3 ms·

Blocking via web browsers is definitely not going to work. It would require that every browser on each PC, phone, TV and other internet enabled device all activ

by desas 13y ago

Blocking via web browsers is definitely not going to work. It would require that every browser on each PC, phone, TV and other internet enabled device all activate the filters, all of them have a facility to activate/deactivate the filters, all of them don't allow other web browsers to be installed and don't allow booting from alternative sources. Most parents don't know how to do this. They do know how to tick a box when they are signing up for a broadband service. There are millions of devices already out there. SSL-enabled sites can already be "blocked" in the UK, they block the entire domain and the IP.

7952 13y ago
So you believe that the best way to help parents is to have network level blocks? People should use poorly designed technology because they are stupid? But to prevent kids getting around network level filtering you still need to have all the anti-circumvention measures baked into the OS/browser/anti-virus. The UK government have created a network level filter that still needs client level changes to actually work. I understand that most parents would have a hard time doing this, but a government backed effort could have made a difference. I see this as similar to installing antivirus (which a lots of parents seem perfectly capable of). I understand that it is possible to block SSL by IP address. However, it is also possible to send anything down the same tunnel; but you can't inspect the actual packets to see if they are clean. Some filters perform a MITM, but I think we can agree that is a terrible idea. Browser based filtering lets you filter any site based on its contents and also maintain the security of the data. It also avoids domain level blocks that block other sites by accident.
- desas 13y ago
  I think that network level filtering will make access to porn more difficult than browser level filtering at less effort to the public, which is the governments objective. I'm not saying it's a good thing.

by desas 13y ago

7952 13y ago

So you believe that the best way to help parents is to have network level blocks? People should use poorly designed technology because they are stupid? But to prevent kids getting around network level filtering you still need to have all the anti-circumvention measures baked into the OS/browser/anti-virus. The UK government have created a network level filter that still needs client level changes to actually work. I understand that most parents would have a hard time doing this, but a government backed effort could have made a difference. I see this as similar to installing antivirus (which a lots of parents seem perfectly capable of). I understand that it is possible to block SSL by IP address. However, it is also possible to send anything down the same tunnel; but you can't inspect the actual packets to see if they are clean. Some filters perform a MITM, but I think we can agree that is a terrible idea. Browser based filtering lets you filter any site based on its contents and also maintain the security of the data. It also avoids domain level blocks that block other sites by accident.

desas 13y ago
I think that network level filtering will make access to porn more difficult than browser level filtering at less effort to the public, which is the governments objective. I'm not saying it's a good thing.