[luau] Filter the Web with SquidGuard

[Ben Beeson]

Aloha, 

	Censorship is always a controversial topic and it has a time and a place.  
The kindergarten example previously cited is certainly a good discussion 
topic.   But MonMotha brings up a great point, and that point is that 
censorship cannot be "one size fits all," it requires judgement and should be 
tempered with reason.  That's why the local convenience store usually keeps 
certain magazines out of the reach of underage patrons.  In any case, there 
are always easily findable sites like
      
http://peacefire.org  and   http://www.zip.com.au/~erikd/getpage.html 

for those that feel the need to thwart typical censoring tools.   

	Also remember that computers in classrooms are tools like any other tool a 
teacher would use.  Last time I looked, every tool I have purchased also came 
with a few disclaimers on appropriate use, and of course, their version of 
the caveat emptor.  So don't blame unintended but reasonably foreseeable 
consequences of Internet searches on anyone but the one who should have 
intervened to prevent it.  If you are brave enough to turn a bunch of 5 and 6 
year-olds loose on the internet and you don't take prudent precautions, you 
have no one to blame but yourself.  If it were me, I'd block a few sites on 
that box myself before I turned the kids loose on it and pray that I wasn't 
surprised before the end of class.       

	It's not just at kindergarten that you run into this though.  Recently, I 
was researching arms control for a study at work and I ran into one of those 
"blocked due to hate" rules when I tried to visit an article on arms 
purchases by a certain country.  When I asked the NOSC what was up, they 
blamed it on their new filter -- one that was recently installed without a 
complete understanding of its inner workings.  The filter cannot be easily 
reconfigured either.  I am told that you are tied to the vendor's blocklist.  
As MonMotha points out, that is tantamount to turning over signifcant control 
of your network to someone who cannot be held accountable for the outcome.  
Anyway, when the NOSC examined the site in question, nothing offensive was 
found and access was allowed for a while.  However, to do that they had to 
turn off the "block hate sites rule" by unchecking the box. The end result of 
this is that the box got checked again, and others no longer can use that 
reference.   Unfortunately, the NOSC didn't see the need to contact the 
vendor to get their product fixed either.  So it goes.  

	I guess this is a rather susquepedalian way of saying the network 
administrator role of balancing security, access, and other interests can 
never be "just right."  On one hand, that means built in job security, and on 
the other hand, it means headaches ad infinitum.  It also means that users 
should be forewarned of the risks and that use of the tool implies a degree 
of assent to the risk.   

Just my $0.02

Respectfully,

Ben 




On Friday 28 June 2002 11:44 am, you wrote:
> The problem becomes what should be censored and who should make that
> decision.  When you use a closed product, you often turn your network
> over to that product's blacklist (or even worse sometimes, a deny then
> allow method...).
>
> For example, I think we all agree that Mr. Goatse should probably be
> blocked from 100% of the internet.
>
> The problem is that sometimes people cross the line and start blocking
> things that aren't "just plain gross" or "completely unsuitable for the
> environment" (the environment often being a K-12 school).  Often, these
> filters will block things that are just "questionable".  For example, a
> student I know recently needed to look up information regarding the
> hallocaust.  Unfortunately the filter was blocking a bunch of these
> sites so that admin had to set her up on a system still on our old T-1
> (which will be gone in a few months) so that she could see this
> information.  The hallocaust has an entire class at this school, but
> when a student wants to use the internet to research it, she has to have
> special provisions made since the content is "questionable."
>