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.
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.
Orgs want a on premises solution anyway.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)