In the never-ending quest to shield impressionable minds from some of the internet's less family-friendly content, Google has unveiled "supervised users" for Chrome on Windows, OS X, Linux, and Chrome OS. A supervised user is a special class of Chrome user account that's created and controlled by another user who acts as its " …
Well, this should hold the kids away from their image boards. For about ten minutes. At the most. That's optimistic.
Only if you remember to block the download pages for every single other browser out there, including all the obscure ones, and you block access to all other methods of downloading things, such as ftp and sneakernet.
Lynx for example may not be that good at displaying pictures and videos but if you can download it using chrome, you can then use it to visit mozilla.org and download firefox.
you mean you havent set them up with a limited user account???
where they CANNOT install programs or change much else.... :P
"you mean you havent set them up with a limited user account???
where they CANNOT install programs or change much else.... :P"
I agree with you. Shocking isn't it?
And with physical access to the machine so they can run a live DVD or live USB operating system?
Firefox portable on a USB drive
Problem solved. Works wonders in the workplace too.
Re: Firefox portable on a USB drive
EXCEPT where the USB has been LOCKED under policy.... :P
Seriously trying to secure something wth physical access to hardware...?
Strange, I don;t remember ever "logging in" into Chrome (well ok except the first couple of times just to see what it does) in order to use it. What if one just logs out...? Also, as mentioned, portable apps. Or possibly live CDs (let's see if dad remembered to disable CD/USB boot in the BIOS. Then let's see where the little "clear CMOS" jumper is on the mobo...)
I wonder if they would they sell more Chrome-equipped boxes if they delivered only smut, rather than filter against it.
Or, maybe, instead of a "Private Browsing Tab" they implemented a "Privates Browsing Tab" that filtered out all the Interweb's non-adult content.
Not to say I want it myself, ahem, just wondering if it would be popular.
A friend of mine has asked if he can subscribe to your news channel on this project, just, you know, so he can keep up to date with any developments.......
I hear there used to be a similar option back in the days of infoseek*. Apparently, it you told it that you did want to view the objectionable content, it pretty much only served you said content whatever you typed into it.
*May have been a different search provider, my, er, friend can't remember exactly which one it was now.
delete the lock
Well I hope this is a little more secure than locking Google safe search - delete your browser cache and the lock is removed.
So... to get round this you just use another browser? Or does it somehow prevent this?
Just block mozilla.org on this account, clearly that'll do it.
Iran & China must be so proud
Google giving them a browser that makes the whole country Supervised Users.
As mentioned, youuse another browser.
Much better to do it at OS level with something like K9 protection , a gateway level, think managed firewalls, or at a "cloud" level (usually for bigger players).
Supervised users ? Nah.
This is Chrome, the Cameron version.
so you can block google analytics?
"Users daring enough to work with a beta browser are encouraged to try it out and submit feedback via Google's Chromebook forums."
This is not about Chrome (the browser). This is about the controlled environment provided by Chromebooks (the computer+browserOS*).
*It's a word. Trust me.
"This is not about Chrome (the browser). This is about the controlled environment provided by Chromebooks."
Google has unveiled "supervised users" for Chrome on Windows, OS X, Linux, and Chrome OS.
Not so much.
While I tend to prattle on about layered security being the way to go, this seems to be Google taking the approach of throwing something out and see if it sticks. This idea would be better implemented as a real firewall, not some cheap knock-off.
@Robert Helpmann?? (Re: Misunderstanding)
Oops, you are correct. My mistake. BTW, I thought you were dead. Nice to see you are up and about again.
This whole situation (protecting vulnerable from internet) can easily be solved at the gateway.
Yes the majority of "plebs" wouldnot know how to do this, but surely some software can be created to provide a simple "block this" website (or whitelisting) interface for the (so called) parent! FFS! It's not difficult.