When will Plusnet tell people that they are behind a [proxy]?
Quote from: Gel PN should perhaps consider an IWF opt in/out account feature, and not impose someone else's views?
And your name will be automatically added to the sex offenders register.
There is only one reason to opt-out of the current system as PlusNet have implemented it,
Correction Chilly:
There is only one reason to opt-out of the current system as PlusNet have implemented it, to commit a criminal offence by viewing child sexual abuse!
There is only one reason to opt-out of the current system as PlusNet have implemented it, to commit a criminal offence by viewing child sexual abuse!
How would the opt in/out look though?
1. Yes please, I'd like to be able to view images of children being sexually abused
2. Er, No thanks, it's disgusting!
I know I'm being a bit flippant there but how do you word an opt in/out for something like this? Who's seriously going to choose option 1 no matter how you word it?
I think that this is a really good thing for our customers and I honestly hope that every ISP in the country implements, or else is forced to implement, this particular IWF list at some stage. It's the responsible choice and I'm proud that we're doing our bit
1. Yes please, I'd like to be able to view images of children being sexually abused
2. Er, No thanks, it's disgusting!
I know I'm being a bit flippant there but how do you word an opt in/out for something like this? Who's seriously going to choose option 1 no matter how you word it?
I think that this is a really good thing for our customers and I honestly hope that every ISP in the country implements, or else is forced to implement, this particular IWF list at some stage. It's the responsible choice and I'm proud that we're doing our bit
Quote from: Gel As others have stated it's part of a pattern of small steps of "control/filtering", which when looked at say 5 years apart, would be substantial.
And that's the Big Brother "democracy" we live in today.
The trouble is once u give someone something for a while and then try and take it away from them (for a right or wrong reason) they fight u for it as they think its now there right to have it if they want to.
An example of this I think would be smoking. Many years now ppl have been slowly killing themselves directly and others indirectly through smoking. Yet its taking this long for significant improvements in the law to protect them from themselves as well as the rest of us.
The reverse way of doing it is TV. It started out as such a controlled environment (1 channel) speaking the queens English that the control could be slowly released bit by bit as society as a whole relaxes what can and can’t be done on it. The stuff u get on the average music channel these days would probably be considered hardcore porn back when TV just started out.
Alas the internet has taken the smoking root. It was invented as a means of robust communication with no rules or regulations governing it, it slowly leaked into the mainstream and instead of developing rules and regulations in its infancy to protect its future, government and politics stayed away mostly I would guess because they did not understand it and no ones wants to be the first to tackle something they don’t understand.
Now just as everyone is starting to see the dangers of what the internet represents (as well as the wonders) governments and organisations are calling for those rules and regulations that should of already been implemented by now. And now they find that ppl that are used to how it is now, don’t want it to change.
If the internet had never been left as it is to get on with its self and governments had stepped in early on like with TV, we would of accepted what we were given in the first place and not know any better to complain about it, as u cant complain about what u don’t know about.
Give someone a spoon and they will thank u and start digging.
Give someone a shovel and they will dig with joy.
Then give someone a spoon and they will cry and complain it’s not a shovel.
Quote from: PJ I was going to post something in reply to that, but it'd have inflamed matters further- so I am just going to say we'll have to agree to disagree.
The fact is that no-one seems to be suggesting that this material should be legal, and as such it does not harm anyone that it is blocked.
I agree that no one wants to see this kind of material and so if this ability to block sites were always perfectly done and especially if we could be sure that these powers were never, ever abused then there wouldn't be a problem.
However (in my opinion), I lack this level of trust in our security services.
If "they" want to block access to internet resources, it can now be done via a private agency - I have no control over the IWF and it's activities are not even overseen by any judicial authority.
The IWF is also pointless in preventing any criminal activity as any self-respecting criminals have their own private networks and encrypted images can easily be sent on mailing lists.
This IWF cannot do what they claim to do - so what are they for?
For those who are still unsure how this works, the following flow diagram offers a visual interpretation -
A couple of questions:-
- What is WCCPv2?
- Is the proxy a PlusNet machine - or is it located elsewhere?
- Does secure (HTTPS) traffic suffer similarly?
Pleased to hear that this pointless bunch of servers aren't sitting in some government office and that no additional point of failure being added.
Of course, anyone can use https to serve http style content - completely negating (in a trivial way) the whole point of buying 8 servers!
Is this money well spent - or just money spent to say "we're doing something"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policeware makes interesting reading...
Happy Christmas
Of course, anyone can use https to serve http style content - completely negating (in a trivial way) the whole point of buying 8 servers!
Is this money well spent - or just money spent to say "we're doing something"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policeware makes interesting reading...
Happy Christmas