[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 05/05/12 22:52, Martijn Grooten wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:25 PM, paul sutton wrote: >> On the subject of internet filtering i wonder if the sites for the sex >> pistols or bare naked ladies will be blocked by this new filtering opt >> in, hmm to view the websites for these groups I need to opt in to view >> porn. or will there be a way to un filter these sites. > I don't know if there have been any more detailed proposals but > filtering software is probably cleverer than this. And I don't think > something like the "Scunthorpe Problem" has occurred much in the past > decade or so. But no doubt these filters do make mistakes which is one > of many reasons I am against these proposals. > > Another reason is the fact that if parents (and schools, public > libraries etc.) want to, they can install such software locally. > > But a much more fundamental issue is that there are many ways to > circumvent such measures, _especially_ if they happen at the > ISP-level. Using https being the most obvious one. > > Martijn. > I am sure however this is why we have RFC documents so ideas can be proposed the way protocols work or introduce protocols for a specific purpose, I assume the rfcs for SMTP ./ POP /HTTP etc are sill as valid today as they were when first written, which in some cases is several decades ago. they just get revised as times goes on. Would this be the way forward submit a nice rfc and ask for comments on how we can protect children online Paul -- -- http://www.zleap.net http://www.ubuntu.com skype : psutton111 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-sutton/36/595/911 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq