begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:50:47PM -0800: > Christian Seberino wrote: > >On Thu, March 1, 2007 4:59 pm, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > > >>Also, one of the interesting points about the securityfocus article is > >>that it talks about the fact that you *must* have certain filtering > >>software in place to comply with Federal guidelines. *That* I didn't > >>know. > > > >For little kids I like that idea. I have a whitelist implemented on our > >laptop and it seems to work. > > Personally, for little kids, I would rather there be *no* computers *or* > televisions anywhere near the classroom. Computers add very little to > the basic acquisition of knowledge.
Especially as how they're likely to be used. Perhaps the most useful knowledge a child acquires in such an environment is (a) how to connect all the cables correctly, and (b) how to subvert or otherwise bypass the filters. > In addition, you probably update that whitelist if your child asks, right? > > Again, we come back to "There ain't no admin in schools." Very good point. > This kind of law has a *cost*. People don't pay any attention to the > cost of the laws anymore. > > What are the costs? There are quite a few, but let's pick one near and > dear to our hearts: what OS does the "standard" filtering software run > under? > > Oops. Tough luck for us Linux folks. And here I am thinking that iptables at the gateway would be a useful solution. Of course, there are sites out there recommending censorship, so we must of course block those... > And if a school *doesn't* comply, it opens itself up to lawsuits. ...and/or they find a scapegoat. -- "I'm sorry, but we're filtering 127.0.0.1 as it's a porn server." Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
