+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall Thread, The Death of School Proxies? in Technical; Originally Posted by AngryTechnician My main concern is simply that I don't trust ISPs to get it right (now or ...
  1. #31
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,530
    Thank Post
    815
    Thanked 380 Times in 317 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by AngryTechnician View Post
    My main concern is simply that I don't trust ISPs to get it right (now or any time soon). Even Smoothwall, as good as they are, sometimes end up with sites on the blocklist that shouldn't be.

    I suspect a lot of the resistance stems from a similar view.
    Wouldn't a manual override (whitelist) solve that issue completely?

  2. #32


    tom_newton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    4,448
    Thank Post
    865
    Thanked 839 Times in 662 Posts
    Rep Power
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by AngryTechnician View Post
    Right, and if they aren't doing it via DNS then they are MITMing customers, and I definitely do not want my ISP doing that.
    Did you know that google have begun effectively MITMing images sent to a gmail account?
    The Smoothwall Blog: Gmail Users: Google Makes Your Data More Secure, Owns a Bit More of Your Life

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,132
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 217 Times in 176 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    69
    Do we need local proxies?

    If the ISP can offer filtering differentiated by by user, group, time and host, probably not.

    LGfL has an astonishingly good network level filter that almost meets the above capabilities. If i were running a site small enough to be manageable on the default subnets they offer I would not bother with running my own. However the 'by user' functionality is lost because we use our own subnets.

    There is a site configurable 'block for unauthenticated' list, and if you try to access a site on the list you get asked to authenticate via a captive portal, and then the site is re-evaluated against what the site admin has allowed for your group. In general it is very very fast, impressive given the hundreds of thousands of simultaneous users .

    If I were building a new large LAN, I would be looking for products that could offer me what LGfL do, with a greater degree of access to logs (live and historical) and raw traffic. I'd even ask LGfL if they could add those features I needed for less that the purchase and maintenance price of the competition.

    That said I am really going to miss TMG.

  4. #34


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,208
    Thank Post
    218
    Thanked 812 Times in 694 Posts
    Rep Power
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by zag View Post
    The "powers that be"?

    As far as I know the filtering is controlled by the individual via a web interface.
    i was meaning this govenment one so they start saying you have you opt into catagories that kids shouldnt see but that measn the govenment is then supplying a list of what is/isnt acceptable. Whats to stop them adding to that list over time so say they deem (as a random stupid example) nobody should know about car modification there is already a system in place to block pron why not add it to that? So what starts out as something with vaugely good intentions turns into a way to filter what the populace can see. I also suspect that people who opt in to getting fuilters removed will be on some list which im sure could be used against them

  5. #35
    browolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,497
    Thank Post
    101
    Thanked 84 Times in 71 Posts
    Blog Entries
    46
    Rep Power
    37
    Ironically looks like the introduction of lightspeed filtering by our LEA will be the death of our own proxies and the LEA ones. As I understand it, lightspeed acts like a transparent proxy so you don't even need proxy settings!

    I'm not sure ISP filters will be up to the level of school filters, which usually block a lot more than just porn.

  6. #36
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,530
    Thank Post
    815
    Thanked 380 Times in 317 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    i was meaning this govenment one so they start saying you have you opt into catagories that kids shouldnt see but that measn the govenment is then supplying a list of what is/isnt acceptable. Whats to stop them adding to that list over time so say they deem (as a random stupid example) nobody should know about car modification there is already a system in place to block pron why not add it to that? So what starts out as something with vaugely good intentions turns into a way to filter what the populace can see. I also suspect that people who opt in to getting fuilters removed will be on some list which im sure could be used against them
    Assuming the filtering is optional and we can override it with a white list I really don't see the problem?

  7. #37
    free780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    794
    Thank Post
    37
    Thanked 59 Times in 56 Posts
    Rep Power
    16
    Orgs want a on premises solution anyway.

  8. #38

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,724
    Thank Post
    695
    Thanked 1,206 Times in 759 Posts
    Rep Power
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by tom_newton View Post
    Did you know that google have begun effectively MITMing images sent to a gmail account?
    The Smoothwall Blog: Gmail Users: Google Makes Your Data More Secure, Owns a Bit More of Your Life
    Yes, and I'm not thrilled, but to my knowledge I'm not sending any passwords via GET requests for images, so I'm not as concerned as I would be if my ISP was MITMing me while I logged into my online banking.

  9. #39

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,095
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,309 Times in 1,785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by zag View Post
    Assuming the filtering is optional and we can override it with a white list I really don't see the problem?
    The problem is not the filtering itself, its the resulting data of who is opting out. Its already happened in the media, people being referred to as perverts and degenerates for complaining about having to make it known that they want unfiltered access to the internet.

    When you click that 'leave filters off' button, you've now put your name down as wanting access to stuff that people think is 'bad'. When you combine that with the mission creep of other government censorship projects (Clean Feed was introduced voluntarily after similar demands from the government (do it voluntarily, or we'll force you to - kinda misunderstanding the concept of voluntary), but since that time the system has been used to block copyright infringing sites and is now under discussion to be used to block "extremist" sites (whatever that means, as who defines such things?)), you have a potential for invasive practices by the government with very little recourse in the future.

    Considering how much of a blunt tool filters are, their universal application to home internet connectivity raises the question of how end users will know if a site is legitimately blocked for being adult content or if it is a mis-categorisation, or even an attempt at censorship. Who will oversee this process? How will sites that are being blocked wrongly be able to appeal? What recourse will they have for loss of business? What legitimate material will get blocked as adult which shouldn't be (for example, sexual health sites, LGBT sites etc... are being blocked by some ISPs as adult)?

    There's just too many problems with the scheme at the moment.

    There's even discussion that such systems violate EU law at the moment too.

  10. #40


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,208
    Thank Post
    218
    Thanked 812 Times in 694 Posts
    Rep Power
    274
    thats the thing say extremism if the government control the filters whos to say they dont define that as anything that dosent make them look good? (so in theory the could filter sites that said they were all a bunch of expense fiddling wastes of space (and if they knew their sites would get put on a block list would any big news agency publish it?)) and as above being stigmatised for not wanting filtering for whatever reason
    Last edited by sted; 20th December 2013 at 09:54 AM.

  11. #41


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,487
    Thank Post
    198
    Thanked 629 Times in 481 Posts
    Rep Power
    227
    "Mummy mummy why is the Guardian news site blocked?"

    USA already an Orwellian police state?

  12. #42
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,530
    Thank Post
    815
    Thanked 380 Times in 317 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    thats the thing say extremism if the government control the filters whos to say they dont define that as anything that dosent make them look good? (so in theory the could filter sites that said they were all a bunch of expense fiddling wastes of space (and if they knew their sites would get put on a block list would any big news agency publish it?)) and as above being stigmatised for not wanting filtering for whatever reason
    The government do not control the filters.

    They are optional, run by a 3rd party company, and can be whitelisted by anyone.

  13. #43

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,095
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,309 Times in 1,785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by zag View Post
    The government do not control the filters.

    They are optional, run by a 3rd party company, and can be whitelisted by anyone.
    Really? Is that the same as the way the filters are in place voluntarily, just like Clean Feed is in place voluntarily too? (IE. You WILL volunteer to use this system else we'll be forced to force you to use it).

  14. #44

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,259
    Thank Post
    1,138
    Thanked 1,463 Times in 980 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by zag View Post
    The government do not control the filters.

    They are optional, run by a 3rd party company, and can be whitelisted by anyone.
    You mean like Talk Talk's filter, controlled by Huawei, which is pretty much controlled by the Chinese Government... yeah I feel comfortable with that.

  15. #45

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    AFAIK - there's no central "great fireall of UK" (yet), and no legal requirement for any ISP to install any user filtering at all. All we have is the top 4 or 5 ISP kowtowing to David Camerons grandee-ism and then giving you the option to label yourself as a terrorist or pedo by opting out. While other ISP's exist who are not bowing to tabloid pressure without an act of parlament to back it up then there remains consumer choice.

    In short - switch ISP.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Netbook] The beginning of the death of the netbook?
    By Dos_Box in forum Netbooks, PDA and Phones
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd September 2012, 02:29 PM
  2. So what is SIF and the Future of school MIS?
    By base2base in forum MIS Systems
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st June 2011, 01:06 PM
  3. The importance of school internet connections
    By localzuk in forum General Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 31st March 2010, 06:28 PM
  4. [Video] The death of Jim Davidson
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31st August 2009, 07:54 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •