  They can 
watch Felony Assaults, Kidnapping, and Murder as soon as they can get a 
"Parent" to take them, or when they are 17, whichever comes first.

> those too inquisitive and green 10-15 types that are most in need of
> guidance, right?  So block the family account at the level of the personal
> machine that the child is using.  
It's a bit like trying to lock up the liquour cabinet.  If you leave the 
kids at home, unsupervised, ESPECIALLY during SUMMER VACATION, they will
find a way into the booze, and into the X-Rated Videos, Magazines, and
News Groups.  When they get into the news groups however, they get more
noticed since this is a two way medium.

> With provider side cooperation as described below by Rex, this approach
> that I describe above ( call it "PARENTWARE" could be made pretty darn
> secure to most adolescent attempts to hack a work-around.  I have met many
> knowledgeable junior high USERS, but very few youngsters who could get down
> into the machine language to defeat a serious  security mechanism.  The
> PARENTWARE could selectively lock-out sites, web addresses, newsgroups,
> lists, individual email addresses, ....anything the parent wanted to put
> off limits.
Half the time parents leave all the passwords in a plain text file called
"passwords" or something equally secure.  This often includes work 
accounts, internet accounts, AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy accounts.  
Every month calls come in from parents who receive $200 Prodigy bills 
because their kids got onto Dad's CB account.

Of course, the kids who aren't playing newsgroups are out using drugs.  
I'd much rather risk that my son might get into the wrong newsgroup.  
Hopefully, he can talk to me, his mom, or his StepDad about it.

> But could the adults keep track and implement it fully?   They could if
> there were lock-out freeware preference file set-ups prepared and shipped
> independently (think of a family-values pref. vs a PC pref. file).   Some
> parents would not want junior and sis visiting the NRA site; others
> wouldn't want them getting ideas at the alt.binaries.smut location.   
> Every family decides for itself, with no top down censorship.  

Ironically, one of the most popular methods of protecting kids is to 
encrypt the information and keep the passwords in an encrypted file or on 
a server which requires a real-time encrypted password.  The problem is 
that this makes the FBI very nervous, along with several other government 
agencies.

> OR, the reverse pref. set-up, all sites, except the ones mom and dad
> select, are off-limits.  That seems a bit extreme to me, but focus groups
> in Iowa have recently shown ENORMOUS FEAR of the Internet by parents
> convinced that seething masses of corrupt east and west coast hackers are
> conspiring to despoil their offspring (I am not joking).  

There are over 12,000 newsgroups and about 20,000 web servers.  Most of 
them are benign, others will try to prevent the most basic types of 
accidental intruder.  There is no central authorizing agent to say "yes 
this person is authorized to receive this message/newsgroup/web-page".

Unlike Prodigy or Compuserve, where there is only point of control, a 
youngster can defeat all censorship restrictions just by doing a "telnet" 
to an unsecured remote host.  Now he can use pine, rn, trn, or vnews to 
read all the smut he wants.

> There would be a commercial demand for the type of application I call
> PARENTWARE.   Heck, with a bit of marketing savvy, you could convince every
> Internet provider to offer the PARENTWARE option to parent-clients for an
> extra buck a month, and split the resulting revenue on a royalty basis. 
> Nice business.  Now, if we could get grandfathered into state or Fed
> regs...........     ;-)

Remember, rn, trn, and http (mosaic) don't even give identification of 
the user.  Most servers, by default, will have only the IP address of the 
host, and most servers don't even check that.  It is one of the reasons 
that X million people can browse Y million servers with a minimum of effort.
Figures for X and Y can't even be determined because there is so little 
attempt to authenticate individuals.

It would be nice if kerberos type encryption and authentication could be 
managed by government regulated servers.  I could ask for a federally 
approved encryption key, my credentials could be checked, and the 
government could watch me if it really wanted to.  Personally, I don't 
care if big brother watches, I just don't want little boys and greedy men 
watching.


	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sun Apr  9 23:18:26 1995
Status: O
X-Status: