Posts by Vimes

Re: Filtering @Jim 59

...to god damn busy to learn how to lock down their own connection

So that's the real reason: people are too lazy - oops, sorry, I meant of course 'too busy' - to do the job themselves and expect other people to clean up their messes for them...

Re: Filtering @Anon coward 20:05

Ummm... It's me actually, not Jim that wrote the previous message. Where not being proficient in using device level filtering is concerned I only have one thing to say: learn.

And as for any difficulty in learning, I call bullshit on that one. Every system out there has been designed with parents in mind. The idea that they would have a problem using them is ludicrous, and is just an excuse for laziness on their part.

If something is inappropriate for children to have then they shouldn't have it. It's as simple as that. We should not be pushing systems and rights to breaking point simply to satisfy the presence of people that should not be there, and we definitely should not be putting their popularity ahead of their safety. It's that sort of poor parenting that creates a lot of the problems that are then used as justifications for this sort of stuff IMO.

Re: Filtering @Jim 59

Many people agree at least some level of filtering is required.

Speak for yourself.

And even if some people support this it's more likely to be because there's a general refusal - amongst other things - to ask why they're allowing access to gadgets to children in the first place when such access is inappropriate. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: just why do they need smartphones?

As for parental control over what their children are doing, such controls already exist. My 3DS has them. My ipad has them. Even my router has them, and there are entire applications with the sole purpose of filtering for PCs.

Parents seem to be either too scared or unwilling to learn how to use methods already at their disposal, and we're paying for that fear and refusal to learn with this sort of crazy scheme.

Personally I still believe that securing the device rather than the connection is a better solution. What happens when the little kiddies take their ipad and use it on an unfiltered connection?

and you can choose no filtering

Until things break down. I had a really hard time getting rid of filtering from my mobile and had to go back to the provider to try and get them to get rid of it properly.

Re: DNS circumvention

Am I right in thinking that all these "blockers" can be circumvented by using non-ISP provided DNS servers e.g. Google's public DNS servers?

Judging from the following BT forums thread, if you try using any other DNS service with parental controls enabled then internet access will stop working.

https://community.bt.com/t5/Other-BB-Queries/McAfee-NetProtect-Net-Protect-Parental-Controls-vs-new-Google/m-p/1110176/highlight/true#M73653

Re: Sorry! Won't happen again

Now those video ads seem to have stopped they seem to have been replaced with large adverts that frequently appear and seem to fill a large part of the screen, and once again push the right column contents almost past the bottom of the screen (you can just about see the 'most read / most commented' headers, but not any of the entries beneath them).

And once again these involve Microsoft adverts.

For the same CRM system being previously advertised in the video ads funnily enough.

Is there any chance of having a word with whoever keeps on coming up with this stuff and try and get them to think a bit more of the end user before they effectively destroy this site with their overbearing adverts?

Re: Sorry! Won't happen again

Any chance of not displaying adverts that include twitter feeds as part of said advert? Last time the feed filled up a large chunk of the right hand part of the screen and pushed anything of any real use off the bottom of the screen. (It seemed to be Microsoft's Technet twitter feed in this case from the looks of things)

I realise that advertising is important for you and that you depend upon it, but is it really a good idea to give it such prominence that it starts to interfere with how people use this site?

Incidentally: will there every be a paid for 'no advertising' option on this site?

http://seurre.com/elreg_screenshot1.png

Re: Same. Or Worse.

It should also be noted that Google and all the others only started calling for more transparency when people knew what was going on. Before that they stayed conveniently - but unsurprisingly - silent.

It's also interesting to note the silence from the telecoms companies on this sort of matter, but then they appear to have made hundreds of millions of dollars profit by complying with requests and would presumably like nothing more than to be able to continue to do so.

I wonder how much Google has made by complying with requests?

Re: !Neelie

...also note the lack of similar facilities for EU countries that are far closer. I regularly travel through France for example. No such luck there. The last time I went to the US was 10 years ago.

Re: "must have" apps @cambsukguy

This would be the same Metrotube app that you have to pay for? As opposed to the free versions of an official app available elsewhere?

Re: "must have" apps

... or are these must-have apps that are appearing then turning out to be rubbish?

Probably both.

*cough*Youtube*cough*

Re: Why is nobody talking about accountants?

No, the root is HMRC and government allowing the laws to get so convoluted that they need such experts in the first place.

I've never had to read it myself as I work in a different area within the company, but I still recall seeing a copy of Tolley's tax reference on the book shelves in the office. You know you're in trouble when you get a large book inches thick with pages so fine you can almost see through them, as well as text small enough to almost need a magnifying glass.

Oh, and by the way on the spine it had the title 'Volume 1c'.

Re: Why do these idiots insist on trying to tackle the wrong end of the problem? @Crisp

Strictly speaking he said that blocks could be implemented, not necessarily that they should be implemented. A small point I know, but worth mentioning maybe especially since he was asked about this in regards to the legality, not as to whether they were a good idea.

I believe that the exemptions that this system relies upon are contained within the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Presumably parliament would have had a say at that point when passing the act.

Don't expect your MP to actually pay attention to what he or she is voting for however.

Re: So it's the NHS "National Identity Register." What is it with f**king burocrats?

Any mention of 'customers' is a fairly blatant way of them telling us what they intend: the monetisation of our personal and private information. As a transplant patient myself I thought that my doctor would have said something about this by now since I see them on a regular basis. I haven't heard a word. Not a single poster in the clinic either.

Does this even comply with EU directives regarding privacy? You know: the ones this government are legally obliged to implement at the national level?

I'm thinking specifically of 95/46/EC - the closest thing that the EU has to a Data Protection Act.

Article 8 section 1 reads:

Member States shall prohibit the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life.

There are exceptions listed of course but 'we need the money' strangely doesn't seem to be listed.

Re: The first option should ...... @Ragarath

Incidentally, you're assuming that the filter will always work as advertised. A dangerous mistake to make...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/8936722/TalkTalk-child-filter-fails-to-block-adult-website.html

Re: The first option should ...... @Ragarath

And the parent that says "no porn sites" to the child using the Internet that is not listened to?

Simple. Filter their devices. No need to filter the entire connection and the connections of any adults present. And you have the added benefit of making sure that your decisions are respected even when your children use their devices on networks that you have no control over.

Because a large chunk of important (for learning and other things) stuff that is NOT inappropriate material is being generated by them.

There is no need for them to have mobiles with either a camera and internet access beyond the desire of phone companies to make more money out of the little ones. Regardless of where the material comes from large parts of the internet are unsuitable for children and unless we can demonstrate a need for technology we ought to be questioning why we're allowing access to minors in the first place IMO. At present these seems to be the one question that nobody - and certainly no politician - wants to ask. But then both current and previous governments have had strong links to the telecoms industry. Just look at Ian Livingston.

I think you will find that most don't until the child is deemed responsible enough.

If they're responsible enough then why filter the connection?

It does not take much time and effort, but the time and effort is easily circumvented.

Do you honestly think that the same doesn't apply to network level filtering? Seriously? Even TalkTalk had to remove references to secure websites since it knew it couldn't realistically stop them, and I would not be surprised if there were other mechanisms available for evading this sort of thing.

Re: The first option should ......

On that note I also assume you had at least one parent hovering over your shoulder until you were at least 16, never letting you out of sight for any reason what-so-ever and controlling everything you did?

No, but they were probably smart enough to ask questions before letting me have access to anything that might have unpleasant consequences. No BB guns for example.

As an aside why should children even be allowed access to smartphones at all if such a large chunk of the inappropriate material is being generated by them? Ditto laptops with webcams.

Every single report on child safety I've seen on the TV shows the child with the PC in their bedroom. It's amazing quite frankly that parents continue to do this and then feign confusion when something terrible happens to their kid.

Some parents seem to continue having problems understanding that whilst they can't watch their kids all the time this does not mean they should abandon any effort to watch them at all. This is not an 'either/or' situation. You don't have to choose between one extreme or the other, and there's a good chance that overall simply using a little common sense will have better results in the longer term that using blunt instruments like this.

I hear you say. Well many ISPs do not let their users change hardware let alone DNS and changing that on every individual device that can / might enter your home is very disingenuous.

Actually device level protection is probably better if the aim is to protect the child in question. Imagine your child taking their laptop to somewhere where the connection isn't filtered for example. Of course setting up each device might take a few minutes each time, but unless you're a gadget junkie I find it difficult to believe that it will really take that much time or effort.

Re: Well, they're right about the flying pigs. @Vociferous

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/edward-snowden-no-leaked-nsa-documents-russia