Dear Bipin,
Thank you for the stating how ISP level content filtering can be
a better solution. Your suggestions seems rational too. Moreover content
filtering at ISP level ensures that there is no repetitive filtering action
at each end users' computer.
But your approach too has inherent problems which are as below:
1. You have stated that anonymous proxy can help those users who
voluntarily want to support in filtering. But what if some users do not want
to let others take decision for them, and they want the control in their own
hands. There was a fuss about Cloud Computing around this very issue. Though
this approach eases many technological operations for the end user.
2. Is any guideline or regulation available that will categorize content
as "INACCESSIBLE" to the minors? If not your approach hands over the overall
authority of tagging contents to the ISP operators. What if there are
content X and content Y that are tagged inaccessible, and parent group A
want their children to access content X and parent group B want their
children to access content Y? So there is no one single measure to justify
content as inaccessible (remember content are not just porn). Using ACLs
(Access Control Lists), this can be achieved, but again this requires the
ACLs to be shared among the ISPs.
3. Your perception that there will be abuse if the control is passed away
to the end users seem irrational to me. You seem to be quite paranoid about
the security at end users and confident about the security at the ISP side.
Difficulty/Ease in accessing others data at both the side, in technological
metrics, are the same. How can you ensure that ISPs do not have access or do
not peek at your data. Business concern is not only the justifiable reason.
Moreover, for a minor, we have to assume what their parents decide is for
their good. This points gets pretty complicated when it comes to Cyber
Cafes.
But what above have I discussed is just the problems, and they are, in no
way, going to help Bibhushan Jee, but to annoy him at technological
stupidity. A proper course of action can be implemented by incorporating
Bipin's and Gaurab's perspective. Content filtering at the ISP level can
ease the whole process if there is a consensus on tagging the content. Else
there is a need of per user basis rule, in which, shifting the control to
the end users seem viable. If both approach can be integrated, it will form
a base of a universal solution. Integrating both means that the ISP must
share the filtering rules, categorising the rules into groups, and
providing the end users a means (through some tool, plugin etc) to select or
override the rules/ruleset available to them. But believe me this will take
development, human resource and time cost. Any one ready to volunteer for
development?
The next approach is to use already available Parental Controls which are
under open source/unrestrictive licensing. I'm listing some of them which I
found as a search result:
1. Parental Control
2.1<http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Security/Parental-control-24501.shtml>
2. Glubble 1.0 <http://www.glubble.com/> -- the parental control suite
for the Firefox web browser.
3. Crawler Parental Control
1.1.0<http://www.download.com/Crawler-Parental-Control/3000-2162_4-10549693.html>
4. Safe Families We-Blocker Parental Control 2.0.1 build
88<http://www.download.com/Safe-Families-We-Blocker-Parental-Control/3000-2162_4-10537204.html>
I would like to request you all to add to this list and suggest which one of
them is better. That will certainly help Bibhushan Jee. If you have a quick
and smart way out then please suggest.
Thank You.
_________________________________________________________
Regards,
Abhishek Singh
Fedora 10 (Cambridge) has released
http://fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Bipin Gautam <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> On 12/15/08, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Bipin Gautam wrote:
> >
> >> Alternately, the only best technological solution to this problem is
> >> from the ISP level. ISP's could offer anonymous proxies that could do
> >> content filtering if a cyber / home user voluntarily wishes to use the
> >> proxy for content-filtering.
> >
> > tell my why are you in favour of a centralized technological soltuion
> > (which of course has a higher probability of mis-utilization by the
> > governments to spy on people),then giving the choice of
> > blocking/sanitizing content into the hands of end-users. ?
> >
> Gaurab dai,
> Such centralize is far less evil and more anonymous for everyone (the
> end user) than if the CONTROL itself was given to the end users. The
> existing isp proxies are in equal potential of misuse by government if
> they have access to it and existence of a separate server for content
> filtering wouldnt make any difference to the equation, it would just
> be a subset of the log of ips from the existing proxies who want to
> stay away from pron. The deployment cost of such technology is as
> costly as adding a new proxy server.
>
> Using anonymous proxy for content filtering is the "voluntary wish" of
> an individual, which means the user do not want to see adult content.
> Isnt that a easy fix without having to worry about maintenance and
> other privacy concerns as who has access to know the violation of a
> rule via the logs. If there is a centralized solution from ISP level
> the internet user can easily use the technology without having to
> worry about other details. If the orgs are serious about their ideas
> pitching it from the isp level is better and far reach.
>
> If control was given to the end user, there is wide and frequent
> chance of abuse by people who have the admin control.
>
> How many of you have logged into a friends email and read it? How many
> of you would want to do so? How many of you would want to know what
> others do/see online? People with similar temptation will have easy
> tools to have a watchful eye regardless whether its used by a kid, or
> brother, or sister or a cousin and regardless their age group. Would
> you be interested to visit a cyber if you know there is a monitoring
> software used by the owner that can read your emails and know what
> websites you just visited (regardless of your age/ interest / will ).
> So who do you want to trust here, the isp or users who holds the end
> control? ISP's/government could already have the monitoring capability
> if they have the intention to do so and adding this isp level approach
> as a solution to this wont really make any different/impact to the
> situation than what that already exists.
>
> I would love to be convinced on how ips level approach to this problem
> is more evil than a end user solution. Maybe this will add a little
> bit of responsibility/maintenance burden to the isps, but just that.
> By law/obligation ISP's should protect end user data anyways.
>
> thanks,
> -bipin
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
FOSS Nepal mailing list: [email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
