An alternative system for parental control over children's Internet access

Submitted by: mseikeh

THE SOLUTION

PGNet An alternative system for parental control over children's Internet accessParental control over what kids might access on the Internet may be greatly improved using a simple system. Such a system, lets call it here “PGNet”, may be built in the same way the Internet or Wikipedia were built; by contributions form the masses. The following points will clarify the proposed functionality and setup of the PGNet: 1. Kids will have to access the Internet using a specially modified version of the browser. So little Sara has to log on the system with her id and click on the “Kiddo’s version of IE icon”. Lets call it IE4Kiddo. 2. Unlike regular IE, IE4Kiddo contacts a special name-server which checks the validity of a URL against a list of addresses maintained by PGNet. The verification may result in one or the other of the following three possibilities: If the address checks out alright, then the name-server proceeds as usual by providing informations needed to route the call. The URL proves to be marked as “No good”, then little Sara is presented with message telling here politely that the requested page in not suitable for her. Finally, if the requested URL is not on the list of the PGNet system, then it is added to the pool of pages waiting to be verified for suitability for young internet users. Little Sara is told the page is not available immediately but the system is working hard on obtaining the information requested. IE4Kiddo maintains records of such requests and keeps trying to download such URLs until the verification is completed and a definite answer is obtained from the PGNet system; either the requested URL is rendered or IE4Kiddo is informed that the requested URL is no good. 3. The PGNet system depends upon a community of volunteers who verify those URL staked in the pool. A volunteer takes few minutes of their free time, logs on to the PGNet system where they are presented with a rendered image of URL to be verified. They check the information presented in the page against acceptance criteria and render their ratings. 4. The very same URL may be presented to more than one reviewer. Perhaps one should require three or four positive recommendations before an “OK” status is granted and the URL makes its way to the list. 5. When reviewers rate the URL as “No good”, the author of the page may be informed that their page will not be available to young Internet users. 6. Volunteers may join the PGNet system in a similar way to that used to obtain a Gmail account. One start with a group of “good people” who in turn pass on the invitation to other “good people”. As the Internet or Wikipedia has exploded, the reviewer-hours available to clear URLs would increase and hopefully every page on the Internet can be tagged as suitable or not for young users of the Internet. 7. Lets keep in mind that for a URL to be cleared, many reviewers must clear it. Reviewers track record are kept by PGNet, and when a particular reviewer repeatedly gives their “OK” to URLs marked as “No good” by other reviewers, then the PGNet may present that particular reviewer with pages of Hail Mary, other suitable pieces of scriptures or other Buddhist wisdom. Things of this kind. 8. The first implementation of the PGNet system may be in an “Observe mode”, where the system collect URLs young users seek. This may provide some time for the community of reviewers to grow and for the “To show or not to show list” to reach a meaningful size. Then locks are placed and access becomes controlled. Lets recall that access is controlled only when the special browser is used. The Internet remains free when accessed by the usual browser we use nowadays.