Dear Urban Diplomat: how do we get our 15-year old son to delete his porn browsing history?
Dear Urban Diplomat,
My son is a normal 15-year-old, so I wasn’t too disturbed to discover that he surfs porn on our computer. But clearly he doesn’t know enough to delete his history, and I’d rather his 10-year-old sister not stumble upon his randy web trail. How can I make him aware without putting him through the mortification of getting busted by his mom?
—Ignorance Was Bliss, Seaton Village
While I respect the hands-off approach to your son’s hands-on browsing habits, I have to say that porn isn’t the healthiest intro to sex, and a candid talk, however squirm-inducing for both parties, might be worthwhile. As for the technical advice: set up password-protected user accounts, each with its own settings and browsing histories, which is pretty easy to do. Tell him that the accounts are to help keep your budgeting spreadsheets and income tax details secure, and he won’t suspect a thing.
Send your questions to the Urban Diplomat at urbandiplomat@torontolife.com
netnanny
What’s strange to me is that at 15, he’s not got his own device to do as he pleases in private. The whole “shared family computer” thing is very 2003. As technology has gotten cheaper and individual devices more the norm, this is not a question I expect to be hearing in 2015.
Anyway, I have to hand it to you, you’re doing a great job of parenting here – both for letting your son not get “caught in the act”, and protecting your daughter from coming across a potentially horrifying surprise.
The key detail that’s missing from the situation here is that I don’t know whether your son doesn’t know how to delete history at all, or that he MAY know, and just is choosing not to do it for whatever reason (likely that he doesn’t think you’ll see it). This matters because in the case of the latter, this is much more of an issue of common sense than it is of technology.
Addressing the first scenario, my advice would be to change your web browser settings to not keep history. When it comes to everybody else’s usage, does keeping a history really matter, especially with this hazard present? If your browser is designed to track nothing, then it poses little to no risk.
Addressing the second, you might want to try alluding to this problem in such a way that does not “bust” him. Perhaps say you have to take the computer in for repair because “it must have a virus, it keeps going to all of these weird sites”. That way, he knows there’s a problem, but doesn’t know he’s been “found out”. Thus prompting him to figure out a way to do it more privately, dignity intact.
I must warn you, however… Adult websites are a hotbed for malware and other dangerous technical security risks. As a result of your son’s activity, your family’s computer activity may be at risk because of what things might get installed during his browsing. It is for this reason, among others that I mentioned above, that I’d advise a separate device. He’s 15 years old – nearly an adult, I think that having his own device will be a very nice life upgrade, as well as a way to teach responsibility – in the sense that if he ends up ruining his device as a result of visiting the wrong website, he knows what happens.
Additionally, it does remain illegal. They are called “adult” websites for a reason. Admitting that you know may land you in trouble (despite the fact that these laws are basically never enforced).
But once again, cheers to you for being a good parent. You really could not be handling this better.
Mate, did you even read the article? Netnanny controls and monitors the user’s activity, when the objective of the inquiry was quite the opposite. Yes, Netnanny is useful if you want to prevent your kids from looking at porn (or find out if they do). But it is not a relevant suggestion.
Law student here – it is not an offence pursuant to the Criminal Code for someone under 18 to visit a porn website, and I challenge you to present a statute rendering it illegal, because I highly doubt that is the case.
Aspiring law student myself. I love a good debate.
It may not be an offence for someone under 18 to visit a porn website… however, with the parent providing the computer, the internet, and the unsupervised time in which the child can access the website, is the parent not, in effect, providing the child with access to pornography? Especially in the case where the parent knows about it?
What I meant in my original comment is not that the child stands to get into trouble – I’m saying that the parents do. Just as I am almost positive that there is a part of the law that would prohibit one’s parents from buying, say, porn DVD’s for their kids, the parents allowing their kids to access it and giving them the resources to do so is really not much different.
Also, in the event that an age-requirement disclaimer is displayed before one can access the website, it is very possible that a child may have committed mischief, if not fraud, by confirming that they are 18 years of age or older. To do so is not any different from entering a bar with a fake ID, as it involves the blatant misrepresentation of one’s age in order to access something that is age-restricted in its nature.
With the enormous caveat that I am not a lawyer:
First off, there is no such law in Canada preventing parents from purchasing pornography for their children. The law distinguishes between pornography and child pornography, and in the case of the latter it is an offence to provide it to your children (or anyone else), but it is certainly not an offence in Canada and/or Ontario.
Even if you were correct and it was an offence, liability for negligent omissions has a relatively high causal standard. It would certainly require much more than an internet connection writ large – I have never read a negligence omissions case enabling such broad culpability (and I have read many expressly cautioning against such broad duty of care).
In the event of an age-requirement disclaimer – first, “mischief” is not an offence. Second, conflating such with a fake ID to enter a bar is problematic (very different contexts and policy rationales behind limiting child consumption of pornography vs alcohol). Third, fraud in Canada (and probably most common law jurisdictions) requires more than a dishonest act, it also requires deprivation. I fail to see deprivation such that a court would even consent to hear the case.
I have more concern with the stock photo used with this story than the actual issue.
What teenager would be stupid enough to hang out on the living room couch when surfing for porn?
Curumno, you’re going to be one fine lawyer someday. Not that I support the story behind it, your arguments (not that I take anything away from Maxwell) showed me that you’re going to be one tough lawyer to be reckoned with…good luck in your future endeavour.
Well, I’m definitely with ProudCanuck in that you’ve put together some terrific arguments. You seem to have the experience with respect to research and such on this kind of subject (most of my research lies in intellectual property law). Although for the sake of this debate, I would like to provide a few refuting arguments here… (and again, I am merely an aspiring law student, not a lawyer)
1. It can be said of many things that there is “no such law” that directly forbids a given act. There are a few ways in which one could perceive the Criminal Code, however, which could make the act as you had described it (a parent purchasing pornography for their child) an issue of “corrupting children” (section 172), or perhaps a compounding offence, in the case of the conditions set out in section 171.1(1)(a-c), if external instances of child mistreatment are found, which cause making such materials available to a child an additional crime.
All I’m trying to say is that even though there is no law that DIRECTLY states “a parent may not purchase pornography for their child”, when a case is observed in context, other laws may prove to be applicable. There is extensive case law, particularly that of Butler, that covers this subject, and it goes without saying that this is a complex issue. But when analysing what might be at play in a case such as the one that is the point of focus in the article, many factors need to be considered, because other conditions may be present that could very well make it a crime for a parent to give their kids pornography, that don’t rely on the standalone act by itself.
2. It would not be wise for me to comment on case law that you have an evident advantage over me in, but I will say once again, this had ought to be viewed in context. In this situation, the parent is not just providing their child with the internet connection to access this material; they are also ADMITTING TO knowing about it. How high the causal standard is, in these situations, I don’t know – which is why I’m not saying much. But I think we can both agree that there is a difference (liability-wise) between something happening in a parent’s home without their knowledge, and that same thing happening with their knowledge.
3. “Mischief” is an offence – see section 430 of the Criminal Code.
4. With respect to deprivation, I will argue that deprivation did, in fact, occur on the following basis… as pornography websites exist as businesses who seek to make a profit, their provision of free materials to viewers who are not required to register is done on the basis that some of these viewers may seek to conduct business either with the website, or one of its advertisers. To do this, one will need to be in the correct capacity to do so – which will likely involve having a credit card – or, much more likely, just be able to enter into a contract.
Since a 15-year-old cannot enter into a contract, the resources that are consumed as the 15-year-old in question views the website are consumed under a false pretense – since they indicated at the homepage that they were “of legal age”, when, in fact, they are not.
This satisfies the requirement of a dishonest act, in addition to the deprivation that occurs from the website’s output of resources, with no possibility of return. That is precisely why I would view it as fraud. Websites are not free to run, and under 18’s are disallowed for that very reason.