+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 210
Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall Thread, LGfL 2.0 Problems in Technical; Originally Posted by kearton ... there is a small amount you can't switch off, such as Remote Support Tools sites ...
  1. #151

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    57
    Thank Post
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kearton View Post
    ... there is a small amount you can't switch off, such as Remote Support Tools sites and those they are required to (by law, presumably?) such as those about paedophilia etc.
    Contrary to what Atomwide were telling people until recently, there is no legal requirement to block paedophilia sites, just as there is no requirement on the telephone company to block you from calling up a criminal and indulging in criminal behaviour. This is a common mis-conception, often encouraged by the Internet Watch Foundation.

    The issue of Remote Support Tools and LGfL is a much thornier issue.

  2. #152
    strawberry7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    You really need to create, and use, your own filter set(s). When you do this, none of YouTube, Facebook nor Twitter need to be blocked.

    I am afraid that you are really doing yourself no favours by refusing to go on the filtering course.
    I am not refusing point blank and I have fully explained my points about that earlier.

  3. #153

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    49
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I am afraid that you are doing yourself no favours by refusing to go on the filtering course.
    could not agree more Eric ....

  4. #154

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,930
    Thank Post
    1,337
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,105 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Contrary to what Atomwide were telling people until recently, there is no legal requirement to block paedophilia sites, just as there is no requirement on the telephone company to block you from calling up a criminal and indulging in criminal behaviour. This is a common mis-conception, often encouraged by the Internet Watch Foundation.

    The issue of Remote Support Tools and LGfL is a much thornier issue.
    Within a school there *is* a legal requirement to provide a safe and secure environment, and that includes preventing access to sites which can and will cause mental harm. This is before you get into the legal implications of the distribution of illegal images.

    Atomwide are correct to say there is a legal requirement.

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    57
    Thank Post
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    Within a school there *is* a legal requirement to provide a safe and secure environment, and that includes preventing access to sites which can and will cause mental harm. This is before you get into the legal implications of the distribution of illegal images.

    Atomwide are correct to say there is a legal requirement.
    I accept your correction regarding the safe environment in a school. However I do not see (although this is somewhat irrelevant, given the foregoing) how providing a connection to the wider internet can be confused with the distribution of illegal images.

  6. #156

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,930
    Thank Post
    1,337
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,105 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I accept your correction regarding the safe environment in a school. However I do not see (although this is somewhat irrelevant, given the foregoing) how providing a connection to the wider internet can be confused with the distribution of illegal images.
    Your comment was about paedophilia websites, etc ... which contain illegal images or promote harm to children ... I presumed that the 'etc' also denoted such websites containing equivalent materials. By providing access, which is then cached and passed on to other users, this can count as distribution. There are defences of reasonable action taken to prevent this happening, etc but if you knowingly turn off (or knowingly fail to have) a category which catches illegal images and they then come through having been stored and then passed through a given technology ... then it can land you in trouble. In the same way that if you find illegal images on a laptop and copy them off to a memory stick for the authorities to check ... this falls under distribution.

    Folk like IWF and those working on filtering tend not to make FUD statements ... just what is really out there. They may be referring to Acts of Law that you might not have considered (or be aware of as there are so many overlapping areas and I also get caught on this too) ... and that may not always be well explained.

  7. #157
    strawberry7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    There are defences of reasonable action taken to prevent this happening, etc but if you knowingly turn off (or knowingly fail to have) a category which catches illegal images and they then come through having been stored and then passed through a given technology ... then it can land you in trouble. In the same way that if you find illegal images on a laptop and copy them off to a memory stick for the authorities to check ... this falls under distribution.
    I find this interesting. So is there no distinction in the law between images being 'distributed' automatically by a technology system such as caching and you deliberately transferring such images from one form to another which requires a human input?

  8. #158
    strawberry7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Well this morning my LGFL 2.0 site went offline with no internet access. I couldn't access remotely and, unlike Logmein, the remote system didn't tell me how long the server had been unavailable. I originally submitted our IP information a long time ago and it had very recently changed, including us ditching our admin range. The firewall had been setup such that the admin range was on port 1 and the curriculum on port 2, therefore port 2 was the one physically in use to our network. I had submitted an IP change request and this had been done but nobody thought to tell me that they had moved the curriculum to port 1 due to the removal of the admin IP range. This meant that the internet went down due to the fact that the network was still physically connected to port 2.

    Luckily I was around the corner and the school was only offline for 45 minutes or so this morning, annoying that they didn't tell me though and that they didn't think to schedule the change with me. Not to go over old ground or anything but if I was still allowed to use Logmein, I would have seen that the server had been offline for the same time that the support ticket had an update on and piece it together before even arriving on site. I also would have been able to check on my iPad on the way to work and let them know when they phoned that indeed there was something wrong that would affect the whole network and it wasn't just that users computer.

    I will hold my hands up and say that I could have changed the IP range before installation but the change was made on our end only about a week before the install and I just hadn't even thought about changing it on the LGFL part. I have already hit the remote functionality restrictions in the first week of LGFL 2.0!

  9. #159

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,930
    Thank Post
    1,337
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,105 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry7 View Post
    I find this interesting. So is there no distinction in the law between images being 'distributed' automatically by a technology system such as caching and you deliberately transferring such images from one form to another which requires a human input?
    The key words are knowledge and intent. Cases in the past around the use of automated systems or open access systems which have allowed for copyrighted materials to be freely shared tend to form a core defence (as there is good case law on this now) but from the conversations I have had, over the last year with folk involved on investigations and on the legal side, it has come about that the knowledge that the system you operate can distribute things and that you turn off the tools that actively prevent access to illegal images (eg turning of the IWF list) shows that you have done so to gain access, or to allow others to gain access to illegal content, and that you have facilitated the distribution via hardware and systems that you control and manage. The distribution of illegal images also come under different laws to those dealing with copyright as well. I have asked for specific case law references and when (if) I get them I'll stick them up.

  10. #160
    strawberry7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    The key words are knowledge and intent. Cases in the past around the use of automated systems or open access systems which have allowed for copyrighted materials to be freely shared tend to form a core defence (as there is good case law on this now) but from the conversations I have had, over the last year with folk involved on investigations and on the legal side, it has come about that the knowledge that the system you operate can distribute things and that you turn off the tools that actively prevent access to illegal images (eg turning of the IWF list) shows that you have done so to gain access, or to allow others to gain access to illegal content, and that you have facilitated the distribution via hardware and systems that you control and manage. The distribution of illegal images also come under different laws to those dealing with copyright as well. I have asked for specific case law references and when (if) I get them I'll stick them up.
    Wow, security is an area that drives me mad and an area that I have limited knowledge in but am always interested to know more. Thanks a lot for the info!

  11. #161

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,930
    Thank Post
    1,337
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 1,105 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry7 View Post
    Wow, security is an area that drives me mad and an area that I have limited knowledge in but am always interested to know more. Thanks a lot for the info!
    The problem is also overlapping laws ... trying to work out which, if any, take priority ... and it takes a good legal team to work it out ... and even then it can be open to challenge unless there is good and sufficient case law. This is why people become risk adverse on so many things ... which is actually a backwards step in many ways but hard not to do. This is why some RBCs seem over the top but they are trying to make the best of the situation and save others from the worry.

  12. #162
    strawberry7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    The problem is also overlapping laws ... trying to work out which, if any, take priority ... and it takes a good legal team to work it out ... and even then it can be open to challenge unless there is good and sufficient case law. This is why people become risk adverse on so many things ... which is actually a backwards step in many ways but hard not to do. This is why some RBCs seem over the top but they are trying to make the best of the situation and save others from the worry.
    Thanks again for the info, I don't want to draw this thread too much off topic but this is really interesting and I totally agree with what you're saying. It's the same reason that engineering projects take so long I guess, people so worried about whether somebody might chip a nail, the work doesn't get done.

  13. #163

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,254
    Thank Post
    111
    Thanked 242 Times in 193 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry7 View Post
    , annoying that they didn't tell me though and that they didn't think to schedule the change with me.
    Owch.

    Having been burnt by this sort of thing from various types of Service Providers in the past, a trick I now use is to ensure that any change/service request to a 3rd party is always caveated by: "do not proceed without my sign-off on the actions you proposed to take". This, of course, should be common sense to anyone whose had ITIL or FITS training, but for me it took a fair few times before it became part of my standard practice.

    On the lack of logmein, for this scenario you can use RAv3 (Anyconnect) and ping your hosts. If you've got RDP hosts and an IOS device, the Anyconnect and iTap RDP apps combo works great - offline hosts/networks are easily identifiable.

  14. #164
    hit
    hit is offline
    hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    324
    Thank Post
    47
    Thanked 50 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry7 View Post
    Well this morning my LGFL 2.0 site went offline with no internet access. I couldn't access remotely and, unlike Logmein, the remote system didn't tell me how long the server had been unavailable. I originally submitted our IP information a long time ago and it had very recently changed, including us ditching our admin range. The firewall had been setup such that the admin range was on port 1 and the curriculum on port 2, therefore port 2 was the one physically in use to our network. I had submitted an IP change request and this had been done but nobody thought to tell me that they had moved the curriculum to port 1 due to the removal of the admin IP range. This meant that the internet went down due to the fact that the network was still physically connected to port 2.
    I can understand arguments on both sides with this one. It makes sense for the "live" ports to be populated this way (lowest first) but they should have told you that would be what would happen.

    What I'm more intrigued about is why you got rid of one of the subnets.

  15. #165

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    49
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry7 View Post
    Well this morning my LGFL 2.0 site went offline with no internet access. I couldn't access remotely and, unlike Logmein, the remote system didn't tell me how long the server had been unavailable. I originally submitted our IP information a long time ago and it had very recently changed, including us ditching our admin range. The firewall had been setup such that the admin range was on port 1 and the curriculum on port 2, therefore port 2 was the one physically in use to our network. I had submitted an IP change request and this had been done but nobody thought to tell me that they had moved the curriculum to port 1 due to the removal of the admin IP range. This meant that the internet went down due to the fact that the network was still physically connected to port 2.

    Luckily I was around the corner and the school was only offline for 45 minutes or so this morning, annoying that they didn't tell me though and that they didn't think to schedule the change with me. Not to go over old ground or anything but if I was still allowed to use Logmein, I would have seen that the server had been offline for the same time that the support ticket had an update on and piece it together before even arriving on site. I also would have been able to check on my iPad on the way to work and let them know when they phoned that indeed there was something wrong that would affect the whole network and it wasn't just that users computer.

    I will hold my hands up and say that I could have changed the IP range before installation but the change was made on our end only about a week before the install and I just hadn't even thought about changing it on the LGFL part. I have already hit the remote functionality restrictions in the first week of LGFL 2.0!
    My understanding of this is that if a subnet change happens AFTER an LGfL 2.0 install it takes an age while Virgin do the route changes to the core of the network - on the Nominated Contacts training course in the section about migration this is covered as is flat single networks which when two networks are combined they are always combined onto the Admin network which is on port 1. Also did Atomwide not tell you in the support case when they had completed the work ?? They normally post to the case saying it's been completed which would alert you to the change - the key here, that I also learnt in the same way you have is make sure the ip address in the support site are what you want BEFORE migration - saves everybody time and effort.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. LGFL South london problems
    By nicholab in forum London Grid for Learning (LGfL)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st May 2010, 01:51 PM
  2. Intermitent problems with logging on
    By alexknight in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 22nd August 2005, 04:01 AM
  3. Problems with Google Earth
    By Dos_Box in forum Educational Software
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19th August 2005, 02:32 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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