so then they will have you pointing snapchat, twitter, facebook, instagram, youtube, (insert all social media platforms, streaming services, game servers, news outlets, etc) to 127.0.0.1? youre going to save a ton on bandwidth
facebook has a kiddie porn video surfacing the FBI and facebook cant seem to identify and stop, people are sharing it to ID the adult. The news media is so toxic right now that pretty much everything is harmful. Netflix originals are just soft core porn since cinemax isnt the goto anymore. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Christopher Tyler <[email protected] > wrote: > The great firewall of Utah? Block everything and only let "approved" sites > through. > > -- > Christopher Tyler > MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE > Total Highspeed Internet Services > 417.851.1107 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jay Weekley" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 10:18:49 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] blocking > > So, you can't use a 3rd party solution? Where is the logic in that? I > used to help administer a schools Sonic Wall and had to occasionally > white list sites that had been blocked so kids could do research on > breast cancer etc. It wasn't bad for a small school but having to do > that for each of your hundreds/thousands of customers individually would > be a major pain. > > [email protected] wrote: > > The proposed solution is that any ISP over 500 customers has to > > provide some kind of blocking technology to prevent harm to minors. > > And it cannot be a 3rd party solution. > > I want to come up with an exhaustive list of all the potential ways > > minors can select harmful things on the internet. There is more than > > just web pages out there. > > *From:* Zach Underwood > > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:01 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] blocking > > Are you talking about > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce- > dubious-legislation-ransom-internet > > this style of blocking? > > If you are talking about that style of blocking then as ISP we fight > > this as it is not the ISP job to block. > > If someone wants to block this type of content when the parent should > > be in change of installing blocking software and picking what should > > be blocked. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have some proposed legislation I am facing about porn blocking > > again. But they are not defining the type of service. It is one > > thing to block web traffic, but how about netflix or twitter or > > skype or...... > > I want to play defense here and force the lawmakers to define > > exactly what we need to block. > > So can you guys help me develop a list of all the things we would > > have to analyze and block if we were going to attempt to create a > > true device that protects kids. > > > > > > > > -- > > Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) > > My website <http://zachunderwood.me> > > advance-networking.com <http://advance-networking.com> > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&; > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&; > utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >
