COMPARISON OF PARENTAL CONTROL TOOLS Resource for parents and educators ! Criteria used for the evaluation Usability • Installation and configuration procedures should be kept simple and explained in plain language. • The software should: - be easy to learn, - follow consistent concepts, - conform with user expectations about how it works, have an appealing design, - provide a good overview on all features. • Blocking • Dialogue with the user should be easy to understand and when directed at children should use child sensitive language. ! Effectiveness • Most tools are usually not very effective in filtering harmful web content. In any case, adult content is not the only threat to children. It is important that such tools also be much more effective with regard to content about violence, racism, self-harm, and, also on user generated content (social networks, blogs, forums, etc.). • Although not distributed anymore, the AOL filtering tool was satisfactorily effective. Thus, it may serve as a best practice example for other software producers. • The database containing the black list should be updated at least with every update of the tool. ! Functionality • After the installation process is completed, default filtering should be in operation even when the user did not perform or finish a configuration. should be transparent to users. • If the creation of user profiles within the filtering tool is linked with the Windows user profile system, parents should be clearly warned (with an alert in a pop-up window or similar) about the need to set-up a separate Windows profile and make the admin account password protected. Even better, if there is only one Windows profile, the parent should be guided in the creation of the other profiles". • Tools should clearly indicate what kind of filtering is performed on social networks. Is the access to Facebook or similar websites blocked? Is the content filtered? Are interactions with other users filtered or blocked? • It should be possible, by default or as an option, to force the child/teenager to search the web using the safe mode of the three main search engines (Google Safe Search, Bing Safe Search or Yahoo! Safe Search). • When a page is blocked, the child/teenager should be able to ask the parent to override the blocking when they feel that the blocked content is not harmful. • Blocking applications: To keep it simple, parents should be provided with a list of applications installed on the computer, for example, in the Windows control panel, instead of having to locate the .exe file on the hard disk. • Blocking personal data (name, address, phone number) being provided by the child/teenager should be implemented in all tools such as MSN and Skype, and also work on websites (blogs, Facebook, webmail). • Very often, blocking categories are based on blocking content in the workplace (i.e. “sports”, “finance”, etc.). Tool providers should consider youth needs when creating the databases for black lists and white lists and provide explanations on what these refer to (to make it more transparent for parents). • The reporting of the online activities of the child/teenager and the blocked content should be simple, concise, and provide the essential pertinent information. Sometimes, information provided appears to be designed for business use and not for home or private users. ! ! !1 ! ! • Communication between children and parents is the most important issue in youth protection, therefore, the child should always be aware of the monitoring of his/her online activities. ! Security • Harmful content should not be accessible through Google Cache or Google Translator. • Creation of a password for administration (and uninstallation) should be compulsory. • The tools should work and be compatible with the most popular browsers, or, alternatively, block the download and installation of other browsers. • The tools should be resistant to some simple hacking or by-passing actions: - Uninstalling the software without a password, - Changing date and time of the computer to override time limits of Internet usage, - Renaming a blocked application, - Closing the software through the Task Manager. ! Note: All scores are the averages of ratings for different age groups from the European Commission Benchmarking of Parental Control Tools SIP-Bench III for all age groups, apart from Netfilter and Qustodio Parental Control 2015 which are estimates set out by Interaxion. !2 Qustodio Parental Control 2015 Description: Impressive parental control system includes almost everything parents could want. Children’s online activity is tracked across multiple devices. Configuration and monitoring can be handled remotely while parents receive email notifications of breaches of conduct. Sites associated with 29 different categories can be blocked while real-time analysis evaluates uncategorised websites upon access. The browser-independent filter effectively deals with secure proxies by blocking access and even filtering any traffic through them. Safe Search is forced on major search engines. Time scheduler limits Internet use for each child, as well as device use and use of apps. Social networking activity is cleverly monitored through an Evaluation* app that the child must install to access the sites, which tracks the child’s posts, pictures and comments on various Overall Evaluation 2,8 sites, although only the identity of friends talked to is Functionality 3,5 reported and not the content of these chats. The Android Effectiveness 2,8 version boasts impressive features like location tracking, call blocking and a panic button. Parents can opt to Usability 3,0 receive daily or weekly reports on their child’s online Security 4,0 activity which breaks it down by categories. * All scores are out of a maximum of 4 Qustodio is among the very best in the market and so only suffers from a few weaknesses. Firstly, the iOS support is very limited in scope. It can filter content and enforce Safe Technical information Search but only if the Qustodio browser is used by the Devices PC/ Mac/ Mobile devices (incl. Kindle) child. There is no tracking of usage, including that of Operating Windows/ Android/ iOS particular apps, which is a serious weak point in. the iOS Systems version. There is no monitoring of games played either on Price (yearly) €35 (5 accounts on 5 devices) the Internet or using Internet connectivity, unlike some Web Address http://www.qustodio.com other systems. Users have also indicated problems with restricting offline time on the computer, dealing with Language 5 majr European languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian and customer support and their computer speed after Portuguese) downloading Qustodio. Qustodio Parental Control 2015 is a pcmag.com Editor’s Choice for parental control. !3 PureSight Owl Description: PureSight is similar to other internet filter software as it boasts basic parental control features like content filtering and Internet scheduling. However, PureSight also addresses the serious topic of cyberbullying on IM and can terminate the conversation, block the perpetrator, and notify parents if necessary. Protection is offered across multiple devices. PureSight also uses artificial intelligence technology to ensure that nothing is missed, as it recognises dangerous sites that are too new to be tagged as such. The parent portal allows parents remote access to information about their children’s online lives and enables them to set rules for Internet use. Evaluation* In spite of its many positive aspects, there are some issues with this system. The online parental control system is Overall Evaluation 2,7 slow to use in comparison with other alternatives. Functionality 3,4 PureSight fails to provide any substantial management of Effectiveness 2,2 social networking which undermines its anti-cyberbullying features. Like the majority of other systems out there, Usability 3,1 PureSight’s site blocking process is weakened by being Security 4,0 unable to prevent evasion through browsing via a secure * All scores are out of a maximum of 4 proxy. The price may not be exorbitant (at €35 per year for protection across 3 devices) but free alternatives offer similar levels of protection without the cost. This system is only available in English and Spanish. Technical information Devices PC/ Mac/ Smartphones and tablets For the fourth year in a row, PureSight ranks highest in the Operating Windows/ Android European Commission Benchmarking of Parental Control Systems Tools SIP-Bench III for all age groups. Price (yearly) €35 (Varies depending on number of devices. Annual and monthly rates) Web Address http://www.puresight.com Language English/ Spanish !4 Norton Online Family Description: An excellent parental control system that emphasises communication over control. Parents configure the “House Rules” online which are then available to view for the children. They can block sites or simply warn their children when accessing them, while children are told to log off once they reach a time limit rather than being forced off. These measures may prove more fruitful in teaching good online behaviour to children, as they are kept involved in the process. The scheduler places limits on computer use. Effective IM monitoring effective allows for both the monitoring of conversations and blocking of friends. Visits to social networking sites are tracked and parents are notified if the child signs up for a Evaluation* new account, submits a false age or posts personal information. “Safe Search” can also be enabled. This set- Overall Evaluation 2,5 up is ideal for a multi-computer household as parents can Functionality 1,8 manage configuration and view reports/ notifications Effectiveness 2,1 remotely. Best of all, it’s free! Usability 3,1 The only problems are quite minor ones. Email notifications Security 4,0 about incidents don’t link to the event in question in the * All scores are out of a maximum of 4 log but instead bring you back to the programme’s homepage. The system doesn’t possess the real-time analysis that quickly evaluates uncategorised sites upon access, although the sites are queried for evaluation and Technical information possible manual review in the future.