I think the view on filtering software needs to be revisited.. most people seem to look at filtering in the default allow (ie. blocking things that are bad while leaving everything else open).. vs. default deny (ie. blocking everything except for what is known to be good).. yes the second approach is more painful to build.. and it also suffers from not blocking the sites that "go bad".. the call center of one of the companies I did security work for has policies on the firewalls that ONLY alow them to go to a certian list of sites and it seems to work quite well for them.. in many cases you can identify WHAT someone needs access to.. and you don't need to give them access to anything else.. For libraries and schools I'd like to see them decide what responsiblilty they are taking for what the child sees/hears/etc at the facility then make a decision/judgement based on that.. not just jumping into throwing things on to computers without a document reason behind it (ie. something more along the lines of: "Acme public school does not permit viewing of non school related matter at school" as a policy and for procedures have something like "systems will be set up to only beable to view sites on the "approved list (chosen by xyz)" without supervision by xyz people.. while supervised they will beable to browse unencombered.. firewall logs will be reviewd for adhearance to policy on a weekly basis") /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail "This quote is false." -anon _______________________________________________ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
