Ok, this is a very bad take on security. Very, very bad:
Ignore, if you will, the social aspects of if, why and how to police children online and just look at the totally stupid design proposal – he advocates a second router behind the main router, which is fair enough (ignoring all those protocols that die with a double NAT, or what happens if (gasp !) you actually produce content rather than just consume it and would like to forward an internal server to your public IP) for a quick-n-dirty fix, but the inexcusable part is that the ‘untrusted’ kids router is connected directly to the Internet, and the ‘trusted’ adult’s machines are connected behind the kids router…
That’s right: you (presumably) can’t trust the kids to not break your own machine, so you’re now giving them a free reign to spoof the router IP and fake up any web site you might be trying to visit… Bonus marks for the kids that spot the router firmware is buggy, and has no patch/is unpatched and then take over that device and hold your Internet connectivity hostage, screen scraping your banking password and giving themselves a nice present.
It’s ‘security’ like this that gives us mandatory password changes every month, but ignores the wealth of research showing that excessive password cycling results in post-it notes of passwords in plain view. Or airline security that… Nah – I can’t be bothered. Fill in your own similies here because he’s wasted far too much of my thought time as it is.