Kids bypassing firewall via web proxy sites

Because VB believes (and so does his stooge, that all living people have a right to free and open/unrestricted internet access from all locations and are able to control their own actions such that they will never do anything wrong/or violate security norms.

But in this case, we aren't talking about "responsible" adults. We are talking about children. Children are curious by there very nature, and are going to test and push whatever boundries are placed on them.

You might get away with trusting adults not to look at smut while at work even though there is nothing stopping them. Now, try trusting a room full of 14 year old boys to not look at smut that's easily available.

But they are a deterant. Do you advocate that because any good thief can steal my car in 30 seconds that I should not lock my door when I park on the street over night?

And that's why you've already lost. Without a ridiculously strict whitelisting you won't be able to keep any control.

So get someone who surveils them. Hint: A machine isn't able to do that in any effective way.

Your comparison is bullshit. The reason why you're locking your car is not to provide serious protection, but to give a clear indication that you don't want others to access your car without your permission. And this is relevant for your assurance.

For staying with your comparison: If you're parking your car in a dark sideway in Queens, NY, your car will get stolen. So adding an alerter besides your lock is a useless investion.

Not necessarily. Have the IT security person vest the power of "approving" sites on the fly after educating them on the types of sites they should be wary of. Periodically, the IT staff (or person) should review the whitelist for anything suspicious.

How many adults per student do you suggest? With no computer-based security in place, I could surf p*rn all day long with you coming to check on me every 5 minutes to see what I'm doing. All I have to do is pay attention to when you're looking over.

SOME control is better than NO control, as long as you realize that what you have is SOME control, and aren't deluded into thinking its TOTAL control.

Complete and overly utter bullshit - I own a car, you don't, locked or not, you don't have any right to expect anything from it. I lock my car to keep thieves and unethical types from TAKING what is not theirs.

But parking your car anywhere and then surrounding it with a bubble that can't be breached without permission would protect it - just like blocking all access except that which is authorized.

This is exactly the same mindset one would have in setting up access controls on their servers. If you have to bypass protocols in order to look at something, you know with certainty you are doing something that the administrator of the server does not want you to do.

So, because its highly likely an attempt will be made to steal my car, I should leave the keys in the ignition?

Can be achieved by installing surveillance cameras in computer rooms. I think that is done in some schools.

And this is completely nonsense, as the actual violation is a written-formulated policy that has to be accepted by any employee who wants to have access to the IT department.

If they're trying to violate this policy, that's enough to make them face consequences. Lawfully!

No, because you're twisting signalizations and security measures. A lock is no security measure, it's just a sign "don't steal my car!" in an expression that is reasonable towards an assurance. That's why your comparison is bullshit.

A better comparison would be an alerter, in a place where noone would hear it anyone. Doesn't add to security and also has no other means. Your car will get stolen and your investment was useless.

That's just it, you don't think. Camera's are installed to protect school properly, to protect kids from abuse by other kids, not to see computer screens and what's on them.

Why not use a product which also blacklists proxy sites, and can block strings etc such as the one I mentioned. Cheers, E.

Hopefully you will not be somebody who is responsible for IT technics:

----------------------------- snip ------------------------------------------ vb@parametium:~ % dig MX invalid.com [...] ;; ANSWER SECTION: invalid.com. 6000 IN MX 10 mail4.jodoshared.com. [...] vb@parametium:~ % telnet mail4.jodoshared.com. 25 Trying 204.14.104.85... Connected to mail4.jodoshared.com. Escape character is '^]'.

----------------------------- snip ------------------------------------------

In other words: you have a fake address on a real domain. And that means, you're unsocial enough to send all your SPAM to these people here:

----------------------------- snip ------------------------------------------ vb@parametium:~ % whois invalid.com [...] Registrant: Neodoc Box 6050 Kista SE-16406 SE

Domain Name: INVALID.COM

Administrative Contact: Neodoc snipped-for-privacy@telia.com Box 6050 Kista SE-16406 SE +46-8-4440095 fax: +46-8-4440095

----------------------------- snip ------------------------------------------

I hope, that you never will be responsible for a single computer in addition to your Windows PC, from which you're sending here.

VB.

This is the next nonsense. Who watches those films? If nobody watches them, what does this help?

And what do you want to teach your students? Big brother always is watching you, fight him, at least trick him?

Unbelievable, VB.

The same way fake cameras do help (at least as long they don't know these are fakes). Seriously.

Violation of policies or at least any serious trial leads to temporary or permanent ban from the network. Word.

I already told. You can forget content filtering. It seems to help first, but it will not solve your problem. Try social solutions instead.

The answer is: don't try to. This will not work at all. Better have tutors in the computer rooms. Don't let the kids alone. And talk to them. They're human beings, and not your prisoners you have to control. Your time and your care is very important for them. And when they're growing, don't have so much fear from sex. The problem is violence, not sex.

Yes. And that way, the net is unusable. And no teacher will find out, why nytimes.com will not be a possibility for the whitelist.

Yours, VB.

Then please let us talk about responsible adults again. The adults who have to fulfill the role of the tutors.

Yours, VB.

I think the entire group is waiting on your solution to the problem, one that prevents the people from doing things that are not permitted by the rules.

How long on google did it take you to learn how to do that? Im sure it was very painful for you. If you like I could send you all my spam instead.