Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
4529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 865878 25-Jul-2013 13:45
3 people support this post
Send private message

surfisup1000: 
You guys continue to argue your rights being removed when you have the abilility to simply disable the block.  Can you explain how your rights are removed as I don't get that line of argument? 




Well, you already have the ability to add your own block, so... go ahead and do it.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


BDFL - Memuneh
61189 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11970

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 865882 25-Jul-2013 13:48
Send private message

surfisup1000:
freitasm:

People who don't use the technology at hand (no pun intended) may unintentionally stumble upon pornography.




Ummmm, who recently said this...

"Basically we shouldn' rely on technology to block things. We should be better parents and educate kids instead of trying to hide things from them"

It is ridiculously easy for a kid to disable the filter settings, especially on tablets/smartphones. 


I think you missed the point where technology is not going to overcome good parenting. If you feel so bad about technology bringing this to your media device, enable strict search and EDUCATE your kids on why they shouldn't change it.





12872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6079

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 865893 25-Jul-2013 13:59
2 people support this post
Send private message

freitasm:
surfisup1000:
freitasm:

People who don't use the technology at hand (no pun intended) may unintentionally stumble upon pornography.




Ummmm, who recently said this...

"Basically we shouldn' rely on technology to block things. We should be better parents and educate kids instead of trying to hide things from them"

It is ridiculously easy for a kid to disable the filter settings, especially on tablets/smartphones. 


I think you missed the point where technology is not going to overcome good parenting. If you feel so bad about technology bringing this to your media device, enable strict search and EDUCATE your kids on why they shouldn't change it.



I found a little used process to help my kids decide what was appropriate to watch download etc. Its rare but effective, is called talk. I talked to them and face to face to.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


2091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 848


  Reply # 865900 25-Jul-2013 14:06
Send private message

surfisup1000:
wasabi2k:
surfisup1000: It is entirely up to the consumer as to whether they leave them on or off so why should it be an issue? Perhaps the issue might be one of privacy, where isp employees can find out names of customers who allow porn. But, the setting could be encrypted.

Or, the other problem may be in cost -- but, it should be a one off cost then relatively minuscule in the long term.


Most of the issues have already been brought up:

1. Slippery Slope
2. Expensive
3. Pointless

to name just a few.

With regards to privacy - you are dreaming. We currently have major issues with NZ Police inappropriately accessing information on their IT Systems. I would hate to think what your average ISP employee would do. As I mentioned before, how long before your porn filter status is used against you in court?

With regards to cost - wakey wakey. This stuff is NOT cheap, it is NOT easy. Real time web filtering of gigabits per second of traffic is not simple and easy. Plus it is something that must be constantly managed, maintained and upgraded. Badly done it will slow down your traffic, if it breaks goodbye HTTP.

Opt-In is a great idea - Watchdog is a really good example. You want filtered internet? Go Nuts. If the government wants to subsidize this fine.

With Reference to an earlier post: I would be troubled if my stepson was watching horrifically degrading nasty porn, but I have to trust that he won't based on his developing principles and morals. He will be out on his own soon enough - if you wrap them in cotton wool (and filtered internet DEFINITELY counts) you aren't preparing them.



Slippery slope?  You are a conspiracy theorist. 

Expensive?  Really? So tell me how much this would cost?  You have no idea do you?

Pointless?   If you are not at all concerned about doing more to  protect children, then yes it would be pointless. 

Privacy -- heard of encryption? Really, the whole argument around privacy is moot since the setting can be encrypted.


I'll bite.

Slippery Slope  - Sure thing, you're entitled to your opinion. You obviously have a much more generous opinion of humanity (and politicians in general)

Expensive - Yes, I do have an understanding of costs. I have worked with multiple filtering vendors in my career so far so I have an idea of how much vendor provided technology costs. I also have experience in building open source content filtering platforms - free software, not free infrastructure and expertise. Do you know how much it would cost?

Pointless - debatable - see last 10 pages.

Privacy - The "setting" can be "encrypted"? End of the day an ISP would have a record of account number 123456 has the filter enabled or not. They would also have account number 123456 is owned by bob jones - regardless if this is obfuscated from level 1 helpdesk, at a system level it would have to be recorded.




2703 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95


  Reply # 865902 25-Jul-2013 14:08
Send private message

It sounds great as a concept, but not if it involves significant time/cost to the ISPs which will inevitably be passed on to consumers.




HTPC: Intel i3-2100 / 12GB RAM / AMD HD7750 / 480 GB SSD / 58TB Storage / MediaPortal / MadVR / Win10
AVR: Pioneer Elite SC-LX87 220W 9.2 Ch AVR
Speakers: Wharfedale Jade 7 Fronts / Jade 2c Center / Jade 5 Rears
Subs: iNuke 3000dsp 3000W proamp with 4x 15" JBL Sealed Subs
Display: Samsung 60" UA60H6400 LCD TV
Accessories: Gefen HDMI Detective with splitter


3658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2178

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 865907 25-Jul-2013 14:13
Send private message

wasabi2k: [snip]


On what basis do you believe that legal pornography should be by default filtered?

Is it based on enforcing the moral beliefs of a subset of society on all society?

You see, it's just as easy to say that it should be opt-in to the filter (as it effectively is today as it's clear there are providers offering it, as well as many other ways to achieve the same result).

So why should filtering one particular category of legal content that some people find offensive be done - given there are many many options for those that care enough to do it themselves, or to buy services that provide the service?

If you say it's because it's some variant of "Won't someone think of the children", then I will strongly suggest that unfiltered internet access should be way down the list if their parents don't care enough to invest some of their own time and money in educating their own kids about the stuff out there in the big bad world.

So why is a default blocking of one legal category of material
a) Better than letting people decide themselves or
b) the only legal category of material that should be blocked by default?

Cheers - N


2091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 848


  Reply # 865909 25-Jul-2013 14:18
Send private message

Talkiet:
wasabi2k: [snip]



Don't think that was directed at something I said?

3658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2178

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 865910 25-Jul-2013 14:20
Send private message

wasabi2k:
Talkiet:
wasabi2k: [snip]



Don't think that was directed at something I said?


Chuckle - You're right... too many layers :-) Consider it a general comment at those who think filtering out one category of legal material is a good way to do things.

Cheers - N

2278 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 865911 25-Jul-2013 14:21
Send private message

Talkiet:

I accept you have a system in your network, however you probably don't have much idea how much time, design, testing and $$$$$$ it would take to roll this capability out to cover half a million users, in a network where there is no single common transit point for all traffic.

Cheers - N



Obviously I can't speak for your network (like what i did there), but some implementations don't need to 'proxy' traffic to block it. Watchdog even ran a successful trial for Exetel in AU some years back with the smarts being here in NZ. Anyhow that's a discussion for another place and time, and I do appreciate that not every ISP would be able to implement such a thing as easily as the next.




507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 865916 25-Jul-2013 14:33
Send private message

When i was last in China my facebook got updated.

I accessed any web page I felt like.

TL: DR It wont work.

More importantly it is a slippery slope from even well-meaning censorship to something more sinister!




 


The force is strong with this one!

4529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 865920 25-Jul-2013 14:38
Send private message

insane:
Talkiet:

I accept you have a system in your network, however you probably don't have much idea how much time, design, testing and $$$$$$ it would take to roll this capability out to cover half a million users, in a network where there is no single common transit point for all traffic.

Cheers - N



Obviously I can't speak for your network (like what i did there), but some implementations don't need to 'proxy' traffic to block it. Watchdog even ran a successful trial for Exetel in AU some years back with the smarts being here in NZ. Anyhow that's a discussion for another place and time, and I do appreciate that not every ISP would be able to implement such a thing as easily as the next.





Yeah, there are BGP-based solutions that route IP ranges that may contain objectionable material towards the filters and leave the rest alone. But given that porn is often hosted on cloud or colo providers just like everyone else, it still suffers from unintended performance degradation, albeit less than a proxy-based solution. However it has no better performance in terms of false positive or negative than any other.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


8027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 865935 25-Jul-2013 14:55
Send private message

insane: 

Obviously I can't speak for your network (like what i did there), but some implementations don't need to 'proxy' traffic to block it. Watchdog even ran a successful trial for Exetel in AU some years back with the smarts being here in NZ. Anyhow that's a discussion for another place and time, and I do appreciate that not every ISP would be able to implement such a thing as easily as the next.



Exetel's trial of NetClean / Watchdog, no false positives apparently.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/301839/web_filter_runaway_success_exetel/

Increased CDN usage eg: CloudFlare usage could be an issue these days.




3658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2178

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 865938 25-Jul-2013 14:59
Send private message

Ragnor:
insane: 

Obviously I can't speak for your network (like what i did there), but some implementations don't need to 'proxy' traffic to block it. Watchdog even ran a successful trial for Exetel in AU some years back with the smarts being here in NZ. Anyhow that's a discussion for another place and time, and I do appreciate that not every ISP would be able to implement such a thing as easily as the next.



Don't systems that use BGP to advertise which ip ranges are filtered run the risk of taking out all sites on shared on hosting on the same ip address as the blacklisted site?


Yes, and they are essentially useless for any filtering on sites that have user generated content - so that's youtube, flickr, facebook, and any other social media sites or image hosting/video hosting sites unable to be effectively filtered using that approach.

Cheers - N


8027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 865940 25-Jul-2013 15:02
Send private message

Edited my post above, the system is pretty smart about what it filters... big sites like Youtube, Facebook have their own systems to removing dodgy content so I don't think that's an issue. 

The real issue is oversight and transparency imo not the technical implementation.

Who watches the watchmen... what's on the blacklist, who's ensuring it sticks to it's mandate.

BDFL - Memuneh
61189 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11970

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 865958 25-Jul-2013 15:34
2 people support this post
Send private message

Back to what Talkiet raised. Why block pornography? Because someone doesn't like it? This is not good enough reason.

We already have a filter that applies to filthiest of filthy, child exploitation. We are safe. So we don't have to worry about man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, etc.

Seriously, it is quite hard to stumble upon this kind of graphical stuff in normal day to day browsing.




1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.