BY THE MAXIMUM PC STAFF
THE OLD-TIMER
The most senior staffer in terms of
computer experience, this geezer of a
geek has been around the block once
or twice, learned a trick or two along
the way, and cultivated an enduring
passion to stick it to the Man. No stink-
ing software is gonna tell him what he
can or can’t look at. Or will it?THE CRUSADER
Though he has no children himself, this
editor has outspoken opinions about
child rearing and fi rmly believes that
parental-control software has no busi-
ness in the mix. He’s on a mission to
prove that this is the wrong way to go.
Will he be so adamant when he has
kids? That’s a topic for another story.passion to stick it to the Man. No stink-
ing software is gonna tell him what he
can or can’t look at. Or will it?prove that this is the wrong way to go.
Will he be so adamant when he has
kids? That’s a topic for another story.MEET THE EDITORS
THE UPSTART
He’s young, and that just might be his
secret weapon. A whippersnapper him-
self, he knows how kids think and what
they’re capable of. Shoot, it wasn’t so
long ago that he was hacking into his
high school’s student database and hav-
ing his way with every locker combo.
What’s a silly application going to do,
suspend him?THE TESTING METHODS
We set up the software on a fairly
typical notebook running a fully
updated install of Windows XP. We
installed one parental-control app at
a time and used the recommended
settings, assuming most parents
would do likewise. To ensure a level
playing fi eld, we created a Norton
Ghost image of the machine with
software installed to duplicate the
exact same settings and conditions
for each editor. Editors were allowed
to take as much time as needed to
breach each app’s boundaries. To
prove success at the most basic
level, an editor had to provide screen
captures of restricted content. If said
content was accessed without leav-
ing any signs of tampering, the appli-
cation was considered unequivocally
cracked, and thus untrustworthy as a
monitoring method.P
arents these days have a
lot to worry about, par-
ticularly when it comes to
their children’s Internet activi-
ties. Just a little time online or
even a casual glance at the news
makes it woefully clear that the
web is crawling with all kinds of
unsavory content and charac-
ters. To counter these potentially
harmful forces, many parents
turn to software for custodial
help. Scores of applications are
now available that employ vari-
ous methods to keep kids safe
online, so keeping them away
from inappropriate sites should
be a cinch, right?
Before you return to your
work worries, endless errands,
or Body-for-Life support group,
assured that your kids are taken
care of, consider this: Most of
today’s youth are far more techsavvy than their parental units.
Formative years spent in front
of a keyboard and screen have
rendered these young’uns all too
at ease with a PC’s inner work-
ings. Can a little ol’ app, no mat-
ter how lofty its promises, keep
today’s children from getting
where they want to online?
To answer this question, we
pitted the wits of three Maximum
PC editors against three popu-
lar parental-control apps—Net
Nanny, PC Tattletale, and Safe
Eyes. Not because these edi-
tors are inherently childlike, but
because it isn’t far-fetched to
believe a kid today would pos-
sess similar skills—or, to use
the common vernacular, skillz.
Turn the page to fi nd out how
our editors fared against their
“parents.”What’s a silly application going to do, What’s a silly application going to do,
suspend him?suspend him?july 2007 MAXIMUMPC 29