As a parent, network engineer and techie. First and foremost protecting children Is the parents responsibility.
Having said that we as a community should be helping them find and use the tools needed to do this. Even as a techie it wasn’t easy to ensure I can monitor what my kids are doing on iPads, iPhones, laptops etc. being able to protect them everywhere is a challenge even for those in the know. We don’t need more rules and regulation we need more education. Sent from my iPhone > On 23/04/2019, at 01:32, Gareth Llewellyn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, April 22, 2019 10:31 AM, Hal Ponton <[email protected]> wrote: >> I’m talking about restricting what they can see online >> > The first problem straight off the bat is that any tech ISPs put in place to > restrict/protect children is/has been co-opted for general Internet > censorship (e.g. cleanfeed > piratebay). > > That is to say "they" could become "everyone" very quickly. >> 7 - Another group I haven’t considered yet. >> > I'm guessing this is where I chime in. 7 includes "internet freedom" type > people (yes, myself included) which range from a subset of 6 (e.g. free > proxies, Tor operators, free VPN operators etc) through to the civil rights / > advocacy groups like EFF and Open Rights Group. > > Safe to say that if any measures demanded by any of the others that don't > have sufficient safe guards (or just for being suggested at all) will be > fought tooth and nail by #7. Whether it's Google's million dollar lobbyists, > the people running "Pirate Bay Proxies" or just blogging about how to bypass > the restrictions. > > It is worth noting that at the extreme end of #7, legality of action takes > second place to fighting whatever the problem of the day is (see lulzsec / > anonymous etc). >> There is a group I haven’t mentioned above and that’s government. Government >> obviously plays a role here, BUT… They have no direct involvement here. They >> can regulate but the regulation would apply to one or more of the groups >> above. >> > Maybe to the parents? As Neil Brown put it; we've yet to see if leaving a > child unaccompanied on the Internet counts as 'wilful abandonment' as per the > Children and Young Persons Act 1933; > https://twitter.com/neil_neilzone/status/1095303242957971456 >> For example government can create a block list [...] others will hate it and >> call it censorship. >> > Because it's literally the definition of censorship :) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship >> We also have to think about the ability to configure something like this. >> Groups 2,3 and 4 I think we can all agree are fine here. But from my time >> working help desk I know that groups 1 and 5 might struggle. >> > I've yet to see a convincing argument why, for example, the ICRA can't be > resurrected (would probably cost the Government less than the £10,000,000 > it's set aside for the BBFCs year 1 legal fees) this then opens the door for > putting the control in the browser (where it should be) - we expect app > publishers to self rate on Google Play / App Store, having a combination of > this, Google's 'SafeBrowsing' tech and bringing back the parental controls in > the browser would be an option. > > Yes kids could install a different browser but if they can do that (local > admin privs aside) they can just download the portable version of Tor Browser > and blow through *every* control. > > I'm guessing this has been kicked off due to the impending rollout of DoH? If > ISPs want to snoop / filter / data gather on DNS then offer a DoH server > on-net and educate customers as to how to configure their devices? > >> The ability to circumvent these measures is also important. We all know if >> we’re faced with DNS blocking, we just change resolvers to one that doesn’t >> block. Does this mean we just give up? Or do we try make a dent in the >> problem and re-group after. > > The problem, to my mind, is that it is too easy for ISPs to become the > gatekeepers / censors. If we'd have had DoH, CloudFlare and ubiquitous TLS > 1.3 15 years ago then none of the current generation of filtering would have > been possible. Government wouldn't be asking/demanding that ISPs be the > censor. They'd be talking to the end point vendors (Mozilla, Google, > Microsoft, Apple). > > Look at end-to-end encrypted messaging; Government aren't asking ISPs to help > there because it's impossible to do so. The web shouldn't be any different. > It's still just packets to us. > > ISPs should not be trying to resolve this problem. It is an endpoint issue. > >> I’m going to leave out my thoughts here and open it up to some discussion. >> What are your thoughts around this subject? I think we’re beyond the point >> of just leaving this for another day, governments and public opinion is >> changing and we can’t just ignore it anymore. Either we start looking into >> self regulation or assisting the other groups in helpful ways or we’ll end >> up with backwards thinking regulation being imposed on us as an industry. >> > I'm guessing "make it impossible for ISPs to be the censor" will get little > in the way of support? >
