 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I went to a district Cub Scout meeting that met in a public school library. I
thought I'd check my email, maybe even do my note-taking in Google Docs. No
could do.
It frigging blocked gmail! It blocked the server for my home ISP email!
http://10.6.0.8:81/cgi/block.cgi?URL=http://gmail.com/&IP=10.6.8.36&CAT=WEMAIL&USER=IPGROUP&CE=0
http://10.6.0.8:81/cgi/block.cgi?URL=http://www.youtube.com/&IP=10.6.8.36&CAT=RRATED&USER=IPGROUP&CE=0
but it allowed Yahoo!
Why? If there were a legitimate concern for child safety, I could see the point
of blocking youtube. But Yahoo! is probably a gateway to more junk than google,
and is gmail really a
concern?
If it were a case of vendor lock-in, I'd be seriously ticked if I were a
taxpayer and parent in that school district. How intelligent an IT department
would choose to lock-in to Yahoo!?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn schrieb:
> If it were a case of vendor lock-in, I'd be seriously ticked if I were a
> taxpayer and parent in that school district. How intelligent an IT department
> would choose to lock-in to Yahoo!?
School? IT department?
You're an optimist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> School? IT department?
>
> You're an optimist.
Okay, aside from the number of professional or volunteer people doing this, what
do you think is the motivation for setting up vendor-specific blocks?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:39:11 -0500, gregjohn wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> School? IT department?
>>
>> You're an optimist.
>
> Okay, aside from the number of professional or volunteer people doing
> this, what do you think is the motivation for setting up vendor-specific
> blocks?
COPA and perhaps a volunteer doing the work who maybe doesn't understand
how to set things up properly.
Never assume that something like this was done intentionally - it may
well have been ignorance or some other reason.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Never assume that something like this was done intentionally - it may
> well have been ignorance or some other reason.
The *default configuration* of Microsoft Internet Security and
Acceleration Server ("ISA Server") blocks access to mozilla.com (but not
mozilla.org), redirecting all such traffic to the Internet Explorer
homepage. (Is that even legal?)
Sure, you can easily change this. It's just an "example configuration" -
or that's what M$ will claim - but seems rather suspicious to me...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Never assume that something like this was done intentionally - it may
>> well have been ignorance or some other reason.
>
> The *default configuration* of Microsoft Internet Security and
> Acceleration Server ("ISA Server") blocks access to mozilla.com (but not
> mozilla.org), redirecting all such traffic to the Internet Explorer
> homepage. (Is that even legal?)
Wow o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The *default configuration* of Microsoft Internet Security and
>> Acceleration Server ("ISA Server") blocks access to mozilla.com (but not
>> mozilla.org), redirecting all such traffic to the Internet Explorer
>> homepage. (Is that even legal?)
>
> Wow o_O
Yeah. I'm sitting at my desk, I go to update Firefox, and a big window
opens up saying "Introducing Internet Explorer 7.0 - WE HAVE HEARD YOU!"
And I'm like WTF?! O_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> COPA and perhaps a volunteer doing the work who maybe doesn't understand
> how to set things up properly.
>
> Never assume that something like this was done intentionally - it may
> well have been ignorance or some other reason.
>
In other words, in response to a valid concern about child internet safety, they
set up a system which inconveniences multiple users but does nothing to block a
gateway to everything on the net.
In a civic association, I once had to communicate with the president of the
group through his work email address. The president's day job had something to
do with computers and schools. My gmail's were always being rejected by his
company. It was fair enough that his company was so dense as to suspect gmail ==
spam, but I feared what that company might do if it set up a mail server for a
school.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> In other words, in response to a valid concern about child internet safety, they
> set up a system which inconveniences multiple users but does nothing to block a
> gateway to everything on the net.
Sounds about right.
I think it was Phil Cook who found an article a while back where some
government official had decided that they were going to implement a
system whereby all websites would be reviewed and rated according to
their content, and parents would be able to install software that would
control access to different sites according to the government rating level.
...apparently some people don't understand how the Internet actually
works. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
