[AusNOG] Conroy announcement on filtering

[Shane Short]

I wouldn't mind so much if they either a) mandated ISPs had to 'offer' some kind of filtering, or b) offered some kind of hosted solution.

OR find some CPE manufacturer that'll ship them 'clean modems', with the filtering built in. (does this exist yet)

-Shane


On 04/01/2010, at 12:35 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

> 
> On 04/01/2010, at 2:34 PM, Pinkerton, Eric wrote:
>> 
>> Preventing incoming DNS requests from outside your network could make sence, but stopping your internal users querying any external dns servers seems obtuse, perhaps I am missing something?  
> 
> ...
> 
>> I was under the impression that the solution proposed combined a DNS and proxy.  The DNS blocks or diverts banned domain requests to say an ad for counciling or whatever without impediment to other traffic, but requests for a page on a domain(or server) that also carries banned pages are diverted through a proxy server with a blacklist.  
>> 
> 
> 
> Take for example Google or OpenDNS's resolver service.   If customers can query those then how are they going to be directed to a proxy?
> 
> Ditto for a VPN, things like Tor etc.    Wet tissue paper has a higher security rating - especially if people are going to be avoiding it by accident!  Hilarious.
> 
> This isn't about protecting kids or stopping people looking at illegal content.  This is about the government saving face and giving a sop to the religious right.   
> 
> If the government wanted to do something useful they'd fund more child protection officers and police to hunt pedophiles etc.
> 
> MMC
> -- 
> Matthew Moyle-Croft
> Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
> Internode /Agile
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100104/d5efed74/attachment.html>