Net Nanny for iPhone?

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Originally Posted by iPhoneporn

I created it for this thread, which is my first ever posting here.

Now I'm stuck with it for life

Funny, I actually looked at your username RIGHT before I saw the comments about it.

I know you created the name with the intention of only needing help on this question... but you realize that you will probably be sucked into MacRumors and always be known as the iPhonePorn dude!

Just saying ppl might get the wrong impression. (especially if your kids ever happen to see what you are typing! )

[ADMProducer]

Originally Posted by scaredpoet

It's going to be interesting to see how netnanny does this effectively on iOS. Short of hooking into Safari using unpublished APIs, this is going to be a neat trick to make sure it catches everything. unless it's released as a Cydia/jailbreak app, but the irony of that would be hilarious.

Edit: I see now in the blog post that the developers pretty much admit this:



At the risk of getting flamed: the history of netnanny-like software has shown again and again that they don't work. They frequently err on the side of "caution" and filter legitimate content (say you want to research "breast cancer" for instance), and then they don't always catch the *real* bad stuff. it's always an arms race.

If you're implementing this for a child or someone else you find untrustworthy, they will find ways to get around it. I mean, even if Netnanny really locked down the device, what kid with an iPhone hasn't already jailbroken it? At the very least, they know how and can use that knowledge when it becomes "necessary." Even a simple DFU restore on some other computer with iTunes will make short work of this.

The only way to make it foolproof is to make it inherent in the OS and mandatory on every device, and I'm sorry, but there are plenty of responsible adults who don't want someone else telling them what to view in their web browsers, even if they never look at porn on their iPhones. It's a slippery slope from that to controls and restrictions on other "unsavory" content.

Having netnanny is a poor subsitute for having a "real" nanny... or better yet, real parenting. Talking to kids about what they shouldn't see and why, and setting ground rules, and enforcing those rules through actual interaction is probably more effective than giving them just another software puzzle to solve and get around.

And if you absolutely can't trust them... then maybe they're not old enough or responsible enough to have a smartphone yet.


By the way: if you were to ask me to design something more effective than this, I'd go with a filtered VPN. Set up a VPN proxy with a web-filter, and set up the iPhone to connect through that. That way, all net content is getting filtered, regardless of the app or browser in use.

Of course, once the user figured out what's going on, they could go into the settings and disconnect the VPN. Doesn't look like Apple lets you lock that down. So that wouldn't be perfect, either.

I think your argument is weak when asserting that "kids" will jailbreak phones to get porn on them. Fact is, they need a computer for this and porn access on computers is relatively easy.

[scaredpoet]

Originally Posted by ADMProducer

I think your argument is weak when asserting that "kids" will jailbreak phones to get porn on them.

Then you haven't really read my argument.

If a parent or person of authority is going to make a show of restricting a users' access to something, there's going to be a segment of them who will find a way around it for the sake of finding a way around it. This is how jailbreaking started in the first place.

My argument is that as long as you can wipe and program a device, there will be no foolproof ways to restrict how people use them. The "temptation," as the OP put it - of doing naughty, naughty things with your iPhone, is the price you pay for the flexibility.

To advocate an end to that flexibility diminishes the positives for it, imposes a subjective set of morals on an entire group, and assumes that everyone is debaucherous and gives in to "temptation." When in fact, not everyone has the same views, not everyone thinks the same way about what is wicked and what isn't... and not everyone is so "wicked" that they're going to rabidly pleasure themselves to pictures of naughty bits on their iPhones when it's inappropriate to do so.

Not everyone "needs" a Net nanny. And the belief that you have to use a net nanny in the first place is merely lulling oneself into a false sense of security. Be a responsible parent, and make an effort teach your kids that same responsibility. Appropriately enforce those rules. And if that temptation is too great for you, then please, seek professional help.

That's my argument.

Fact is, they need a computer for this and porn access on computers is relatively easy.

No kidding? I never would've guessed that.

[FSMBP]

This sounds too weird. Educate your kids. At the end of the day, they'll do what they want. You can take away all the temptation by using a Net Nanny but the fact that your kid is trying to access the sites is the real issue.

It reminds me of A Clockwork Orange.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by FSMBP

Educate your kids. At the end of the day, they'll do what they want.

Originally Posted by scaredpoet

If you're implementing this for a child or someone else you find untrustworthy, they will find ways to get around it. I mean, even if Netnanny really locked down the device, what kid with an iPhone hasn't already jailbroken it?

My kid is 4. She only uses our iPod when I'm in the room. I just don't want her doing something like searching for '***** cat' in google by accident. She can spell some words, it's not unbelievable that she could do that.

But I really, really, really don't think my 4 year old is going to somehow jailbreak my iPod.


You're gonna come back and say "well, she'll be older someday soon." Ok, so what? Your argument is that if something doesn't work for 10 year olds then 4 year olds shouldn't be allowed to have it? What kind of a weird viewpoint is that?

Yeah, kids who are looking for porn will find it. But why does that mean I can't have better tools to help the kids who aren't looking for it? That's nonsense for you all to claim that the 2 groups should be treated the same.

[FSMBP]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

My kid is 4. She only uses our iPod when I'm in the room. I just don't want her doing something like searching for '***** cat' in google by accident. She can spell some words, it's not unbelievable that she could do that.

But I really, really, really don't think my 4 year old is going to somehow jailbreak my iPod.


You're gonna come back and say "well, she'll be older someday soon." Ok, so what? Your argument is that if something doesn't work for 10 year olds then 4 year olds shouldn't be allowed to have it? What kind of a weird viewpoint is that?

Yeah, kids who are looking for porn will find it. But why does that mean I can't have better tools to help the kids who aren't looking for it? That's nonsense for you all to claim that the 2 groups should be treated the same.

Well, that's a good point. I'm hoping Google doesn't autocomplete searches that start with "Fu**ing" in them but if it does, then I see your point.


And this is my 1st response to you - so don't assume what I'll "come back with," chief.

[scaredpoet]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

My kid is 4. She only uses our iPod when I'm in the room.

And you still need software to parent your child? Wow. Ok.

You're gonna come back and say "well, she'll be older someday soon." Ok, so what?

The "so what" is that you can't shield your children forever.

Those 4 years old do become 10 year olds. Then they become 18 year olds. And in my past work, I've had to deal with two types of 18 year olds: the ones who came to college well-adjusted, well-educated by their parents about
taking personal responsibility, and handling their newfound unrestricted access pretty well, actually.

And then there were the ones who were heavily sheltered from this stuff without discussion from their parents, without the instillment of trust or personal responsibility, or the development of coping mechanisms. With the restrictions gone, they tended not to fare so well, to be honest.

Your argument

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Yeah, kids who are looking for porn will find it. But why does that mean I can't have better tools to help the kids who aren't looking for it?

My point is, they are not better tools. If you want to use them, be my guest. But they won't solve your problem as well as you think they will.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by FSMBP

And this is my 1st response to you - so don't assume what I'll "come back with," chief.

That comment was addressed at scaredpoet who seems to have put much more thought into the logistics of all this. I'm assuming, based on his posts, that he's thought about that eventuality whereas you were just making more of a philosophical point.

EDIT: And you can right above here that I was right!

[FSMBP]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

That comment was addressed at scaredpoet who seems to have put much more thought into the logistics of all this. I'm assuming, based on his posts, that he's thought about that eventuality whereas you were just making more of a philosophical point.

EDIT: And you can right above here that I was right!

Gotcha.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by scaredpoet

And in my past work, I've had to deal with two types of 18 year olds: the ones who came to college well-adjusted, well-educated by their parents about taking personal responsibility, and handling their newfound unrestricted access pretty well, actually.

And then there were the ones who were heavily sheltered from this stuff without discussion from their parents, without the instillment of trust or personal responsibility, or the development of coping mechanisms. With the restrictions gone, they tended not to fare so well, to be honest.

Ok, so I'm totally planning on teaching my 8 year old daughter about all this stuff and making sure she's responsible.

But it's your viewpoint that I can't do that if I don't also show her porn at the age of 4? I say that I don't want my 4 year old to see porn and the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that she will be ignorant about this at the age of 18? That's really what comes to your mind first?

I can't really argue with you anymore if that's what you think because that make so little sense to me I don't even know how to respond.

[scaredpoet]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

But it's your viewpoint that I can't do that if I don't also show her porn at the age of 4?

No, you're putting words in my mouth again. I'm not going to respond to arguments that you've made up.

Originally Posted by Small White Car

That comment was addressed at scaredpoet who seems to have put much more thought into the logistics of all this. I'm assuming, based on his posts, that he's thought about that eventuality whereas you were just making more of a philosophical point.

If you want to ignore the eventualities, as I said, that's you're choice. God bless you.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by scaredpoet

You're putting words in my mouth again. I'm not going to respond to arguments that you've made up.

If you want to ignore the eventualities, as I said, that's you're choice. God bless you.

How else am I supposed to read your comments?

I say that I don't want her to see porn at age 4. You say that will make her unprepared at age 18.

So tell me what I'm supposed to do.

If I can't talk to her between the age of 4 and 18, what's your solution?

[scaredpoet]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

How else am I supposed to read your comments?

Completely.

I said the software isn't going to solve the problem. It's not 100% effective. It's not a substitute for actual parenting.

I say that I don't want her to see porn at age 4. You say that will make her unprepared at age 18.

This is the third time you've put words in my mouth. I will ask you again: stop it.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by scaredpoet

I said the software isn't going to solve the problem. It's not 100% effective. It's not a substitute for actual parenting.

What on earth makes you think it's the only thing I'm doing?

How insulting are you trying to be?

If I asked for a carseat suggestion you'd come in here and accuse me of driving drunk and say that my kid'll die no matter what carseat I use. Am I right about that? It's pretty much the same thing as what you're doing to me here.

[Consultant]

There are browsers with parental controls in the App Store.

You can also use openDNS.

[scaredpoet]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

If I asked for a carseat suggestion you'd come in here and accuse me of driving drunk and say that my kid'll die no matter what carseat I use. Am I right about that?

No, you're not.

But, since that's what you think, there's no point in continuing to debate.

Sorry you feel the way you do.

[MylesC]

There are obviously plenty of opinions on parenting and filtering and appropriateness of content. I'm not going to get in to any of that.

I want to bring up the fact that Apple's own Age Rating system is flawed. They insist that all web browser apps be labeled "17+", but they allow apps like Google and Bing which also allow full Internet access to be label "4+". Setting aside the issue of what you would do with your own kids, I think it would be a helpful tool for some parents to have the apps labeled appropriately.

To that end, I've set up a Facebook Page to encourage a change in Apple's policy: "Protect Kids From the App Store".

Some of you may disagree, but hopefully those of you who agree will help spread the word. I'm just trying to get Apple to be consistent in their age ratings policy.

[macsrcool1234]

This is coming way otu of left fild here but for those of you with wifi only devices (ipod touches) , you can at least block things at home using OpenDNS like somebody else mentioned. They maintain all the lists for you so you never have to update anything.

That being said, it will do nothing to help you with blocking 3G browsing.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by MylesC

There are obviously plenty of opinions on parenting and filtering and appropriateness of content. I'm not going to get in to any of that.

I want to bring up the fact that Apple's own Age Rating system is flawed. They insist that all web browser apps be labeled "17+", but they allow apps like Google and Bing which also allow full Internet access to be label "4+". Setting aside the issue of what you would do with your own kids, I think it would be a helpful tool for some parents to have the apps labeled appropriately.

To that end, I've set up a Facebook Page to encourage a change in Apple's policy: "Protect Kids From the App Store".

Some of you may disagree, but hopefully those of you who agree will help spread the word. I'm just trying to get Apple to be consistent in their age ratings policy.

I think your suggestions are a lousy compromise for problems that Apple has created.

Rather than rating a browser 17+ I think that Apple should have a separate notification for Apps that offer an embedded browser (or are just a browser themselves like Opera Mini), saying that the App allows access to web pages. It would then be clearer to parents that this is the case before they download an App. A system that labels something like Facebook as being rated 17+ is going to be taken less seriously by people. It would be easy to add an additional parental control that prevents an App with a browser being installed (without permission).

The most common reason people don't use parental controls is that they simply get the balance between protection and interference wrong.

The 17+ rating really makes no sense for web browsers.

[MylesC]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

I think your suggestions are a lousy compromise for problems that Apple has created.

My suggestion that Apple rate the apps consistently might not be the best solution, but it would be the easiest for Apple.

Granted, the user will need to educate themselves on what a "17+" rating actually means. But given that the tools for restricting certain age level apps is already in place on the device, all Apple needs to do is be consitent in its ratings. The rest would be up to the user.

Daveoc64, if we could convince Apple to do what you suggest (label apps as having full browser access), that would be a far superior solution. I'm all for it

Myles

[h00ligan]

Originally Posted by MylesC

There are obviously plenty of opinions on parenting and filtering and appropriateness of content. I'm not going to get in to any of that.

I want to bring up the fact that Apple's own Age Rating system is flawed. They insist that all web browser apps be labeled "17+", but they allow apps like Google and Bing which also allow full Internet access to be label "4+". Setting aside the issue of what you would do with your own kids, I think it would be a helpful tool for some parents to have the apps labeled appropriately.

To that end, I've set up a Facebook Page to encourage a change in Apple's policy: "Protect Kids From the App Store".

Some of you may disagree, but hopefully those of you who agree will help spread the word. I'm just trying to get Apple to be consistent in their age ratings policy.

It's pretty easy, don't give your 4 year old access to the Internet...aka. Parent.

[MylesC]

Originally Posted by h00ligan

It's pretty easy, don't give your 4 year old access to the Internet...aka. Parent.

Yes. That's what I'm trying to do.

[dccorona]

Originally Posted by iPhoneporn

Why is it so hard to block porn on the iPhone? Will Apple ever do something about this?

I realise there are plenty of people who want porn - and that's fine. That's up to you. But I don't. I'd like to be able to switch it off, as we can with our PC (using Net Nanny), so that all web enabled programs (or apps) don't show porn.

It's a big issue - if you don't believe me, read this article from Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...815933,00.html

There are a few "safe" browsers (K9, Mobicip) available in the app store, but they don't work. You have to disable Safari (which means you lose a lot of iPhone functionality, e.g. links in emails don't work anymore) and in any event, lots of apps have internet capabilities (even my radio app, TuneIn Radio has browser capabilities).

Ideally, there would just be a Net Nanny switch in the "restrictions" settings (although I guess there would also need to be a configuration panel, as adults trying to escape porn might want different settings to parents looking after younger kids).

Steve Jobs keeps saying he wants users to have the option of a porn-free iPhone. Why doesn't he sort this out?

I believe if you press and hold on a link, you can choose to open in... and choose the app you want to open it with instead of safari. So you could block safari and use and alternative browser so long as you remember to press and hold

[MylesC]

Originally Posted by dccorona

I believe if you press and hold on a link, you can choose to open in... and choose the app you want to open it with instead of safari. So you could block safari and use and alternative browser so long as you remember to press and hold

The only options on my wife's iPhone and my iPod Touch are "Open" or "Cancel". Are you sure you're thinking about the mobile iOS devices?

[dccorona]

Originally Posted by MylesC

The only options on my wife's iPhone and my iPod Touch are "Open" or "Cancel". Are you sure you're thinking about the mobile iOS devices?

yes but im not sure it works for links. I know it can be done with files. Apparently its not the same as links