A better ISP? Options?

[sparkeh]

Thanks @Wave9_Lee

Personally, given that the Keeping Children Safe in Education directly refers to the Safer Internet Centre's Appropriate Filtering Guide which states that the filtering provider should be a member of the IWF and "integrates the police assessed list of unlawful terrorist content, produced on behalf of the Home Office" I would be extremely nervous not to do this.

 

I would not want to be explaining why we weren't doing this and the only answer being "It was cheaper not to".

[ReBoot]

Don't disagree with any of this. My original point was that if you are connected to a UK ISP and using Google/Microsoft safe searches then not blocking the IWF list locally is an extremely low risk. I'm talking here about the risk of accidental exposure to the content rather than with deliberate or criminal intent.

 

The content is already blocked at ISP level and we're talking about ~1000 URLs in a web of billions.

[sparkeh]

Don't disagree with any of this. My original point was that if you are connected to a UK ISP and using Google/Microsoft safe searches then not blocking the IWF list locally is an extremely low risk. I'm talking here about the risk of accidental exposure to the content rather than with deliberate or criminal intent.

 

The content is already blocked at ISP level and we're talking about ~1000 URLs in a web of billions.

Oh I get that and agree with you on the technical point. I guess I am talking from experience of being grilled by OFSTED on safeguarding and e-safety and frankly that argument would not cut the mustard in any way, certainly not with the inspectors I have had the misfortune of meeting. Again in my experience, an OFSTED drone is highly likely to see this as a safeguarding risk, regardless of the argument behind it.

[Wave9_Lee]

Oh I get that and agree with you on the technical point. I guess I am talking from experience of being grilled by OFSTED on safeguarding and e-safety and frankly that argument would not cut the mustard in any way, certainly not with the inspectors I have had the misfortune of meeting. Again in my experience, an OFSTED drone is highly likely to see this as a safeguarding risk, regardless of the argument behind it.

Regardless of the views of the efficacy of the IWF list or membership, I'm pretty sure most OFSTED inspectors will ask if it's implemented in the school service (along perhaps with the other recommendations in the guidance). I'm sure that many ISPs subscribe to the list, but I'm also certain that many don't - if an ISP buys their internet transit wholesale, then it may not include any site or URL blocking at all. Some ISPs even take pride in advertising their internet as 'completely unfiltered' in the name of anti-censorship. Some of the ISPs mentioned in the thread don't state on their website that they apply IWF blocklist or are members of IWF. Again, possibly not an issue, but as per some comments on here, if it's my job to make sure that my school is complying with DFE obligations, and it's pretty easy and (sometimes) cheap to do so, why wouldn't I?

[ReBoot]

To me the cost of moving from open source to a commercial appliance with the IWF list would be 1-2K annually. This is quite a significant premium for my ICT budget. (Given the amount of stick I get on these forums it may be a price worth paying !)

 

It does appear that some people are under the potentially dangerous misapprehension that the IWF list is a significant first line of defense for protecting school children on the Internet. At best it is stopping a very small number of people, acting with intent, from viewing or distributing illegal content.

 

Both the IWF list and the Shalla lists (which I use) are compiled from submissions from the public. The IWF does not engage in any proactive investigations to identify content and has a very narrow remit. As the IWF operate in secrecy its very difficult to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of their work (other than it's very limited scope of under 1000 URLs). My personal opinion is that the IWF list is not really intended as a first line of defense for schools seeking to block unintentional access to adult or other undesirable content. It has a different role and targets a very different group of users.

[RichCowell]

The IWF does not engage in any proactive investigations to identify content and has a very narrow remit. As the IWF operate in secrecy its very difficult to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of their work (other than it's very limited scope of under 1000 URLs). My personal opinion is that the IWF list is not really intended as a first line of defense for schools seeking to block unintentional access to adult or other undesirable content. It has a different role and targets a very different group of users.

 

The IWF does proactively seek out evidence of CSE online - though that's a relatively new change... The ANME is a member of the IWF as I know some of the companies sponsoring EduGeek like NetSupport and Smoothwall are too, and I fully support the work they're doing and what they're trying to achieve... They're never going to make their lists available to just anyone though - that would be like handing out lists of where to look for the very material they're fighting to reduce/stop. You're right about it not being a first line of defence for schools - or anyone - though for a school to not have something in place that includes their lists in their filtering would be a risk I would never be willing to take...

Edited July 13, 2018 by RichCowell

[epoch_roots]

I used to receive the list monthly from the IWF as my employer was a member and was in the safeguarding business. The overall perception was that the list wasn't much use but the membership was from a branding standpoint.

 

Personally I don't think there is much value in the list and would not choose a specific vendor over another just because they incorporate the IWF.

[sparkeh]

I used to receive the list monthly from the IWF as my employer was a member and was in the safeguarding business. The overall perception was that the list wasn't much use but the membership was from a branding standpoint.

 

Personally I don't think there is much value in the list and would not choose a specific vendor over another just because they incorporate the IWF.

 

Other than the government and ofsted expect you to have a filtering vendor that is a member you mean? That’s a pretty big motivation imho.

[epoch_roots]

Other than the government and ofsted expect you to have a filtering vendor that is a member you mean? That’s a pretty big motivation imho.

 

It's guidance though, not mandated/legislated. A list with a handful of URLs on it is no replacement for robust user monitoring & alerting procedures/policies. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather our blocklist contained the URLs (and it does), but to think that one product is superior to another just because it incorporates the list is not accurate.

As mentioned I spent 3 years working for an organisation that analysed up to 70,000 lines of text a minute 24/7/365 within a safeguarding context, and I can't recall a single instance where anything on the IWF list was triggered. Typical regex matching, image analysis and creating user profiles that escalated reporting actions based on the severity of events they generated were the tools that we used to detect both bad actors and vulnerable persons. Compared to this, implementing IWF is a box ticking exercise.

[localzuk]

It's guidance though, not mandated/legislated. A list with a handful of URLs on it is no replacement for robust user monitoring & alerting procedures/policies. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather our blocklist contained the URLs (and it does), but to think that one product is superior to another just because it incorporates the list is not accurate.

As mentioned I spent 3 years working for an organisation that analysed up to 70,000 lines of text a minute 24/7/365 within a safeguarding context, and I can't recall a single instance where anything on the IWF list was triggered. Typical regex matching, image analysis and creating user profiles that escalated reporting actions based on the severity of events they generated were the tools that we used to detect both bad actors and vulnerable persons. Compared to this, implementing IWF is a box ticking exercise.

 

Remember, Ofsted don't really care about the technicalities - they will look at "they don't have a filter which implements the near universally implemented IWF lists, as strongly advised by the DfE, safeguarding boards and the police, and that have been advised for many years". You're creating a massive hurdle for your school to overcome, should it ever be queried. Saying "I can't recall a single instance" would be a terrible excuse, and they wouldn't want to know about all the nitty gritty of the system you do use. Thinking you as an individual know better than all those agencies, I suspect, wouldn't go down well...

[epoch_roots]

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with what ofsted would/wouldn't care about. What I'm saying is that I have empirically evidenced the efficacy of the IWF list and it is negligible at best, if not entirely redundant.

[RichCowell]

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with what ofsted would/wouldn't care about. What I'm saying is that I have empirically evidenced the efficacy of the IWF list and it is negligible at best, if not entirely redundant.

 

Those lists are quite specific to the CSE content - they're not likely to be stumbled upon, so wouldn't get flagged unless someone is actively and intentionally accessing them. They wouldn't get the support and reputation they get, including their lists etc. winning awards if they were negligible or redundant.

[epoch_roots]

Those lists are quite specific to the CSE content - they're not likely to be stumbled upon, so wouldn't get flagged unless someone is actively and intentionally accessing them. They wouldn't get the support and reputation they get, including their lists etc. winning awards if they were negligible or redundant.

The IWF work to remove content from the internet which we all benefit from. I didn't say the work they undertake is negligible or redundant and for you to say so means you're really not understanding the point I'm trying to make. No one is handing the IWF awards for producing a list containing a handful of URLs provided to subscribers only. The list is like that tool you have in your toolbox that you haven't used since you bought it - nice to have but effectively useless.

My opinion comes from working directly with the IWF & implementing their services for hundreds of thousands of users, analysing 70+ million items of user generated content per day, all within the context of safeguarding end users.

[sparkeh]

implementing IWF is a box ticking exercise.

Ever been through an ofsted? It’s a big box ticking exercise.

 

As stated, if an inspector asks you if your filtering vendor is a member of IWF and you say no, any arguments about the effectiveness of the IWF list will be ignored. You are not following government safeguarding recommendations.

 

Not implementing government recommendations raises questions about safeguarding and leadership and is a quick way to find yourself failing.

 

So yes, whilst people may agree with arguments about the IWF, ultimately if Mr Ofsted can’t tick the box, you could be in trouble. And I wouldn’t want to be explaining why my decision to save the school a couple of grand had such huge ramifications.

[epoch_roots]

Ever been through an ofsted? It’s a big box ticking exercise.

 

As stated, if an inspector asks you if your filtering vendor is a member of IWF and you say no, any arguments about the effectiveness of the IWF list will be ignored. You are not following government safeguarding recommendations.

 

Not implementing government recommendations raises questions about safeguarding and leadership and is a quick way to find yourself failing.

 

So yes, whilst people may agree with arguments about the IWF, ultimately if Mr Ofsted can’t tick the box, you could be in trouble. And I wouldn’t want to be explaining why my decision to save the school a couple of grand had such huge ramifications.

 

 

Yes, we get it - Ofsted want to see it on a spec sheet somewhere, good for them. Thanks for bringing that single point up 4+ times. As an aside our MAT has been through several inspections and not once was IWF mentioned.

Use some critical thinking and pragmatism to decide what will keep our children safe, as simple-minded box-ticking compliance won't.

[Steve21]

Use some critical thinking and pragmatism to decide what will keep our children safe, as simple-minded box-ticking compliance won't.

 

I think you need to revaluate your "critical thinking" if you believe ignoring IWF and Ofsted in your own misguided intent will protect them better than that...

 

Just because it hasn't been picked up on multiple visits doesn't mean you're right to do it, and certainly not right to suggest others follow in your footsteps!

 

Steve

[sparkeh]

Yes, we get it - Ofsted want to see it on a spec sheet somewhere, good for them. Thanks for bringing that single point up 4+ times. As an aside our MAT has been through several inspections and not once was IWF mentioned.

Use some critical thinking and pragmatism to decide what will keep our children safe, as simple-minded box-ticking compliance won't.

 

Well I think I talked about it a few times as it was the topic of conversation. This is a place for conversation rather than an echo chamber.

 

I’m not sure how to be involved in a discussion about a topic without referencing it.

 

If my posting style irritates you, you are at liberty to ignore, you wouldn’t be the first and I’m sure not the last [emoji4]

Edited August 2, 2018 by sparkeh

[localzuk]

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with what ofsted would/wouldn't care about. What I'm saying is that I have empirically evidenced the efficacy of the IWF list and it is negligible at best, if not entirely redundant.

And we're trying to highlight that your empirical evidence is, not to be rude, useless in this context. Unless it becomes part of government guidance, it doesn't matter to our roles when implementing filtering in a school in the UK.

 

Schools are not where new guidance is created, we follow it.