Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: How To Best Setup a School Internet Filter?

An anonymous reader writes "I was recently volunteered to be the network/computer admin for a small non-profit school. One of the items asked of me had to do with filtering inappropriate content (i.e. stuff you wouldn't want your mother to see). Essentially we want to protect people who aren't able to protect themselves, at least while on campus. Basic site filtering is fairly easy — setup squid with one of the many filtering engines and click to filter the categories your interested. Additionally, making the computer lab highly visible uses public shame and humiliation to limit additional activity. The real question — How do you filter Facebook? There is a lot of great content and features on Facebook, and its a great way to stay in contact with friends, but there is also a potentially dark side. Along with inappropriate content, there is a tendency to share more information than should be shared, and not everyone follows proper security and privacy guidelines. What's the best way to setup campus-wide security/privacy policies for Facebook?"

246 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Don't by Simulant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just block it all together. Not worth it.

    1. Re:Don't by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or whitelist a few websites and be done with it.

    2. Re:Don't by jhoegl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Until the dean says "I promote the school through Facebook!" and you reply with "You can do that at home".

    3. Re:Don't by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      There is a lot of great content and features on Facebook

      Like what? What are you trying to protect against? What should pupils be allowed to see?

      It's pointless anyways, kids have Facebook on their phones these days.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:Don't by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I second this. You either allow it or you don't. Trying to filter Facebook at an intermediate level is nearly impossible in the best circumstances.

      A far bigger challenge is the expanding use of SSL by default. It solves a lot of problems for the individuals but it makes life more difficult for the enterprise admin who is supposed to filter these things. I flagged this recently at work as we enforce SafeSearch on search engines but with Google and others going SSL by default, it's possible to search for and display things that normally wouldn't come up. We're now having to look into decryption which brings its own issues pertaining to certificate management.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 2, Informative

      We're now having to look into decryption which brings its own issues pertaining to certificate management.

      What do you even mean there? You aren't going to be able to pull off a man in the middle attack. You either block https or game over.

    6. Re:Don't by Jamu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Best way to stop them looking at inappropriate content is don't set up a filter, but keep a record of every website they visit and who visited it. Tell the students you are doing this.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    7. Re:Don't by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly my thought. I would also include a note on the "block page" to send an email to admin@whatever if the user wants a site opened. That way brand-new sites like teenskissingtheirpussies will be blocked by default, but if someone requests a site like PBSkids.com you can whitelist it ASAP.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:Don't by sqlrob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's easy to pull off a man in the middle attack if you control the computers.

      You generate your own certs with a CA that you've installed on the computer. At least one commercial product does this automatically.

    9. Re:Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um, so, teenskissingtheirpussies. Linky??

    10. Re:Don't by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Or put the dean on the whitelist that allows him to access whatever sites he deems appropriate, but are blocked for students. Typical residential-grade routers have this functionality.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    11. Re:Don't by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Best way to stop them looking at inappropriate content is don't set up a filter, but keep a record of every website they visit and who visited it. Tell the students you are doing this.

      That's about the best you are going to get. And if they are all your own computers you can filter https too (although you have to make sure kids won't be doing any banking etc or there might be liability issues), but it's harder if you want to filter devices that people bring from home.

      If you filter, and a poor innocent child captures glimpse of a nipple and is scarred for life, you'll have to explain to the concerned parents why you allowed this to happen. If you allow all content then you have less responsibility for this, in theory.

    12. Re:Don't by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "Theoretically the students are all adults."

      Um... many schools have children in them. Like... most of them do. (If he meant he worked for a "college", he should've said "college". And demanded that their paid staff do this.)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    13. Re:Don't by chrb · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do you even mean there? You aren't going to be able to pull off a man in the middle attack.

      Oh but you can, and it's increasingly being done and the people being intercepted are probably completely unaware of it. All of the big providers of content filtering hardware offer SSL interception now (actually that article was written in 2006, so it's been going on for a while now). The sysadmin just has to deploy a trusted CA key to each desktop. I still think it is probably a violation of various wiretap laws because, regardless of what the local user has agreed to, the remote side (Google, your bank etc.) have not agreed to your interception of their encrypted communications. But, afaik, surprisingly nobody has yet sued over this issue.

    14. Re:Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Training users to ignore security warnings, what an awesome job your IT dept is doing!

    15. Re:Don't by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a lot of great content and features on Facebook

      Like what? What are you trying to protect against?

      Facebook whores hogging the computers all day long so nobody can do any work...?

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:Don't by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is correct. In a managed environment it's not exactly rocket science to put your cert on the computer, allowing you to resign anything HTTPS. Make it clear to the users that EVERYTHING is being monitored and they have no expectation of privacy on said computers and go for it.

      Using a bogus cert that throws warnings in the browser is just an idiotic way to train your users that clicking through SSL warnings is normal.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    17. Re:Don't by Revotron · · Score: 1

      That would lose them any Federal grant money they're currently receiving or could potentially receive for IT.

    18. Re:Don't by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      I'd only whitelist the dean for appropriate sites. No blanket access for anyone. Last thing you want to find out is the dean has been using the office for porn.

    19. Re:Don't by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Heck many workplaces who have grown adults act like children. Block Facebook altogether. And make sure to block on HTTPS connection as well.

    20. Re:Don't by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It's legitimate. The decryption happens while it's still on our network, and we have complete control over every packet that goes through. Part of the agreement signed by the employees every year is that nothing that goes over the network is private. We have the right to decrypt and inspect anything that goes through. Were it a legal problem, it would have already been tried long ago, presuming that it hasn't been tried already.

      If/When it's implemented, there will be exceptions for financial or certain medical sites. But going to Gmail or a forum would see the traffic decrypted, check, and re-encrypted on-box.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    21. Re:Don't by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could add them automatically, as long as a teacher asks for it (and is verified that it was a teacher).
      Let them know that it will be logged and verified later.
      They will control themselves better then you can, as long as you do the follow up and explain why things are removed.

      Obviously this should not be your only line of defense. When I look at openDNS, it says that 1 in 3 schools are already using it. and they have something like http://www.opendns.com/business-solutions/k-12-education-old as well as free solutions.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 2

      I hadn't thought of that. Yep that would work. I stand corrected.

    23. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I saw the list about creating an CA on the client. I hadn't thought of that. I stand corrected. That's the of thing that would be really hard to train users against.

    24. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There are lots of wiretapping laws that apply to both parties. Google when they have SSL traffic has an expectation of privacy. They haven't been notified that the person logging in is using a wiretapped / compromised machine.

      I'm not sure how the courts will rule on this one but the first time this setup is used to do something like have IT clean out someone's brokerage account by snooping their SSL traffic I suspect the company will be found liable.

    25. Re:Don't by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Why is a school blocking content, and is Slashdot going out of business, because quite frankly, I've never seen it this dead around here.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    26. Re:Don't by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we used to authority policing our content consumption? I work at a college and we do no filtering of any kind due to academic freedom. There are issues from time to time but it is tolerated in the name of freedom.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    27. Re:Don't by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Make sure you block reddit, slashdot, cnn, WSJ, ..... I can blow my entire day on many sites.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    28. Re:Don't by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Forefront TMG (ISA server) can do this.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    29. Re:Don't by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      There's also the direct attack on the browser and/or client network stack: Between Browser Helper Objects and Winsock LSP trickery, IE is an open book to anybody with admin access to the client, and other browsers are probably not too much better(and have their own plugin interfaces).

      It isn't as elegant as a network-side setup; but various sorts of browser monkeying and monitoring are relatively common features of 'enterprise' AV or "endpoint management" software, and they usually stick their dirty little fingers into the guts of the browser well beyond the ability of a casual or unprivileged user to remove.

    30. Re:Don't by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      In the US, at least, I don't know the dirty details on other jurisdictions, the name of the game is CIPA'. The "Children's Internet Protection Act"(what could go wrong, eh?)

      After the "Communications Decency Act" and the "Child Online Protection Act" were banhammered for being grossly unconstitutional, we got CIPA. Many thanks to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Rep. Bob Franks (R-N.J.), Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), and the justices writing for the majority on UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. (02-361) 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

    31. Re:Don't by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I work at a college and we do no filtering of any kind due to academic freedom. There are issues from time to time but it is tolerated in the name of freedom.

      I guess the person asking the question didn't specify, but I was under the assumption that this was for an elementary level type school....so, you're policing children, and you'd likely start with things mostly turned off, and then let on what you needed as required by the instructors.

      Also, if that is the case...wouldn't most of these kids be too young to have FB accounts per the TOS for Facebook? If that's the case...no problem in banning FB entirely, eh?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:Don't by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      That's not technically a MITM attack. You've changed an endpoint, so it's a little more involved. But it's a good thing to point out: things like SSL won't protect your data from malware.

    33. Re:Don't by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      That's a good argument.

      The other might be:

      The user is acting as part of the corporation. The corporation is one body (literally, even), even thought it has many parts (real people). So Google is interacting with the corporation, and the corporation can, of course, monitor its own communications.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    34. Re:Don't by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work at a college and we do no filtering of any kind due to academic freedom.

      High school is not college. College students are adults fully responsible for their own behavior. High school students are legally children, and giving them access to things their parents don't approve of is not only going to cause administrative problems, but may even be illegal in some cases.

    35. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      you'd likely start with things mostly turned off, and then let on what you needed as required by the instructors

      That really doesn't work very well when kids are to use the internet to research a subject, as assignment, or to learn more about the subject.

      They generally need the use of search engines and unanticipated websites to do it properly.

      The educational content students need to access is not concentrated on 3 or 4 websites that the instructors already know about.

    36. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's pointless anyways, kids have Facebook on their phones these days.

      Cell phones aren't allowed on school premises, and will be confiscated if a student is caught in possession of one.

    37. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'd only whitelist the dean for appropriate sites. No blanket access for anyone.

      That works, until the Dean encounters the blocked message on a legitimate site, and demands you unblock all sites for him.

      You either comply, or get replaced with someone who has the proper respect for management

    38. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A far bigger challenge is the expanding use of SSL by default. It solves a lot of problems for the individuals but it makes life more difficult for the enterprise admin who is supposed to filter these things.

      There are products that deploy as agents that are installed on the client computers via group policy or other methods, and handle the blocking locally; as long as this is school-owned equipment, and you can dictate local software policies, what browser may be installed, how it may be configured, what other software can run, etc, and ensure noone being filtered can achieve admin access, there are solid options for filtering even SSL enabled sites.

    39. Re:Don't by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I've actually been wondering for quite some time why a lot of people in the US think it's perfectly normal to block/filter Internet access in schools.

      When I went to high school here in Sweden the school only filtered "dangerous" ports and ran a transparent http proxy that did some basic logging. When I got to the university world it seemed pretty common for universities to adopt various policies that basically allowed anything, I still remember the introduction to the computer labs we got, we were told that the school did not ban anything that was legal but that it would be appreciated if we didn't browse porn in the middle of a crowded computer lab...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    40. Re:Don't by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      That... that's not exactly new. I mean, are you saying that kids were encouraged to watch softcore porn in the 60s?

    41. Re:Don't by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      At my old high school, every student had to get a signed note from their parents at the beginning of the year stating that they were permitted to use the computers. Those that weren't allowed (or were to lazy to ask) most likely just forged it.

    42. Re:Don't by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      So what if he does? It's not your job to police the administration, if the administration want you to be policed (or more likely police each other), THEN you filter their internet.

    43. Re:Don't by froggymana · · Score: 1

      I work at a college and we do no filtering of any kind due to academic freedom.

      High school is not college. College students are adults fully responsible for their own behavior. High school students are legally children, and giving them access to things their parents don't approve of is not only going to cause administrative problems, but may even be illegal in some cases.

      What if their parents don't approve of their child having access to a filtered internet?

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    44. Re:Don't by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      There are lots of wiretapping laws that apply to both parties. Google when they have SSL traffic has an expectation of privacy. They haven't been notified that the person logging in is using a wiretapped / compromised machine.

      I'm not sure how the courts will rule on this one but the first time this setup is used to do something like have IT clean out someone's brokerage account by snooping their SSL traffic I suspect the company will be found liable.

      I know how they'd rule on it. They're rule it perfectly acceptable as the company owns the network infrastructure and computers, and has the right to do whatever they damn well like with their own equipment - provided it's declared.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    45. Re:Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we are talking about elementary kids...

      They generally need to use a search engine to do research? They're doing reports on naked mole rats. They don't need the entire internet for their first report. They need limited materials and a lot of help showing them how to use the materials and create a report. They're learning the very basics of research.

    46. Re:Don't by xstonedogx · · Score: 2

      This is what you do:

      You give parents and students a piece of paper that says the students are authorized to use the internet, but that the parents and students agree that the student will use it responsibly or will be held responsible for its misuse. Parents and student alike are required to sign.

      Then you don't worry about it. If the student(s) abuse the privilege, the parents cannot complain because they not only authorized the use, but agreed that their child would use the resource appropriately.

    47. Re:Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess the person asking the question didn't specify, but I was under the assumption that this was for an elementary level type school....so, you're policing children, and you'd likely start with things mostly turned off, and then let on what you needed as required by the instructors.

      Back in the mid-1990s when I was at the elementary school level, we had a 10BASE2 coaxical network and an unlimited Internet access. And oh boy did we find lots of both questionable (nude, porn) and illegal content (games, software and MP3s were already flooding to the websites from the soon-to-be-legacy private BBSes and FTPs), and guess what all that did to me? Nowadays I post anonymous comments to Slashdot, have a job and pay my taxes (oh, and MSE in the works).

      So, unless you want your kids to grow up as future Slashdot users and engineers with university grade degrees, block everything (I mean *everything*), throw them to your basement and never open the door. Everything else is just plain stupidy and both wasted time and effort.

    48. Re:Don't by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you are, but high school goes up to age 18 here if you stay on until final year - you can leave at 16 if you want, and some do.

      At 16, you are legally not a child.

    49. Re:Don't by Vegemeister · · Score: 2

      The very basics of research, in 2012 CE, involve a search engine.

    50. Re:Don't by Thiez · · Score: 1

      What a ridiculous rule. Back when I went to school you weren't allowed to use a cell phone *during* class, but were free to have one with you (if it didn't produce any noise, of course), and you were free to use it between classes. What is the point of banning cell phones in situations where they are not disruptive?

    51. Re:Don't by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't work anyway. I worked supporting schools for some years and we ran a WAN that they connected through to the internet (around 150 schools connecting via 10mbps links to a central pipe) and the fact is you just can't do anything about kids accessing what they shouldn't.

      They're far more resourceful, far more motivated, and have far more time than your IT staff. Like the music industry trying to clamp down on piracy, IT staff trying to clamp down on kids whilst still keeping the internet somehow useful is a lost cause. The kids know any number of proxy sites, they'll find any number, sites you didn't even know existed as a long time IT professional, and hell, even if you do lock down the internet completely (and make it largely useless in the process) kids are only going to bring in porn mags and CDs/memory sticks with porn and such on anyway.

      The best solution is entirely with the teachers. It's with the teachers to catch kids browsing things they shouldn't, and to punish them and make an example that doing what you shouldn't in school hours will get you in deep shit. Anything else is doomed to fail, and even this method isn't going to stop every kid, but it'll be far more effective than any kind of technological solution will be. If we're talking about really young kids and you want to protect their precious little eyes then internet access should be treated the same way as it would be by a "good" parent - supervise them whilst they're using it.

    52. Re:Don't by xenobyte · · Score: 2

      Cell phones aren't allowed on school premises, and will be confiscated if a student is caught in possession of one.

      Really? - What if a parent needs to contact a student?

      The old method of calling the administration office and have them page the student is both costly, disruptive to both class and administration, and often involves the student talking while standing right next to an administration employee, which is an obvious invasion of privacy.

      The correct way to do it is to allow cell phones set to a silent ring, and ban from making outgoing calls and texts during school hours (students must comply with inspection requests). This way they can be reached and are able to go somewhere private to take a call, which obviously should be of a certain importance to be allowed.

      Confiscation is an epic Bad Idea (tm) which makes the school liable both for damages relating to missed calls and for the cost of a new phone. If you need to take away a cell phone, make a parent come pick it up after school and let him/her/them handle the situation from there. A school should not steal student property, no matter what the excuse.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    53. Re:Don't by chrb · · Score: 1

      I know how they'd rule on it. They're rule it perfectly acceptable as the company owns the network infrastructure and computers

      That depends on the laws and legal jurisdiction. There are plenty of countries where companies aren't allowed to wiretap their employees private communications even when they used company property to make those communications. Under your "they own it and can do whatever they want" interpretation it would be completely legal for your employer to disclose your private medical and financial information if you accessed it over their network, since (according to your hypothesis) they came by this information in a completely legal way. In fact, it would be completely legal for them to disclose every email, every phone call, every web request and response that you ever made.

    54. Re:Don't by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Surely the only way devices brought from home to get on via the school network would be through your proxy. If their on the phone network, you're screwed either way!

    55. Re:Don't by chrb · · Score: 1

      Part of the agreement signed by the employees every year is that nothing that goes over the network is private.

      And do you have a similar agreement signed by Google? There are many legal jurisdictions where lawful intercept requires the consent of both parties. The European Court has already upheld that employees have a right to privacy and the fact that communications are carried out at a work place does not void that right.

      Were it a legal problem, it would have already been tried long ago

      Most people are completely unaware. There are school educational authorities out there that intercept, decrypt and monitor the communications of thousands of people, including children (in many jurisdictions there are special laws that protect children from monitoring by their school), how many of those people release that this is going on? At some point, some employer is going to be monitoring his employees gmails and facebook messages, and he is going to use that information inappropriately, and then they will realise that this monitoring is going on and sue. But until it becomes an issue, nobody is going to bother.

    56. Re:Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At 16, you are legally not a child.

      Unless you want to take a picture of your bottom that is.

    57. Re:Don't by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Then they can provide unfiltered internet at home. Or, if they really have a compelling school usage, they can present their case to a teacher, who can then go to bat for them. I'm not a fan of censorship in general but this is more like just maintaining decorum in public. It's like the eternally nude people in SF: it bothers me not because I think that the human body is evil, but because it's someone who can't be bothered to make the most simple concessions to public decency and hygiene. Tanning your whole body in a quiet park is one thing; flying your junk like a flag as you roll down the street (or shop in a store!) is just being a jerk.

    58. Re:Don't by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Funny

      which is an obvious invasion of privacy

      I cannot imagine any actual important secret that I would entrust to an elementary or middle-school child's confidence, but if I really had one I wouldn't tell it to anyone over the phone. I'd announce that I was coming to pick them up, that there were some urgent family matters to deal with, and that they could not wait until school let out. Then I'd pick them up and tell them whatever it was so important to get a 13-year-old's opinion on right now.

    59. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Did they declare it to the bank or to google?

    60. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Take the bank example. The corporation doesn't want to claim they were as a corporate function accessing a bank account they aren't legally entitled to access. That the sort of thing that gets corporations hundreds of millions of dollar fines.

    61. Re:Don't by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      White list is not an idea, it's the only sane policy.

      The napkin design:
      - dhcp + caching bind + blacklist in hosts file,
      - firewall: policy DROP, 53 to your bind, 80,443 to web proxy, others as needed,
      - proxy: squid - caching and filtering,

      DHCP + BIND can also handle the name resolution of LAN machines. If configured correctly, squid is quite efficient in filtering / substitution of pages.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    62. Re:Don't by crashumbc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In addition or "better" make the parents give you a E-mail address where a monthly report of every high website the student visited will be mailed...

    63. Re:Don't by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Surely the only way devices brought from home to get on via the school network would be through your proxy. If their on the phone network, you're screwed either way!

      Correct, but if they are using https through your proxy it greatly limits what you can do without giving them a man in the middle warning every time they hit a site. If someone else provides a computer for me to use and says "by the way, we will intercept every https query you make", then that's fine - it's their computer and their network and I can take it or leave it. If someone says "install this certificate on your ipad/iphone/laptop/whatever" then i'm definitely not playing.

    64. Re:Don't by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Uh, that's pretty much been America for the last 30 years. Janet Jackson shows a boob on broadcast TV and half the country goes into hysterics, yet that same half of the country, statistically speaking, plops their kids down in front of WWE and let's them watch two grotesquely humongous men pretend to beat each other half to death and it's good, clean fun.

      Gotta love our sense of priorities.

    65. Re:Don't by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      Year after year I repeatedly refused to sign the "Internet Permission Slip" sent out with my children because the school put in a clause that they were not responsible for any inappropriate content that my children might see on the internet (primary age children). I refused to sign it because I knew that the school relied on the Birmingham City Council internet filter to prevent access to dodgy stuff rather than adequately supervising their computer use.

      I think they eventually gave up chasing me and just let the children online anyway in the end.

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    66. Re:Don't by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      show me where this has been done in real life.
      where this is the policy at a school.
      show me.

      It was unwritten rule in my school, when I was admin. It wasn't the policy, but I told the teachers what I was able to and showed chunks of the proxy-logs. All kids were minors and the teachers told them that, in case of angry parents and their children playing innocent, I could cough up the complete webhistory for at least a month.
      Never had complaints from parents, kids thought it a fair game and teachers knew to behave as well :)
      Transparency worked.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    67. Re:Don't by jasper160 · · Score: 1

      Deny all and allow as needed. Easier than going the other way. Make them put it writing why the need to go to iPr0n.xxx.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    68. Re:Don't by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the difference you mention is what allows CIPA to remain where the CDA and COPA were struck down: CDA and COPA required filtering, period. CIPA doesn't require it, it just makes it a condition of accepting money that most of the targets they are after almost always do, in practice, have to make use of.

      Roughly analogous to the technique by which the legal drinking age isn't strictly 21, unless you want highway funding or anything crazy like that...

    69. Re:Don't by Bastardchyld · · Score: 2

      That is totally dependent on where you are...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

      Oddly enough that Wikipedia Article shows only 6 countries that have age of adulthood at less than 18, and none of them are 16. In the US it is 18 except for Alabama (19), Nebraska (19), Mississippi (21), and Puerto Rico (21). Canada is about 50/50 between 18 and 19. The UK is 18. Most of Africa is 21. Japan 20.

      So your point is flatly incorrect.

      --
      $diff terrorists hippies
      $
      $rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
    70. Re:Don't by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Warning: NSFW (Abg Fhvgnoyr Sbe Jnax)

      Are you sure ? This is the internet you know... (snc snc snc...)

    71. Re:Don't by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I expect that your explanation is what would stand. I had a look at Google's TOS. It explicitly states that someone using Google from a business means that the business accepts the terms, so in that sense, the person is connecting as the business.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    72. Re:Don't by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That's in Europe, where employees have many more rights over communication within their employer's networks. In the US, the enterprise owns every bit that runs over the network provided, as someone else stated, that the employee has been warned. It's what the warning banners are all about.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    73. Re:Don't by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2

      What should pupils be allowed to see?

      They are actually holes in the iris, so they don't really "see" anything. It's the retina that... oh, I see...

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    74. Re:Don't by Pope · · Score: 1

      Really? - What if a parent needs to contact a student?

      The old method of calling the administration office and have them page the student is both costly, disruptive to both class and administration, and often involves the student talking while standing right next to an administration employee, which is an obvious invasion of privacy.

      Holy fucking balls. How did the world survive before the invention of cell phones? /me rolls eyes

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    75. Re:Don't by v1 · · Score: 1

      Just block it all together. Not worth it.

      Agreed. School is not an appropriate time to be using social media. It's no different than barring students from using their cell phones while at school. Same goes for twitter, myspace, etc. Any social media site that shows its taking students' attention away from the learning process should be blocked completely, immediately.

      From personal experience, you WILL occasionally run into "Timmy uploaded a video to xyz and needs it for his presentation, unblock xyz". Make it clear that's not how it works. Make flash drives available in the library for student check-out so they can bring in things they need for their presentations. Distribute a guideline sheet to the staff with information for them and to give to their students, outlining the blocked sites policy and the proper procedure for bringing in media for classwork as well as presentations. Make no exceptions or you will be setting a torturous precedence. Get the superintendent to sign off on the written policy so it's clear there is no higher authority to appeal to. In our case we went so far as to get the staff to physically sign off on the sheet to make sure there was no plausible ignorance of the rules.

      We still had a collective heart failure when we blocked youtube. You'd have thought the world had come to an end. It took about three weeks for the students AND staff to figure out they could live without youtube at school. There's just NO effective way to filter content on things like that. We still had occasional incidents where students had videos on youtube they neglected to obtain for their presentations. It's no different than if you forget to bring some other physical media. Either postpone the presentation until tomorrow, go home and get it, or go without. Just because it's online is no excuse to suspend the rules. Do NOT have a computer or two that is exempt from the filtering so they can request you download it if they forgot it, that's a crutch you will seriously regret having given them. Make it clear that the policy applies to ALL computers, ALL the time.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    76. Re:Don't by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      If you mean searching the library of congress or a school library, then use. If you mean searching the internet, then no.

    77. Re:Don't by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      In middle school I managed get access to the windows (well, DOS) Debug utility. That let me crash the lockdown program, which let me change the proxy server, which let me run a proxy on my home computer and get unrestricted access to the internet.

      Of course the password to the lockdown utility was the name of the school sports team, so it wasn't really necessary to go through the effort of doing it the fun way, but it was fun.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    78. Re:Don't by SessionExpired · · Score: 1

      internet access should be treated the same way as it would be by a "good" parent - supervise them whilst they're using it.

      This works OK in class, but what about recess? When the parent takes a break?

      I teach at a high school ("gymnasium") in Denmark, and we don't monitor kids during recess. They are free to use their laptop or tablet as they like. Some even use it to do homework. We use negative site filters and block most ports.

      It wouldn't make sense to turn off internet access during recess, since we often drop one break to end the module (?, 2x45 mins lessons) earlier. And if we did, the kids would use 3G or LTE, without any control.

      --
      You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
    79. Re:Don't by Xest · · Score: 1

      Then simply trust the kids.

      It's pretty clear cut - you either trust them, in which case leave them to get on with it, or you don't. in which case, supervise them.

      You pointed out yourself that if you turn off access the kids will just use 3G, so the point is that if they want access to content you don't want them to access it's tough shit, they'll access it anyway.

      Even if the kids know that a teacher may walk in, or that they may be monitoring net access is enough to scare most kids into behaving, but if you don't want to actually supervise or monitor them then the solutions really do boil down to either just turn it off, or let them access it and trust them to behave, or simply don't care if they don't behave- there's still no real evidence that kids accessing say, porn, causes any actual harm anyway.

    80. Re:Don't by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      In addition the Federal Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that filters be installed. Also, state law may require filters as well depending on your state. See this for starters.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    81. Re:Don't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      So instead of teaching students that their Internet access will be censored, we can teach the students that their Internet access will be monitored?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    82. Re:Don't by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      unless you want your kids to grow up as future Slashdot users

      Based on the level of discussion typical here? God forbid!!! I'm taking your advice and locking my daughter in her room.

    83. Re:Don't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I guess the person asking the question didn't specify, but I was under the assumption that this was for an elementary level type school....so, you're policing children, and you'd likely start with things mostly turned off, and then let on what you needed as required by the instructors.

      So at the most impressionable age, we'll train kids to think that censorship is the norm and that people in authority should control what they get to read and do online? Interesting approach to education.

      If these kids are "too young" for things on the web, why are they being given Internet access by the school? Do you really think the most creative and clever students won't find a way to defeat the firewall? Do you think that they will keep it secret from their friends? What do the teachers actually need on the Internet that cannot be mirrored by the school itself?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    84. Re:Don't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      High school is not college. College students are adults fully responsible for their own behavior. High school students are legally children, and giving them access to things their parents don't approve of is not only going to cause administrative problems, but may even be illegal in some cases.

      Then do not give them Internet access at all; your cute little firewall is not going to stop high school students. Ten years ago, my friends and I all found ways to defeat the school's firewall: some used SSH, some used open proxies, and I discovered that by manually setting my computer's IP address so that it was in the block used for teachers' machines, the firewall would not stop me. In the past decade, there has been a proliferation of tools that can be used to defeat firewalls, and teenagers know what they are and where to get them.

      There is a broader problem than futility here, however: we are training K-12 students to think that censorship is something that should be expected. If you grew up with Internet filtering in school, why oppose national filtering? I wonder what teachers talking about China say about the Great Firewall, or how they answer the clever students who say, "But there is a firewall here in our government-run school!"

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    85. Re:Don't by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      So now what do you do with the student who belongs to the studentID that was recorded browsing federally illegal material even though the student was home sick that day?
      Because students NEVER leak their username and passwords to anyone.

    86. Re:Don't by SessionExpired · · Score: 1

      trust them to behave, or simply don't care if they don't behave- there's still no real evidence that kids accessing say, porn, causes any actual harm anyway.

      That is how it works in reality. All other "solutions" would be worse. I can remember exactly one episode from the last couple of years.

      --
      You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
    87. Re:Don't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of censorship in general but this is more like just maintaining decorum in public

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_firewall_of_china

      They are not fans of censorship either, they just want to maintain decorum in their country (yes, pornography is blocked) and ensure that people don't start rioting.

      Really though, that argument is suspect whether or not the Chinese try it when it comes to their own firewall. What does blocking sites about hacking have to do with decorum? Yes, that sort of thing is not unheard of: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/27/0436224/ask-slashdot-dealing-with-university-firewalls

      The very question Slashdot was asked has nothing to do with decorum either: Facebook is already policed for pornography by their own employees.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    88. Re:Don't by Vokkyt · · Score: 1

      Maybe this works differently at lower level education, but a Dean in a university setting alone isn't enough to demand specific access rights that go against the agreed upon policy. For the Universities I've done IT for, typically the technology committee has either the Provost themselves or the assistant to the provost sit in on policy meetings which are finalized by the head of IT, the Provost, and select other special interest members who are involved in policy making. While a Dean could certainly raise enough fuss to have the committee to convene, they alone would not be enough to actually move the committee to action.

      (Usually) The stereotypical "loud" administrative person doesn't really have much clout in the real world, especially with legal policy. Ultimately, it comes down the what the lawyhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/16/2229233/ask-slashdot-how-to-best-setup-a-school-internet-filter#ers say, and if the lawyers fear action, they will almost inevitably side with the perceived safest outcome.

    89. Re:Don't by heracross · · Score: 1

      the problem with this is that most websites have tons of embedded content and links/images from other sites, so if you just whitelist one domain the domains it links to (some of which might also be owned by that company, and some not) will be blocked and the content might look malformed use opendns, and if its a school machine you can lock down dns with admin rights and secure wireless connection. If you give the wireless key openly though or allowed users to connect using their own devices, then there is not much you can do - you can work around any network level protection out there

    90. Re:Don't by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      If you cannot distinguish between a national government that actively blocks adult attempts to access the internet on connections they pay for themselves, and an elementary or middle-school administration blocking children from it while at school on the school's connection, then I suppose there's really no point in trying to discuss the matter.

    91. Re:Don't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Schools education children; that is not limited to what teachers say. You are talking about putting children in an environment where their Internet use is being censored by people in positions of authority (and in most cases, who work for the government), and where daring to circumvent those restrictions results in punishment. You are also talking about restrictions on things that have nothing to do with "protecting" those children from pornography -- Facebook/etc., and some have even suggested whitelisting sites that have some approved academic purpose.

      Not only that, but elementary and middle school kids have absolutely no choice about whether or not to go to school. If they do not go, they are punished by some authority. It is also common for students to be required to use computers and required to connect to the Internet, or risk punishment (low grades, etc.).

      School censorship is a form of education, just like all other aspects of school policy, from the structure of classes to the architecture and interior of a school building. Making pervasive monitoring and censorship a standard thing in schools teaches students that pervasive monitoring and censorship are something they should expect, and that no amount of protest or complaint will change that.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    92. Re:Don't by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They don't have to declare it to Google, because it's not wiretapping.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    93. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sure they are. Google is engaging in an SSH session which creates an expectation of privacy. Same with the bank, communicating via. SSH.

    94. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Really? - What if a parent needs to contact a student?

      It's similar to the situation where a spouse needs to contact their wife/husband who is in a meeting with a client.

      They have two options. (1) It's not really an emergency worth disrupting lessons or the class meeting -- the parent has to wait until the student gets out of class.

      (2) It's an emergency, and they send someone to get the student out of class, to discuss.

      Confiscation is an epic Bad Idea (tm) which makes the school liable both for damages relating to missed calls and for the cost of a new phone.

      Nope. The school has the discretion to remove items from their students' possession when possession of the item is a safety issue or when possession of the item violates school policy, the law, or in the opinion of the administration, the item needs to be taken from the student, and this is not theft, as long as the school does not take the possession for their own.

      This would be because while the student is on the premises, they are under the care of the school. The school has rights and duties, while the child is under their care, and can compel the child to surrender any article under the child's possession.

      If the item presents a safety hazard, the school is then free to dispose of the item if necessary; otherwise, they would need to document who the item belongs to, and follow the policy the parents had agreed to, which probably involves contacting the parent, to inform them of what they are holding, and that the student must not bring this to school in the future.

      Should the item come back to school and be taken again, the school would follow their ordinary disciplinary policies again, which might include suspension of the student, permanent removal, or legal action against the parents. But most likely the parents will get tired of having to repeatedly come back to the school to pick up the cell phone, and the school might have a policy of a periodic search of students' persons who had committed a certain number of offenses.

      which is an obvious invasion of privacy.

      The matter of privacy is within the school's discretion according to their policies. As long as the school has physical custody of the student, the school has full authority over all privacy matters, specifically because the child is in the school's care, the staff of the school have parental rights (and duties), until the parent sends someone to come and get the kid. The parent should not bring up private details when talking on the phone with their child while the child is under someone else's care; the same goes when talking on a cell phone by the way in general, or sending a text message to someone in a public place, you cannot safely rely on the conversation being private.

      disruptive to both class and administration, and often involves the student talking while standing right next to an administration employee,

      In case of emergency, it is worth taking a one-time disruption of the class to summon the one student out of the room. This will be much less of a disruption and much less frequent and severe than the disruptions and other issues that are caused by students with cell phones in classrooms who frequently abuse the phone whenever they can get away with it.

      The correct way to do it is to allow cell phones set to a silent ring, and ban from making outgoing calls and texts during school hours

      No. That's not a solution, because it doesn't address important issue s-- the cell phones, esp. sophisticated ones present too much a distraction in class, they can be used to "pass notes" (SMS); cheat; make contacts that are unwanted and unauthorized (by the parents), and possibly illicit (criminal); access Facebook, and other sites that have nothing to do with class. They can also bring unsafe content in the classroom, or invade other students' privacy by capturing pictures or video. Functions cell phones have are too much of a temptation and a distraction to both the student with the phone, and others in class.

    95. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      What a ridiculous rule. Back when I went to school you weren't allowed to use a cell phone *during* class, but were free to have one with you

      Well, one of the reasons they're commonly not allowed is -- many local governments have banned cell phones on school premises, because if a perception that students were using them to make drug deals.

      What is the point of banning cell phones in situations where they are not disruptive?

      They can be used to cheat. Sometimes students use them to text. There are arguments/disagreements about what counts as "disruptive" and what counts as "OK" use.

      Banning them from the classroom settles the matter -- if a student is caught with one, and puts it away real quick, it cannot later be argued that their use was nondisruptive, therefore the confiscator was in the wrong.

      The ban against possession ensures that the staff who catch the student using one can act appropriately without worry of unjustified complaints from the parents.

      I don't think they're in general searching students specifically for phones; although schools will on occasion search random students' packs or lockers for contraband such as controlled substances, cigarettes, alcohol, or weapons, the student has no right to possess, and cell phones would be included in that.

    96. Re:Don't by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, because they're talking to infrastructure owned by a company, and that company has in place an agreement with their employees that all traffic across their environment will be monitored whether for compliance or legal reasons, so therefore no wiretapping is occurring.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    97. Re:Don't by mysidia · · Score: 1

      [snip] For the Universities I've done IT for, typically the technology committee has either the Provost themselves or the assistant to the provost sit in on policy meetings which are finalized by the head of IT

      As a University IT worker, it would be the head of IT, or someone with authority over the IT department, who could demand that you exclude their host from the filter, or fire you, and replace you with someone who takes orders properly.....

    98. Re:Don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You know when you get telemarketing calls and they let you know the call may be recorded for customer service... The phones they are talking on are owned by a company they still have to inform you because both parties have to consent to a wiretap.

      I'm not sure where you get this idea that one party can agree to a wiretap. And a 3rd party agreement is even weaker. If the employee says "no I didn't consent" a blanket consent doesn't hold up.

    99. Re:Don't by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, I don't know, because telemarketing companies don't do that.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  2. opendns by twistedcubic · · Score: 1, Informative

    OpenDNS has parental control addresses, so it's a start.

    1. Re:opendns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      OpenDNS is a huge scam - right up there with all the other Bait & Switch slime.

      It used to be free, our public library used them to filter porn so that they met the basic filtering requirements in order to get Federal grant money.

      Then OpenDNS said no more free filtering - all right, everyone needs to make a buck or two right?

      So how much for 50 workstations - $1250/year (and that's with a non-profit discount) - for DNS service.

      Yeah, going from free to outrageous isn't exactly a viable business plan.

      DynDNS offers pretty much the same thing (i.e. category filtering) for $20/year - guess which plan the Library went with?

    2. Re:opendns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're god-damn right it was a scam. The main part of OpenDNS that pissed me off was their filters were created and filled BY THE USERS. And now they're charging for something they got for free. We thought it was going to be a symbiotic relationship but it ended up being a parasite.

      How much for a business with 200-220 PCs? $3000 a year.

    3. Re:opendns by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      The only way OpenDNS works is by setting the DNS. So couldn't people just reset their DNS to something else?

      Or, if you're going to rely on Group Policy to prevent that, then

      Couldn't they just find out the numerical address (at home) and type that in (for various sites)?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:opendns by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just find out the numerical address (at home) and type that in (for various sites)?

      It won't work for many sites that are hosted on name-based vhost servers; when the browser doesn't supply a valid hostname for the site to display in the Host: header, an error page, or something other than the desired site, is shown.

      You can enforce using opendns by forcing all traffic on your LAN to go through a proxy server. Implement DNS lookups on the proxy server, and deny accessing sites by IP address.

    5. Re:opendns by ruvreve · · Score: 1

      I haven't said anything good about Symantec in awhile, but Norton DNS provides this free for home AND commercial use.

      Two limitations, it only has 3 levels of filtering to choose from and no whitelist options that I'm aware of...

      Levels include:
      1) Spyware
      2) Spyware + Porn
      3) Spyware + Porn + File Sharing

      Just need to use their DNS servers. There are obviously ways to circumvent the filtering, but those individuals will at least be learning other (valuable?) skills if they learn how.

    6. Re:opendns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is an OK free service from Norton. https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/homePage.do

      It's free, quite limited compared to opendns, but it's free and simple.

      Jason.

  3. Don't by infogulch · · Score: 2

    Just don't set up a filter. Done!

  4. Don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are obviously going to ignore this so don't forget to burn the books in the library on your way out.

  5. Who decides what's "inappropriate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My mother was a porn star. There's not much that I wouldn't want her to see.

    Slippery slope, my man.

    1. Re:Who decides what's "inappropriate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool, I thought I saw your Mom in "Slippery Slope - Volume III"

    2. Re:Who decides what's "inappropriate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Slope
      that's racist. my mom isn't asian.

    3. Re:Who decides what's "inappropriate" by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      No, that slope was some kind of huge inflatable mattress.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  6. lulz. good luck by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    There is a lot of great content and features on Facebook, and its a great way to stay in contact with friends, but there is also a potentially dark side. Along with inappropriate content, there is a tendency to share more information than should be shared, and not everyone follows proper security and privacy guidelines. What's the best way to setup campus-wide security/privacy policies for Facebook?"

    In a word, don't. Unlike adults, teenagers won't have any qualms about bypassing your filtering. They'll use proxies. Tor. Thumb drives with other operating systems on it. Mobile phones. Secret non-broadcasting wifi networks. No filtering software yet designed has survived more than a few months in a public school without leaving the server running it as little more than a smouldering carbon scorch mark on the floor.

    If this were a corporate environment, you could count on the fear and paranoia of being fired. You have no such power over teenagers... and many of them would do it even if you threatened them with life in the electric chair, because teenagers do not have good judgement. Even if you ask them "Is that a good idea," and they reply, "No," they'll probably keep doing it. And if you ask them why, they'll give you about as good of an answer as randomly seeking to some point in addressable memory and reading out whatever strings may or may not be present.

    My advice... turn off the internet, lock the systems down, bolt them to the tables, put epoxy in all the USB ports, remove the optical drives, put everything behind plexiglass (little fingerholes for the keyboards), load up your operating system of choice and lock it down as much as you can, and then maybe, just maybe... you have a chance.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:lulz. good luck by LateArthurDent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a word, don't. Unlike adults, teenagers won't have any qualms about bypassing your filtering. They'll use proxies. Tor. Thumb drives with other operating systems on it. Mobile phones. Secret non-broadcasting wifi networks.

      Honestly, that's almost a good argument for implementing filtering. It challenges bright people to come up with clever solutions. Then they'll grow up with an interest in computers and networking, as well as a healthy distaste for censorship.

    2. Re:lulz. good luck by clockwise_music · · Score: 2

      I disagree.

      It is the original poster's intention to block inappropriate content. It is probably his duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that porn.com is blocked. If people want to go out of their way to deliberably bypass filtering then they can do that if they wish - but at least now they know that they shouldn't, and they should be held responsible for that.

    3. Re:lulz. good luck by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Honestly, that's almost a good argument for implementing filtering. It challenges bright people to come up with clever solutions. Then they'll grow up with an interest in computers and networking, as well as a healthy distaste for censorship.

      Most people aren't bright, and for every person it fosters a love of exploration and challenge, it'll create fifty more who view it as normal and try to club the other kid over the head for trying to get them all into trouble. The best solution is not to censor at all, and to simply be open to the kids about what's okay and what's not, and why, and if they have questions to have role models they can talk to about it that won't judge them for being curious or looking. Telling a kid not to do something just makes them want it more.

      My mom tried for years to get my sister to wear mittens and hats when it was cold out (this is Minnesota, where winters can and do kill people very year). She'd never let her go outside without them, and was generally overbearing on the matter. Then she went on vacation for a few weeks in January and little sister asked to go for a walk. I saw how she was dressed -- no hat, no gloves, and asked if she thought she was dressed appropriately. She said yes. I opened the door. 10 minutes into our walk, she started complaining about how cold she was. I kept walking. She whined and said she wanted to go home. I kept walking, reminding her she said she was dressed appropriately and I was going to hold her to that. Another 10 minutes goes by and now she's shivering, stuffing her fingers in her sleeves, her pockets, finally pulling her arms out of the jacket entirely so her hands could stay out of the cold. Her nose and ears were red, and she looked miserable. Another 10 minutes goes by and she's stopped whining now and limping along miserably. We get back in the house, and she doesn't take off the jacket or anything, just goes to her room, pulls the blanket over her head, and remains miserable. About 5 minutes later I came in and took her shoes and socks off (which had become wet), put dry ones on, and put an electric blanket on her feet to warm them back up. She was fine after that.

      She's never left the house without a hat or gloves since. Lesson learned.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:lulz. good luck by rastilin · · Score: 1

      That's a fun story, but you completely missed the point. Of course if you make all the decisions for people they'll never learn, but the flipside to that isn't to make them suffer for your crappy teaching methods.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    5. Re:lulz. good luck by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It is the original poster's intention to block inappropriate content. It is probably his duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that porn.com is blocked. If people want to go out of their way to deliberably bypass filtering then they can do that if they wish - but at least now they know that they shouldn't, and they should be held responsible for that.

      Have you heard or seen the things teens pass to each other on a regular basis? I caught a teen sending an animated GIF of a man screwing a disembowelled cadaver -- The tip of his penis visible as it poked through into the exposed abdominal cavity... Another teen sent a series of pics of a woman having the skin of her arm ripped off, all of it. They looked real enough that if it were fake, it wouldn't really matter.

      Have you seen prime time TV? CSI has CGI of bullets or spikes and what not fully penetrating live individuals. I would just not implement the filter, it's fucking pointless. If they forced my hand I'd point out that censorship of any kind is evil and against my religion. Your move.

    6. Re:lulz. good luck by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Most people aren't bright, and for every person it fosters a love of exploration and challenge, it'll create fifty more who view it as normal and try to club the other kid over the head for trying to get them all into trouble.

      It was my experience that the other students asked the smart one for copies of his "magic USB drive". Expecting students to police each other is NOT a good game plan!

    7. Re:lulz. good luck by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the flipside to that isn't to make them suffer for your crappy teaching methods

      You've missed the point.

      Making the kid suffer would be to say something like "so you think its ok, right? Now I'm going to force you outside and force you to suffer".

      What the GP did was to allow the kid to teach herself. She let the kid make the decision that the kid wanted to, and see what consequences that led to.

      It's actually a really good teaching method: let the kid learn and explore, but be there in the background to make sure that they don't accidently kill themselves or suffer permenant injury.

      No lesson sticks quite as well as one hard learned onesself.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:lulz. good luck by r33per · · Score: 1

      turn off the internet, lock the systems down, bolt them to the tables, put epoxy in all the USB ports, remove the optical drives, put everything behind plexiglass (little fingerholes for the keyboards), load up your operating system of choice and lock it down as much as you can

      In Communist Russia, this did not present problem.

    9. Re:lulz. good luck by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      And have you talked to the parents who demand that their child not be able to view such things? Seriously you're an idiot. Schools and parents make it a policy to monitor and restrict which kids see. It does not matter if they can find ways to by-pass or have other avenues of access. Schools are going to restrict access. That's how it works.

    10. Re:lulz. good luck by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Unlike adults, teenagers won't have any qualms about bypassing your filtering

      Unlike adults? There are many Chinese and Iranian adults who would disagree with you.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    11. Re:lulz. good luck by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      No lesson sticks quite as well as one hard learned onesself.

      Exactly. And you, at least, have decent parenting instincts. You pick and choose your battles with kids. I'll put my foot down when one of them wants to go play kickball on a busy side street, but if they want to play in the back yard and I tell them to put on sunscreen and they tell me they don't need it... I'm okay with letting them cook a little and let them be miserable for a few days after.

      You can't always expect children to do what you tell them to. Your job isn't to protect them from every bad thing in the world -- your job is to make sure they make it to adulthood without dying or getting seriously hurt. Broken bones, stubbed toes, bruises, bad haircuts, and pictures of them in absolutely horrid (but self-inflicted) clothing is not something you can prevent. All you can do is pick them back up, put them on their feet, and tell them, "Next time, don't do that."

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. Re:Just don't allow it at all by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Additionally, I would like to know what "great content" exists on Facebook anyway. "Person X has posted a photo." "Person Y likes Person X's photo!" Yeah, that's some great content there.

    Really, just block the whole site completely. Any valid educational content that might possibly maybe be found on there can also be found elsewhere in greater amounts.

    --
    Love sees no species.
  8. Panopticon by Megane · · Score: 1

    The best way to filter is to make sure that their screens are easily visible to passers-by. Kind of hard to watch porn when your screen is set up nice and high where everyone can see it.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:Panopticon by arth1 · · Score: 1

      There was this kid at our school who always used the PC at the end of the room, reduced the contrast of his screen and tilted it away from the main viewing area of the room. He was suspicious as hell.

      And the only one of them I would consider hiring.

  9. Good Kids by dark+grep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many years ago I connected an Internet feed for a private girls school - a very conservative, christian, and very well respected one - in Sydney. During the setup I was talking to the Headmistress about if she had any concerns regarding the content the girls might access. I thought her response was particularly enlightened; her comment was something like 'Whatever you try to restrict will make them want to access it more, which they will do secretly and unguided. If we don't make any restrictions then it will never be a big deal, and anything they feel uncomfortable about they can discuss with their teacher. Good kids will know to do the right thing, and all our girls are good.'

    If I had a daughter, I probably would have sent her to that school.

    1. Re:Good Kids by tibit · · Score: 2

      The nun is partly right, partly wrong. Yes, restrictions will exacerbate the problem. No restrictions, though, won't make the problem magically go away either. I mean, there *is* a problem to begin with -- that they'll run into porn, or whatever else passes for inappropriate content. Porn-wise, I think that kids who are raised in a home where nudity is no big deal will react appropriately: shrug it off, saying "so what, haven't you seen a naked guy/girl?!". Sex isn't exactly a visually engaging thing if you don't pay much attention to nudity to begin with. Up to a certain age, at least, I'd think. In homes where privates were verboten to see except by yourself in the mirror -- oh well, those will be the problem kids. There's no way to ensure, much less be sure of, "all our girls [being] good".

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:Good Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what fucking planet was she from ?

    3. Re:Good Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I had a daughter, I probably would have sent her to that school.

      If I had a son, I'd have sent him to that school. He can thank me later.

    4. Re:Good Kids by cshirky · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that there's not a psychologist in the world that would agree with this assessment. People aren't 'good' or 'bad' like there some global variable that's been set. Behavior varies by circumstance; many of those girls who were 'good' in circumstances where they were being observed were doubtless 'bad' when they were alone, or only with peers.

      It only takes one "Two Girls One Cup" to upset someone, especially a child, and the blithe assumption that 'Good kids will know to do the right thing, and all our girls are good' sounds like a flavor of the No true Scotsman... fallacy, and one that allows her to equate "No one has come to me" with "There is no problem here."

    5. Re:Good Kids by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I trust they also dispensed with that whole abstinence thing too, then?

    6. Re:Good Kids by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      "Good kids will know to do the right thing, and all our girls are good"

      And she is supremely naive.

    7. Re:Good Kids by DaveGod · · Score: 2

      Internet filters aren't about protecting children, they are about protecting the school from their parents.

  10. Simple by blackcoot · · Score: 1

    Until someone offers your boss a compelling case demonstrating the educational value of access to Facebook, you block all of it. The purpose of the computers is to be an aid to the school's educational mission.

  11. Don't waste time and money on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This not only the wrong message to children, it's also impossible to outsmart a teen who wants to get on facebook.

    1. Re:Don't waste time and money on it. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL - really....

    2. Re:Don't waste time and money on it. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      This not only the wrong message to children, it's also impossible to outsmart a teen who wants to get on facebook.

      That's what I thought. You might be able to filter the porn and keep them from going there. But once you filter Facebook, a lot more kids are going to figure out how to get around the filters.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  12. Untangle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Untangle is a free, linux based web appliance. Its basic functions are free, but there are subscriptions you can buy to enhance certain areas. Put it on a machine with plenty of CPU and Ram, with 2 nics, and you got a bang up free web filter. I use it at a school of 1000+ students and teachers on an old HP DL3800 G3, and it runs the 20meg line just fine, not too much overhead.

  13. You can't even trust Facebook the company... by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 2

    Given the utterly dismal record of Facebook the company when it comes to the privacy of its users, I wouldn't bother allowing access. Not only do you have your users to worry about, you have external Facebook users and Facebook itself - that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Aren't we due for a reset of our privacy settings to 'Everything shared with everyone' any day now?

    --
    I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    1. Re:You can't even trust Facebook the company... by tibit · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I don't see the value of Facebook on student-accessible computers. As for the teachers, they should have access to everything. Anything else would be stupid. It's an education of learning, you can't a priori decide that some things have no educational value. Besides, why on earth ban Facebook use during teacher's off time. I mean, give me a break, you already provide teachers with a lounge, perhaps a cafeteria, etc. Barring recreational internet access on school grounds makes no sense to me at all.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  14. The real question - how do you filter lunch? by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is a lot of great content and features in homemade lunches, and they are a great way to stay in contact with friends and enjoy eating, but there is also a potentially dark side. Along with inappropriate content, there is a tendency to share more than should be shared, and not everyone follows proper nutritional and safety guidelines.

    The solution is obvious: open a cafeteria on the premises and make it illegal to bring any outside food. This way total control over food quality and nutritional content can be achieved. Additionally, making the cafeteria highly visible uses public shame and humiliation to limit inappropriate activity, such as enjoying food.

    1. Re:The real question - how do you filter lunch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know you're kidding, but that happened at my private Catholic high school. They even banned money from the school, so every student had to manage a non-refundable pre-paid meal account. I always felt that it was kind of a backlash against the cases of snacks and instant meals I'd purchase from the local warehouse club and resale during the break, which besides exemplifying the principles of leadership and competition landed me in the upper school administration office more than once. They told me it was cutting into their profits, so I told them to start charging to use the microwaves. Instead of thanking me for the free advice or negotiating for a cut of what I made, I just got detention. How that was supposed to foster esteem and cultivate my desire to perform as a responsible rising member of society, I don't know, but I think it was at least worth it to make that weird monk get so angry he cried.

      Education and intellect are devilish things and should culled from student populations however possible, be it by under-stocking the library, censoring the web, refusing to fund non-athletic clubs, or otherwise vastly undermining human potential by treating the people you're supposed to be preparing for a life of excellence like irresponsible kids.

      Unresolved issues? I don't know what you mean.

  15. If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... then your school should be teaching kids how to use the Internet safely. There just isn't any technology that will protect your kids from everything they might do wrong.

    I suppose you have to block sites that would offend parents (though the kids probably know all about them) but relying on filtering software to keep your kids safe is abdicating the school's responsibility

    1. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      ... then your school should be teaching kids how to use the Internet safely. There just isn't any technology that will protect your kids from everything they might do wrong.

      I suppose you have to block sites that would offend parents (though the kids probably know all about them) but relying on filtering software to keep your kids safe is abdicating the school's responsibility

      Kids aren't responsible enough for that. It makes sense to set up filters at home, and asking the school to do the same.

    2. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe trying to protect the kids is out of the schools' scope of responsibility, but what about protecting the schools' computers from malware?

    3. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by fermion · · Score: 1
      yes teach kids tomuse internet, but we do not teach kids to ride ambike on the freeway.

      Critical information missing. What is the age of the kids, or are these young adults, and what do you want to accomplish by filtering.

      If these are kids, say under 13, I think whitelists are absolutely appropriate. They are the only way to block proxy and https workarounds

      For older students ad blocking is basic, along with whatever policy states, be it violence, sex, shopping or hookups. Keep in mind that more most students these restrictions are more to cover the schools liability than to actually keep kids off these sites. Most wil have smart phones, and increasingly these smart phones tether. That is why education is so important. You can't keep a 13 year old girl from trying to get a date with an older guy who has a car and cash. You can only educate

      For young adults don't even waste the time. Give them a workload that does not allow time to play and provide consequences for those who do not finish.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by fm6 · · Score: 2

      I never said he shouldn't put up a filter. But he wants a filter that protects kids from doing stupid stuff, and there's no such thing.

    5. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the clarification.
      Combining filtering and education makes sense.

    6. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      but relying on filtering software to keep your kids safe is abdicating the school's responsibility

      The school may have idiotic political riders attached to its State/Federal funding grants. Or it may have been required by idiotic governing bodies. Or the idiot dean believes it's necessary to protect the school. In any of those cases, a low-paid, barely trained, this-isn't-my-job-I-just-got-roped-in, school IT manager is not in a position to override those requirements.

      ... then your school should be teaching kids how to use the Internet safely.

      They should do this anyway. And not just kids, staff too. Especially staff.

      Hmmm, perhaps as a motivating factor, graded access. Lowest level is white-list-only, available to anyone. Those who've done the half-hour "school internet policy" session get all-but-black-list access, and all access logged. Staff and students who do a higher-level extracurricular class get unfiltered access, but still logged. The most skilled dozen students in the school also get recruited to help the IT manager with low-level admin duties. The most skilled dozen staff members are used to maintain the filters, police the usage logs, etc, and perhaps sit on an IT policy advisory committee (which serves as an IT-aware buffer against the IT-ignorant dean/school-board.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    7. Re:If unsafe use of the internet is a concern... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      They have to have filtering software, of course. I never said they didn't. But filtering software is good for little more than hiding offensive content. This guy wants to protect students from their own mistakes, and there's no software that can do that.

  16. Employ a teacher! by multiben · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't bother with the filters, stick all the computers in a supervised area and kick out any students who break the rules. Speaking as someone who is personally sick to death of being managed by dumb computer programs (time management and performance evaluating software), why not have a responsible adult present to help guide the students? An old fashioned notion I know, but they are at school after all.

    1. Re:Employ a teacher! by multiben · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't the teachers be responsible? Because the children are hard to control? It's a school for crying out loud. And it's not a problem that will be solved by installing filtering software which will need to be constantly maintained and re-configured to thwart the continuing efforts of students to get around it.

    2. Re:Employ a teacher! by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      I setup a network for a school a long time ago (1997). We filtered nothing, but here's how the network worked.

      Each student had a NIS login and a NFS homedir. All web traffic went through a squid proxy. All of the desktop PCs were Linux (RH 4 or 5 at the time, I forget)

      Basically we had a reasonably good way to do two things:
      * Know which students were on which computers at what time.
      * Know exactly what sites they were hitting.
      * We loudly and repeatedly reminded the students that they were monitored.

      Of course this was not a foolproof solution, but it was good enough to keep the students in line. If someone at that school was smart enough to get around the proxy, they probably earned the right to do so. We had no problems with that school. We even put the "troublemaker/hacker" kids to work keeping the crappy PCs up and running instead of doing stupid shit like ban them from computers. They took pride in the responsibility.

  17. Can't by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't partially-filter Facebook, not in any meaningful or effective way. If you try, you'll fail. Either users have access to it, or they do not.

    And for a school (assuming K-12), the hypothetical benefits are massively outweighed by the problems. Not just the content-filtering ones, but the waste-of-resources and distraction-from-task kind. Give kids easy access to Facebook at school, and your computer lab will become a Facebook lab. It serves no educational purpose, and just like the Gameboys, Walkmans, transistor radios, whatever toys earlier kids tried to play with at school that distracted from what they were there for, it's perfectly appropriate to say "not at school".

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  18. Re:Just don't allow it at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Additionally, I would like to know what "great content" exists on Facebook anyway.

    Class groups and study session events.

  19. Dogbert, the network administrator by linebackn · · Score: 4, Funny
  20. *Raises hand* Oh, oh... I know! by macraig · · Score: 1

    Use the hosts file!

  21. Worry about bandwidth, not content. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Worry about bandwidth, not content. Find some way to throttle video streams based on bandwidth. That will discourage watching porno and videos, and keep the upstream link from becoming choked.

    1. Re:Worry about bandwidth, not content. by haffy · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your assumption that video==!educational.
      There are lots of educational videos online. In Denmark we even have the public libraries offering a special section of their online video libary designed for use by schools.

      Generally, there are two separate reasons for blocking content:
      1. Policy. You block access to inappropriate content for "political" reasons. In this context, "political" means corporate policy, parents, politicians or someone else in charge dictates which content is inappropriate.
      2. Bandwidth. You block access to some content, hoping to solve bandwidth issues. This rarely works. Instead of blocking some content, you should ensure that all people have access to a fair share of the bandwidth, by User Load Balancing(TM) or similar. Besides, company policies should be dictated by company management, not by the IT department.

      The original poster is clearly in the Policy reason for blocking content. I wouldn't recommend bandwidth throttling if that is not the issue.

      And as ericartman writes in his post below, at any school the kids are bright enough to find a way around the filter (or ask the one kid who was bright enough to find the way around the filter).

  22. Let the parents deal with it by trentfoley · · Score: 1

    Make each student install a proxy on their parents' internet connection and give the student access to the proxy from school. All other internet access is blocked. If the parents will not allow the proxy, the student will not have internet access at school.

    I'm only half joking

  23. It's a race... by sillivalley · · Score: 2

    And it's a race you will lose, should you choose to enter.

    But if you really want to play -- take a look at Untangle (http://www.untangle.com) for a Linux-based appliance (free versions available) that will do other things such as spam filtering, basic AV, and more. Paid modules (inexpensive) let you add web caching, which cuts down on traffic, especially when you have a bunch of kids in a computer lab accessing the same web resources. So you can solve the problem for the hard-connected machines that are fairly well locked down individually.

    But in the end, it's a pain in the ass. My wife is a middle school teacher, and she complained about their school's filtering "solution" keeping her from researching and accessing useful sites until my son reconfigured her laptop to use a proxy that he and some friends run so that they can get around school filtering solutions...

    Set expectations early and often -- you will be able to block most of the kids (and adults). Some will always get around the barriers you put in place, often just for the sport of it.

    Unless you set expectations, you will successfully block things for 598 students -- 2 will get through and you will be castigated as a FAILURE.

    Still want to play the game?

  24. You have people to please... by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Your bosses and the parents of your students, whose desires are expressed to your bosses.

    Ensure you don't own the decision.

    The purpose of filtering is to demonstrate you have filtering.

    After your bosses define what they want, give it to them as best you are able but get it in writing (spieling that it protects everyone to do it that way). Have a written AUP, etc.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  25. They shouldnt have facebook accounts by headhot · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm assuming its not a university or a college. If thats the case you need to be 18 to have a facaebook account acording to their ToS. So, no kids should need to get to facebook.

    1. Re:They shouldnt have facebook accounts by nickb64 · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming its not a university or a college. If thats the case you need to be 18 to have a facaebook account acording to their ToS. So, no kids should need to get to facebook.

      I just looked at the ToS, you have to be at least 13, which many, if not all, 8th graders would be. This is per the Registration and Account Security section, line 5.

  26. The IT guy does not make policy decisions. by westlake · · Score: 1

    If you nothing more to say then "Don't Filter A Thing," you waste his time and ours. It is not his decision to make.

    The small non-profit school won't have the money to hire extra staff simply to monitor whatever passes for a computer lab. The geek may not like the idea, but a filter will have to carry part of the load.

  27. Wrong from the get-go by dfetter · · Score: 1

    Your assumption that content people might find--Facebook or elsewhere--that is more harmful to them than a censorship policy just handed down to them--is false. This is your chance to confront the people asking you to implement the policy with a couple of questions:

    1. Given all the ways people get uncensored internet even under autocratic regimes where the penalties are brutal, what makes you think any censorship policy could work?

    2. Which feasible projects are you willing to divert resources from in order to tilt at this windmill?

    Don't let them answer 2. until they've got 1. well in hand.

    --
    What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  28. How old are these kids? by dacut · · Score: 4, Informative

    If they're under 13 (elementary and middle school age range), they're not allowed to access Facebook due to their terms of service and (in the US, at least) COPPA.

    From Facebook's terms of service:
    You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.

    This is due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which requires verified parental consent before children can provide information to the website. While this does not impact you directly (that is, the FTC isn't going to knock on your door), you could get some heat from parents or administrators for allowing it at all.

    Personally, I think the law is too draconian, but I wouldn't put my position in jeopardy to protest it.

    1. Re:How old are these kids? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      From Facebook's terms of service:
      You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.

      Well, it's a good job that they have to agree to the ToS by entering into a contract with FB. Of course, they can't actually enter into a contract with anyone at that age...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  29. PfSense + DansGardian + OpenDNS + Unbound DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Use PFsense with Squid Proxy WAN object caching and DansGuardian (with the paid list updates) and on top of that, OpenDNS filtering.

    OpenDNS will help with malware prevention and botnet computers.

    Use Unbound forwarding to pull OpenDNS but also locally cache DNS entries for faster response times.

    Block DNS port 53 from exiting the WAN from anything but the pfsense proxy to prevent circumvention of your local proxy.

    1. Re:PfSense + DansGardian + OpenDNS + Unbound DNS by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Having done this before for a school a few years ago... this anon comment above is the best way to go. All of the above is cheap to free.

      Only thing I would add is to check with your state educational network admins, assuming you're using a state internet connection. They may also have a service available built into their WAN you can use.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  30. Duty of Care? by MF4218 · · Score: 1

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but does a School not have a duty of care towards the students - and thus all mature and most social media sites should be blocked, not just to prevent access by the majority, but to avoid offending the minority who might see over another student's shoulder.

    Also I hear a lot of "have the computers facing the teacher" comments, but nobody is discussing one-to-one laptop programs where the screen is a lot easier to hide.

  31. Legal liability is pretty high for filtering by tlambert · · Score: 1

    If you implement filtering, then the first time "something bad" gets through, be prepared to be the fall-guy.

  32. Air gap. by CrAlt · · Score: 1

    Don't waste your time with filtering. It will just make the kids want to see the "blocked" sites more. Anything you do a kid can get around in no time. If the kids are under 18 then it should be the parents call on whether they are on FB or not. The teachers can surf on their own time OFF the clock.

    Just put the modem in a locked closet or the principals office with an on/off switch. When you need to get online to download software or access some educational site you can turn it on just for that.

    There is a lot of great content and features on Facebook,

    Oh my sides. Please! Stop!

    and its a great way to stay in contact with friends

    This doesn't need to be done in class or at work.

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  33. How to best filter facebook? My experience?totally by agoodm · · Score: 1

    Among managing IT for approaching 100 users I run the internet filter for a youth group. We provide free internet terminals for them to use. We used to score pages on facebook myspace bebo etc based on keywords. We need to allow https traffic for various reasons. Facebook are now pushing their user base towards https for profile pages to prevent various cookie hijack based attacks, this means we cant effectively filter their traffic, therefore I have suggested it should be entirely blocked. You cant filter https.

  34. Re:Just don't allow it at all by mark_elf · · Score: 1

    Class groups and study session events.

    Do you mean "everyone doing their homework together" on facebook? Do you mean actually teaching a class on facebook? Seems kind of inappropriate to me. Maybe your idea is to make it more appropriate by filtering it, but I don't think they want you to. They make money showing you ads, building a dossier on what you click on, etc. So I would suggest that you not use it as a teaching tool. In fact it's kind of unfair if all the students are required to use facebook to participate in this "content". What if they don't want to start out their lives feeding all their personal info to an evil mega-corporation? (Unlikely I know.) There are probably educational sites out there you could have everyone sign up for that have some kind of chat.

    (ps - If they're younger than 13 they're not supposed to be on fb.)

  35. Re:can't partially-filter Facebook by Nonesuch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, many of the more complex commercial firewall products CAN partially filter facebook. For example, you can permit reading but block posting updates, or permit access to most pages but block Farmville and all streaming media from fbcdn.' I've always thought the easy way to cut down on problems with this sort of Internet access was to permit Content-type: text/* but block all images, audio, and video. Basically, let them read Playboy for the articles!

  36. No use, by KnowledgeKeeper · · Score: 1

    You can't solve a social problem with technology. You can try but you'll fail. Any protection you build someone will go that extra mile to break it - and break it he/she will.

    --
    It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
  37. Re:How to best filter facebook? My experience?tota by Nonesuch · · Score: 1

    If you control the terminal, and don't mind invading the user's privacy (and possibly increasing your liability, e.g. if passwords are compromised), then yes, you can filter HTTPS just like you filter HTTP. All the major commercial web filtering appliances can do it, as can Squid: http://blog.davidvassallo.me/2011/03/22/squid-transparent-ssl-interception/

  38. Re:can't partially-filter Facebook by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

    The trouble with not-for-profit schools is their budgets are very low for things like this. The OP clearly wants a free as in beer solution.

  39. Snort by Archenoth · · Score: 1

    If you are looking for a free program to filter with... Snort does a good job. It is an IDS (Intrusion detection system), but it is flexible enough that it would work as a very good filter, allowing you to filter by keywords, domains, ports, have-at-you...

    You can combine that with lists of questionable content and you'd have yourself a pretty effective and versatile system.

    These kinds of rules are probably most relevant to your interests.
    http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.ids.snort.general/33780

    --
    The arch foe.
  40. Alternatives by Stephenmg · · Score: 1

    Facebook is near imposible to filter. My suggestion is use something else such as Moodle, MyBigCampus, or Gaggle that either is filter for you or that you would have complete control.

  41. Squid Proxy or K9 or throw in the towel by dopamine5ht · · Score: 1

    Make subnet the schools machines on unroutable. Setup a squid http://www.squid-cache./ proxy and use http://www.squidguard.org/ http://www.squid-cache.org/. Point all machines at the squid cache. It is how my friend got threw teen years with his kids. The easier approach: K9 Web Protection - Free Internet Filter and Parental Control ... www.k9webprotection.com/ is another interesting choice. Still a lot of arguments are correct, sometimes it isn't worth trying to sanitize things, better to try to learn about them.

  42. Easy and cheap, and effective by JPElectron · · Score: 1

    DNS Redirector all the way http://dnsredirector.com/ Block everything, or block by categories, never any subscription fees.

  43. Nothing by ericartman · · Score: 2

    Been working in Education for the last decade and I can say give it up. I have never seen any filter work more than a day at best. Lightspeed whatever just doesn't last very long. Kids start with proxy, but quickly switched to stealing passwords. The school year is only a week old and I have already seen a fairly complete list of staff passwords and ever our sys admin password. Get a Federal approved filter and do the best you can, keeping the systems working will kill all the time you have believe me.

    1. Re:Nothing by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You can do various things to mitigate this:

      - make staff accounts require 2 factor authentication
      - have student machines on a different subnet subject to different rules than the staff subnet, so even knowing a staff password doesn't get you any more access

  44. Re:They all have smart phones. by vlueboy · · Score: 1

    As natural progression of our computer revolution, wasting time on a cellphone is a lot more conpicuous than doing the same on a computer. This is due to generational / cultural novelty: Decades ago parents and friends could NOT be convinced that my sitting for hours staring at a monitor was in itself "work."

    For now, cellphones moved into that role of "wait, tapping away at it cannot be more serious than the conversation / class still in progress". I do recall that playing solitaire in a lab setting was barely frowned upon, partly because it is so hard to distinguish from real activity if the instructors are far away. But looking down into a phone is more obvious and even enforced / penalizable thru commonplace cell bans in schools. Can't *ban* the PC that they're each supposed to learn with (including self owned laptops for notes), though.

    I think it hinges on how modern cells had their root on phones --2-way ACTIVE communication systems-- and are notorious for distractingly active texting. Full PCs are still seen as work tools for more PASSIVE chatting when employer/instructor allows it a work setting. Yes, the moral "honor system" largely determines how hard we'll work on not using a superset of the assigned functions. Remember the graphing calculator bans from most tests?

    Surely theose came AFTER the then-unconventional abuse was deemed too rampant. Not before.

  45. Re:can't partially-filter Facebook by SydShamino · · Score: 2

    One such company is Socialware, for example. I think for a lot of these settings Facebook has exposed assets and you can directly manipulate things in a "whack-a-mole" fashion, but hiring a company like Socialware gives you all of that managed for you in a proxy. Obviously this is out of reach of one guy running an elementary school, though.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  46. how to by shentino · · Score: 1

    1. Block outbound dns and force all queries to go through a central DNS server
    2. Filter the domains that server allows to resolve
    3. Adopt zero tolerance policy to evasion of firewalls
    4. Do random audits of network traffic and punish anyone caught bypassing the firewall by any means.
    5. Install deepfreeze so that students can't monkey with the machines

    number 4 is good because you don't want your policies to become a joke. Kids these days are hardly technophobes, and you may need to be prepared to match wits with another nerd in the making. You need to instill a healthy respect for your rules.

    If this sounds overbearing, then reconsider what sites you wish to filter out. Just remember, a policy is no good if it is not enforced.

  47. Proxomitron by LMahesa · · Score: 1
    I run a small computer lab with 30 workstations. All internet traffic goes through my machine, to Proxomitron which caches using Proxy+. The good thing about Proxomitron is how customizable it is - I have categories of web sites which can be toggled on and off at will; for example, when all the kids have finished their work, facebook gets enabled. Unfortunately the author died and it was closed-source. Also unfortunately the various attempts at a replacement have all failed in one way or another. You can filter specific content on any web site: eg,

    . The filter list I use catches the vast majority of smut, adverts and other undesirables but there's no way you'll catch them all.

    --
    Look, no SIG!
  48. Whitelists? by Compaqt · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but which ready-to-go Linux firewall/proxy combo really supports whitelists.

    I've research (though not used) ClearOS and a bunch of the others, and whitelist seem to be a feature that people ask about in the forums as opposed to something that's a first-class feature.

    For a restricted use environment, like elementary school, it would great to add 10, 100, 1000, or even 10000 or 100,000 websites to a list and be done as opposed to chasing every new weird site.

    As far as 1st Amendment issues, think of it like this: The library doesn't subscribe to every magazine on Earth, right. At most, it gets 100 or so. So just consider whitelists as subscribing to ten thousand websites.

    What would be awesome would be: You (attempt) to go to a non-whitelisted site. You get an error message with an HTML form. Since you believe it to be useful, you fill in your whitelist request along with a reason, hit Submit, and it instantly goes to the librarian (?) or whoever's in charge of whitelisting, and they have a quick look at the site and approve or deny.

    Anything like that available for Linux?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Whitelists? by sc0ob5 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not a bad idea for elementary kids. A simple redirect using squid to a PHP form which would email someone a link to the site in question and another PHP form for approval which would then automatically append to a whitelist if approved and to a blacklist if denied so students can’t keep submitting the same site. There are a few sites around that have whitelists for education purposes opendns.com springs to mind. The problem is with so many sites being created daily it’s impossible to keep up with educational resources for middle school and high school kids and you are better off with just a blacklist which are more readily available.

      When I was first starting out in IT I worked at a reasonably large high school and found the best way to filter was using squid and have a large blacklist automatically updated weekly and use a log analyser such as Sarg to generate reports on a daily basis and anything that seemed out of place or got a lot of traffic and wasn’t related to education would go on the blacklist. Of course none of this was available off the shelf back then, but it’s still probably the best way to go about it considering that it’s a non-profit school. As for facebook, it should be blocked in any school environment, there is nothing on there of any education value.

      I don’t know the age range the OP is talking about, kind of seems contradictory. People not able to protect themselves but yet have shame.. doesn’t really make sense.

  49. Outsource This One by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Buy a DNS-based service like Internet Guide from DynDNS and move on to the next project. The admins can tell you which twiddly bits to flip on their configurator, othewise what you see is what you get.

    Possibly set up an internal recursive DNS with zones to allow some machines to go out unfiltered.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  50. Squid + Dansguardian + OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work for a non-profit that has teen centers. Its not fool proof, but a setup of squid + dansguardian + OpenDNS does a decent job of filtering for the good ole price of nothing but the hardware. Of course nothing ever beats having an adult in the room keeping an eye on things. Plus you can do some url matching in squid to allow only certain Facebook sites if you want.

  51. Dean? How about the Secretary of Defense? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    For decades, 'social media' sites and their precursors were blocked by the various services under the DoD. Facebook is available today, along with all the attendant problems, because the Secretary of Defense ordered it available, along with youtube and various other sites.

    I can't imagine a Dean having much less power to simply declare it an educational tool and tell you to 'make it work'.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  52. First of all, it's a losing battle by Seng · · Score: 1

    I worked for a company that sold web filtering devices primarily to schools. The school admins spent more time hunting down proxy sites, web proxy sites, figuring out how to block kids running SSH tunnels off their home PCs and tunneling with putty on a USB stick. The web filter did awesome, until you got one smart alec in the mix and taught everyone else how to bypass it. THEN you start in on locking down the PCs with GPOs, adding layer 3 filtering for external proxy sites, prohibiting any unknown executables from ever running (yeah, makes those self-extracting printer drivers fun).

    Glad I'm out of that business.

  53. Re:cache and proxy you idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and what kind of moron company pays for MS Office, the cracks are easily downloaded.

    Dunno about you IT schmucks, but if my boss wanted me to break someone's user agreement to save 3 grand, I'd be concerned that the next paycheck is gonna bounce.

  54. Forget it by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Effective Internet filtering cannot be done at this time. The only option would be to have every page cleared by a human being in real-time.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Forget it by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Effective Internet filtering cannot be done at this time.

      You mean 100% effective filtered internet access cannot be done.

      There are highly effective internet filtering mechanisms.

      1. Surround the school with a faraday cage.

      2. Swap out all Windows PCs for dumb terminals

      3. Setup a central computer with all dumb terminals attached.

      4. Enable only safe internet applications.

      5. Porn and Facebook cannot be viewed, because hardware is incapable of displaying it. Therefore: filtering was effective.

    2. Re:Forget it by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You clever plan is easily foiled:

      Print out the nasty stuff at home and bring it to school on on paper. Then view the Internet 100% unfiltered at school! (I am told this is like the approach many politicians and managers use for Internet access, although they have somebody else print the pages...)

      Wuahauahuhau! Amateur!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  55. Oh this shit again? Don't re-invent the wheel. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Just find an open proxy with a Chinese IP, and send all traffic through it. Or, you can just send all the kids to China. Your move fascist.

  56. Re:Just don't allow it at all by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Do you find it strange that most of the comments pro-Facebook on this thread are anonymous? (Remember when Facebook hired an astroturf company to go against Google?)

    Anyway, as far as study groups and whatnot: That's what Moodle's for!

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  57. BOFH by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

    But, of course, log everything.

  58. Education... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Let the school do what it's intended for, and educate the kids on how to use the internet safely...

    If you setup a strict filtering policy it will never be perfect, and people will still come across content they aren't meant to see, or as mentioned in the summary they will make dangerous levels of information available to the public via sites like facebook. Also you will always get a few kids who will actively try to bypass the filter, being told no is the biggest motivator for some kids (i was one of those).

    Another thing to consider, is while you can try to protect them from potential dangers on the internet while they're on campus, all you are really doing is leaving them less prepared for the real world. They won't consider that you were trying to protect them, they will just think you were trying to restrict them, and when they find themselves with access to an unfiltered internet connection they will encounter and/or seek out all manner of content.

    So the key is education... And that's what a school is supposed to do, prepare kids for what they will encounter in the real world, not hide them away from it.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  59. Block it, there is no useful content on Facebook by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 1

    Just drop the domain, kids shouldn't be on Facebook at school

    --
    #include <sig.h>
  60. All or nothing by kevin805 · · Score: 1

    You need to either make the filter whitelist of approved sites with a librarian able to add things on the fly, or don't even waste your time because the kids will be spending their days searching for porn sites that you haven't yet blocked.

    If it's a computer lab dedicated to research and approved uses, then whitelist. If it's computers for general use, where they can check email, there's no excuse for blocking. Partly this is about the age of the students -- I'd expect younger kids to be on whitelist only, while in high school, they've already got live streaming hardcore porn on their smartphones.

  61. IMPORTANT!!! EDITOR PLEASE READ!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Setup" is a noun, not a verb. Your title should read "Ask Slashdot: How To Best Set up a School Internet Filter?".

    1. Re:IMPORTANT!!! EDITOR PLEASE READ!!!! by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1
      You fail at grammar/phrasal verb pedantry.

      How to Set Sth. Up the Best?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  62. Re:They all have smart phones. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    I don't think this is about a cultural or generational thing"

    For now, cellphones moved into that role of "wait, tapping away at it cannot be more serious than the conversation / class still in progress".

    Well, no. If you start tapping away on a phone while in the middle of a conversation, you're being a dick unless you (e.g. apologise and say you have to repoly to an urgent email or something). It's just about as dickish as picking up a newspaper and reading it when someone is talking to you or wandering off when they are in mid sentence. It's basically a dick move unless neither of you are invested in the conversation and are both on phones in which case it's a wash.

    As for in class, well...

    Yeah.

    I was at school before cell phones were common. Graphical calculators had become readily available, however. I, and several of my frends, spent a good fraction of lessons dicking around on that. We would compete on who could write the best games, then play the games.

    By happy coincidence, the things that I enjoyed (hacking) was possible on the calculator and in fact about the only thing you could do on it. So I got to learn, too. The fact that it worked out for me very well doesn't alter that the lessons were so mind-crushingly dull.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  63. How I did this... by Fished · · Score: 1

    Back in 1999 or so, I was asked to do something similar for my church. (Believe it or not, people were really coming to church in the middle of the night and using church computers for porn. Actually, 'person'.) At that time, there were no good OSS filtering proxies, so I settled on a simple solution: accountability. We setup a squid proxy with a login requirement, and then we emailed the account holder a list of all the websites they had visited each day. Instantly, we had no porn problem.

    Not sure I'd want to take this approach in an academic environment; a great deal would depend on the school, the age of the kids, and the values of parents, but I thought I'd mention it.

    Nowadays, I'd just use a filter in the router forcing all DNS requests to go to OpenDNS, and use OpenDNS' content filtering. It's not as fine grained as you might want (it only works at the domain level) but it's still pretty effective. In this area, there's no such thing as 100% -- all you can do is try to keep it down to a dull roar.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  64. Re:Just don't allow it at all by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, quite a few people out there bought some shares in the IPO... Every little bit of positive spin helps...

  65. Obsolete idea by shirro · · Score: 1

    Many years ago I setup some school filters with Squid and DansGuardian. If wouldn't make any sense to do it today. Kids have unfiltered Internet at home and usb keys and phones to carry files around. Lots of school Internet connections have quotas and performance that are years out of date and filters that go completely overboard. Many kids have faster Internet connections in their pocket. The Internet isn't a scarce resource you can be gatekeeper of anymore. Adults, both parents and teachers, need to engage with kids again instead of relying on companies and technology to do their job for them.

  66. The best thing to do by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    The best thing to do is educate the students (that's what the school is there for, right?). Teach them proper security and privacy guidelines and why they are there. Kids will follow a rule if there is a valid reason for the rule and the kid knows the reason. (If there is no valid reason the rules are in place, then they don't need to be in place.) Then these kids will be safe not only on the school computers, but on their home computers, cellphones, ipads etc. etc. etc. If they break the rules then punish them for that. But don't treat them like rule breakers before they have even broken the rules, and don't hobble them by refusing to educate them.

  67. e-Safe? by fostware · · Score: 1

    For a private school, executive went for e-Safe (http://www.safenet-inc.com/data-protection/content-security-esafe/) on Mac and PC.

    It a system that transmits a machine ID along with running a keylogger and screen capture. Key presses are filtered through a central filter that alerts on things such as IM preening, online bullying, self-harm indicators, and inappropriate search terms. Screen caps are thumb-nailed, identified by machine ID, and monitored by humans for inappropriate images or video, etc. The content filter blocks and logs URLs any websites we request or fit their blocklists..

    The House Heads are emailed logs of inappropriate activities on a weekly basis, and self-harm or bullying activities are emailed or SMSed immediately.

    My role is servers and I haven't seen any of the logs, I just provide login logs and supporting documentation. All devices on the "guest" or "mobile devices" SSID are have a school captive portal that requires their school login.

    It seems to work well, in that people are educated post infringement. It has also alerted staff to possible at-risk students (including boarders) and a couple of webcam sessions involving minors. Since it's installed, it does have the vulnerability of being tampered with, but they also alert us to attempts to circumvent e-Safe.

    Note: I can't verify it's effectiveness since I don't see Pastoral Care issues. You will need to decide whether it fits your situation. I have some moral objections, but I don't make those kind of decisions...

    --
    "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
  68. The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, there's going to be a group of kids who are more determined and resourceful than the person asking. In a nontrivial number of cases, they're called "future sysadmins". That's not to say that they'll all do so or that it should be a motivation for whether things get filtered at all, but it is a byproduct worth mentioning.

    That said, you raise an argument of questionable logic. Essentially, you've stated that because he CAN'T block EVERYTHING that he SHOULDN'T block ANYTHING. That's not really the way things work in K-12 education. See, if it takes a proxy, a VPN, and a memorized IP address to get to content deemed inappropriate by the powers that be, then anyone who has gotten to it has shown clear determination to do so. Thus, it's significantly easier for the IT staff to say "We have had filters in place from the get-go that block this content. This student used an incredibly elaborate method to get around these filters, and this method no longer works as we've updated our filters to accommodate it" and thus place blame squarely on the student for determination and intent. Using your method of leaving the floodgates of the internet opened means that answering to those same people when a student accidentally stumbles upon objectionable content will sound like, "we don't have any filters because they don't work 100% of the time". Reference-free job hunting starts in the morning.

    If a student wants to get into the building after-hours and orders his own RFID card off the internet and programs it to minic another card to unlock the door, it's going to be much tougher for the school to sue the security company than if the security company left the doors open 24/7 because there are 20-foot high windows.

    Sure, students will bring in their issues of Penthouse or USB sticks with the contents of the latest pr0n torrent if they're determined to do so, but once again, it's how and where. A student walking into school with Penthouse in his backpack didn't get it from the school, therefore the school can't be held liable for the actions of the student. If the student downloaded an issue of Penthouse on a school computer, by contrast, now the school has made possible something that (for the sake of argument) the parents find objectionable and it's easy to point the finger at the IT admins since even a basic content filter would have mitigated the issue - or at the very least raised the barrier to entry significantly such that the IT staff can once again say "we can't block everything, but the filters do block all but the most determined attempts to get where he got" and absolve themselves from responsibility.

    Yes, supervision absolutely needs to happen. The original post explicitly asks how to make supervision easier for that very reason. The question being asked isn't how to replace adult supervision with a technological solution, it's how to assist the teachers and try to fill in the gaps for the moments when the teacher is focusing on student #1 who happens to be seated at an inconvenient angle to observe student #2 doing the same thing.

    1. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by Xest · · Score: 1

      I sympathise with what you're saying, a large aspect of it is about arse covering because yes, I recognise IT is nearly always the scapegoat even for what are ultimately non-IT problems.

      But I think you misunderstand how things actually work in practice in school, sure it may just be one kid that figures out how to evade the blocks in place, but it doesn't matter because when one kid knows, the whole school knows, and it's not just one kid, it's a few kids per school, and because of the viral nature of block evasion in schools, because every kid wants to evade the block, it means that blocking is still roughly around 0% effective. The parents don't care therefore whether your tried to block it or not, they'll still bitch, and moan at you because little timmy saw the same thing little timmy suckled on for the first few months of his life.

      Note that I had this experience in over a hundred schools, some who even went further with additional blocks, and this was before even the time of smartphones, so preventing kids getting information to evade blocks, or using smartphones outright, either tethered to school systems or standalone, is now going to be an impossible task.

      The parents will come knocking regardless and they don't give a shit about how hard IT tried, little Timmy still saw a pair of tits in an environment where Mrs Innocent never thought Timmy would see tits.

      So again, the onus really has to be on the teachers, sure a kid might be looking at something whilst the teacher has his/her back turned, fine, who cares? If no one knows it's no different to them looking at it on their smartphones (which they will be), if a parent does find out, then just go through the process of asking the kids who it was and discipline them. If teachers are scared about liability then simply make an effort to tell kids they're not allowed to look at this stuff on the school network, hell, even send a letter to parents saying you've educated them as such but that the parents may want to have additional discussions with their kids about it themselves to push the responsibility back on them.

      If anything, putting in place a complete ineffective blocking system just tells the parents that yeah their kids should be safe because "they don't need to educate their kids about that sort of stuff as it's blocked", and yeah they can blame the school when the blocks are inevitably bypassed, because the school was incompetent in putting blocks in place that didn't really work after all.

      At the end of the day parents who don't want to take responsibility for parenting will blame the school regardless, so it's better that the school goes out of it's way to make it clear that it's job is to teach, and that if they want the school to act as a babysitting service too, then the only option to prevent the kid seeing anything is to ban him from the net at school and stick him in solitary confinement so the other kids don't show him anything they've bought in in their backpacks or on their phone. Suggest home schooling to them at this point, because the shared schooling system can't possibly provide what they're asking.

    2. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mommy can throw a tantrum all she wants about Timmy seeing a boob online. The question of whether the situation is able to escalate beyond that is where filters come into place.

      Scenario 1:
      Mommy: "Timmy saw pr0n at school! the IT department is incompetent and needs to pay me *raises pinky to mouth* one MILLION dollars!"
      IT Dept witness: "Your honor, the school has had content and proxy filtering on their network for years. This is the filtering system that the Board of Education has chosen for us to be using, configured using industry standard practices, and being appended weekly with additional 'creative' ways the students have found to bypass these filters. Here are the log files in the traffic, indicating that the student performed an end-run around the filter by using multiple VPN endpoints, SSL traffic, and a virtualized operating system running executable files explicitly designed to evade our application whitelist, and did so using a batch script as to prevent the teacher from catching him doing it."

      Scenario 2:
      Mommy: "Timmy saw pr0n at school! the IT department is incompetent and needs to pay me *raises pinky to mouth* one MILLION dollars!"
      IT Dept witness: "Since web filters are mostly ineffective anyway, we felt that it was a waste of tax dollars to even try. If he were dedicated he'd get through them anyway."
      Mommy: "All he did was go to bigtits.com and it let him!"
      IT Dept witness: "He has the right to not be censored!"
      Mommy: "He's twelve!"

      You'll never avoid a tantrum from a psychotic parent trying to sidestep their responsibility to actually be a parent. What you *will* avoid, however, is those kinds of allegations actually sticking, unless you have a set of like-minded psychos two and three tiers above you on the corporate org chart who are too technologically inept to realize that there is a chasm of difference between "filters unable to stop extremely determined, skilled, and clever students clearly violating the acceptable use policy and leaving traces of their actions" and "no filter at all". If that's what you have, then I propose the same thing - the issue is not technological and cannot be solved technologically, but will append it to say that the issue isn't with the students and the issues seen in the students are a reflection, not a cause.

    3. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
      The end result, however, is this:
      1. As soon as one creative or determined student defeats your firewall, every student in the school will know how to do it
      2. Your students will be taught that people in authority will impose censorship on them, and that they should just quietly evade that censorship and keep it hush-hush from the authorities (can you think of other places like that?).
      3. You will punish your brightest students i.e. those who defeat your firewall quickly and then tell everyone else how to do it. After all, not only is the kid a hacker, but he dared to teach students in a school -- maybe he could avoid punishment if he just kept his ideas secret.
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by Xest · · Score: 1

      The scenarios are stupid because you're simply over-egging one scenario, whilst downplaying the defence in another. In the first case your assertion of the level of technical expertise required to bypass filtering solutions realistically available to schools is extremely over the top, it's far more trivial than that for students.

      In your second scenario you completely bypass the point I made in my last post- that you have the perfectly valid defence of pointing out to the court that you carried out an education program and made students fully aware that with internet access came responsibility, and that parents were also given the option to opt their kids out of internet access, and also given resources to further educate their kids about the "dangers" of the internet.

    5. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by tqk · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day parents who don't want to take responsibility for parenting will blame the school regardless ...

      I can suggest another way. Every browser maintains a browsing history. Configure them to clear the history every time they exit, but not before emailing the history to the kid's parents. If they want to, they can check what the kid's been up to and do their parenting as they wish. If not, the school's in the clear since they reported it to them.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      Pardon my use of hyperbole to prove a point. Whether it requires half a dozen hops and tools of that level of sophistication is largely orthogonal. The point is that using a proxy or VPN or portable Ubuntu or whatever clearly expresses intent. Whether the system requires that quantity of hoops isn't the point, but the point that "trivial" is an extremely relative term and whether trivial or determined, it shows sufficient amounts of determination by the student and due diligence on behalf of the IT department. As long as both of those can be shown, Timmy's mom won't have much of a leg to stand on.

      If I bypassed that point before I apologize, but here's the thing: filtration and making responsibility known are NOT mutually exclusive solutions. Filtration helps prevent accidents. Thus, if someone goes off-script by accident, there's no harm, no foul. If it's intentional and the student is unfamiliar with the system or insufficiently determined, they will likely be slowed down enough to be caught by the teachers. If they are intentional and smart and motivated...filters are indeed useless except to PROVE that the students are intentional and smart and motivated. That's where the policy and education come in. They are responsible for proper use of the school's resources. They should be made aware and taught how to use the internet responsibly. It is NOT impossible to do this without some level of filtration happening. A parent can absolutely opt out of letting their child use the internet despite there being filters in place. Parents can absolutely be given resources to educate their children about the shady side of the internet. None of what you are saying indicates that nontechnical rules and nontechnical punishments are useless because filters are in place. Heck, if a lesson needs to be taught about the shady side of the internet, then fine - disable the filters for that lab for that lesson, but the internet isn't exactly the best place for 'trial by fire' regarding elementary school students and the internet.

    7. Re:The unfortunate reality comes down to liability by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      }IT Dept witness: "He has the right to not be censored!" Mommy: "He's twelve!"{ Right there is the problem. Some else besides the parent deciding whats best for there children. That is unacceptable.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  69. So you are doing this for a school... by otomoton · · Score: 1

    I work for a school myself as an IT director. Before you get too far into making a custom filter you need to familiarize yourself with CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act). If you are working at a school receiving public money you have to follow CIPA to a "T" or your school may lose its E-rate funding which is likely paying for the internet access in the first place.

  70. Best free school internet "filter" by neminem · · Score: 1

    Find some trustworthy high schooler who has study hall each period. Let that student hang out in the computer lab instead of study hall, in exchange for monitoring obviously inappropriate websites. Give them a line to a teacher if some douche is looking at porn and won't stop when they tell them to.

    This is what my high school did; I was a computer lab monitor sometimes and it worked out pretty great. Only rarely even had to do anything (there was totally one moron who kept looking at stuff that he tried to claim wasn't softcore porn even though it really obviously was. He did get in trouble for it eventually.)

    As for why you block porn in school - it isn't because kids shouldn't be allowed to see it if they want. I truly believe that you should block elementary schoolers from seeing that kind of garbage, but if you want to see it in junior high (i.e. after you've at least hit puberty), go ahead. You block porn in school because most people -don't- really want to see it, and it's a public space. Go view it in your bedroom by yourself.

    I don't think there's really much you can do about blocking peoples' ability to give away information they shouldn't, without going crazy and blocking damn near fracking everything...

  71. Re:Just don't allow it at all by SessionExpired · · Score: 1

    Class groups and study session events.

    Has anybody tried Edmondo? Seems like Facebook for schools.

    --
    You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
  72. Incorrect Premise by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    > Essentially we want to protect people who aren't able to protect > themselves, at least while on campus.

    No you don't, or if you do, then I question how much thinking you really did about this motivation you claim to have.

    What are you protecting them from? It seems to me like you are trying to protect yourself from parents who would complain. I understand that but, be honest about your motivations. Filtering doesn't protect the person who is denied access to what they wanted to see.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  73. I just did this, but for a business. by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

    Get you a computer, just about anything modern will do, and a couple of supported nic's. I used the TEG-PCITXRL because I have use older model low profile optiplexes.
    http://www.pfsense.org/

    Firewall port 80 and port 443
    set up squid
    set up squidblock

    Create a wpad.dat file and put it on the web server, so browsers will automatically configure to use the proxy as long as they are set to automatically configure

    Then download some freely available pre-categorized sites. I used these, but you can also use shalla's if you are a non-profit.
    1. http://dsi.ut-capitole.fr/documentations/cache/squidguard_en.html#contrib
    2. http://squidguard.mesd.k12.or.us/blacklists.tgz
    3. http://www.shallalist.de/

    I also downloaded the list of websites that adblock uses from easylist, and put it in the right format with a quick macro in my text editor:
    https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt

    You can get really fancy if you want, and if you have a domain you can do a man in the middle proxy by creating a certificate then installing it on your pfsense box and each desktop. This would allow you to just route all 80 and 443 traffic through squid, and then you could use dansguardian to do keyword filtering. For your application I would probably steer clear of this for now, because you need to have a good way of making sure that EVERYONE knows that you can see their passwords to banks, emails, etc, and it's in a policy they sign or you could get in deep doo doo.

    1. Re:I just did this, but for a business. by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      And for all those whining about the ethics of blocking, whine more. Blocking advertising, known malware sites, social network sites during business hours, porn, and gambling are all pretty good ideas when they are detrimental to your business that needs employees having access to do their jobs. Also yes I know that a proxy will get around it, but we all know most people can't do tunneling easily.

  74. Impossible task by phorm · · Score: 2

    As a former school-district sysadmin, I'd say that blocking (bad) content from a school while allowing (good) content is nearly an impossible task. Obviously you can make a good effort, but it's an arms-race you can't win.

    One should not underestimate the resourcefulness of a school full of bored teens. Hell, some of the most amazing stuff I've done was while I was in High School.

    As an adult, it's not easy to pick this stuff up with the time available. Being young with an active brain and free time is a powerful thing, and a school full of semi-intelligent bored teens can be a pretty interesting place.

  75. Answer to the question is: by Fred+Holmes · · Score: 1
  76. The argument where I worked by phorm · · Score: 1

    Teacher: We don't want them on facebook, because they might take embarrassing/inappropriate pictures of other kids and post them online. We need you to block facebook.
    Me: How are they taking these pictures
    Teacher: With their camera phones. We're worried they may take pictures in the locker rooms etc. We need you to block it
    Me: We can't block somebody's phone. It's using the phone network, not the school's
    Teacher: It's in the school. You should block it. We can't let this happen
    Me: Why not just deal with the students who are behaving inappropriately?
    Teacher: I don't have time to deal with them. I have too many students. Just deal with it. Setup a block or something.

  77. Make Facebook Block you! by random+coward · · Score: 1

    Use your bandwith to launch spam, DOS, and other attacks at facebook and wait for them to block your ip addresses. Then problem is solved!

  78. This one is easy by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    In the communications closet, you'll see a box labeled "Router" or something like that. Into it there will be plugged a cable labeled "AC" or "DC" or "Power."

    Simply remove that cable.

  79. Whitelist + approval system by Keith111 · · Score: 1

    Since it's a school network I would think you'd just make anything they type in the URL bar would take them to wikipedia. But seriously though, I would spend a week creating a whitelist of sites and then whenever they reach a blocked site have it go to a page where they can request access to the site which would then email you a URL, the person requesting it, and their supplied reason for access. After which you'd just have to click approve a lot for a while and eventually it will die down. Whitelist with ability to add it is the only way to manage this sort of problem. Blacklist is impossible and never a good idea.

  80. We need education, filtering and surveillance by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    No amount of filtering in the world will prevent girls (or boys for that matter) from uploading nude videos of themselves to YouTube, or nude photos uploaded publicly (accidentally or intentionally) on Twitter, Facebook, or TinyPic, or from taking clothes off for strangers on video chat sites such as ChatRoulette, Stickam, BlogTV, or TinyChat.

    And that's just a few real examples. Yes, I've seen all of them happen. No, nudity doesn't usually last long on any of those sites... but long enough for dozens or hundreds of people to download or screencap it.

    We must combine filtering, surveillance, and education.

    Education alone does not cut it.

    No one leaves poison at the reach of children; we know that teaching them is not enough, we also have to keep the poison away, and also we need to watch the kid.

    For the same reasons, teaching children about pornography or perverts is not enough; we also need to filter the computer at home, to put the computer where the parents can see it, to ask the school to do the same, and still we have to watch the kids.

    1. Re:We need education, filtering and surveillance by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      No one leaves poison at the reach of children

      Not even an analogy; the Internet is not poison. The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone.

      Oh, well. People are already used to being spied on, seeing censorship, and being molested at airports. What's the harm in teaching them that it's okay from the very beginning?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:We need education, filtering and surveillance by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Not even an analogy; the Internet is not poison. The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone.

      Straw man. I did not say that the whole internet is poison. I said that pornography and perverts are poisons.

      Oh, well. People are already used to being spied on, seeing censorship, and being molested at airports. What's the harm in teaching them that it's okay from the very beginning?

      Now there you have a false analogy. There is a difference between a father-child relationship and a citizen-government relationship. For example, every sane person accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables. Yet we wouldn't want the government forcing us to eat vegetables.

    3. Re:We need education, filtering and surveillance by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Straw man.

      Is it? I think it's close enough, because I too know what you meant. "The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone."

      Very well, I'll correct myself: Pornography and perverts on the Internet are not like poison. The latter are so few in number that you may as well be petrified of terrorism. As for the former, I believe comparing that to poison is simply preposterous.

      Now there you have a false analogy.

      I disagree entirely. I believe it teaches them to easily submit to authority, especially when they're arbitrary taught that certain things are 'poison' because some people don't like them.

      For example, every sane person

      No True Sane Person would argue otherwise.

      accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables.

      How would you force anyone to eat vegetables, anyway? Punishing them if they don't? Well, alright, but you didn't exactly force them to eat the vegetables. That would probably require you to force-feed it to them. Not sure I like that idea (if someone decided to do that).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:We need education, filtering and surveillance by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The latter are so few in number that you may as well be petrified of terrorism.

      Or rather, incidents of people actually getting harmed by said perverts. That's even lower.

      I seriously prefer education over censorship.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:We need education, filtering and surveillance by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Straw man.

      Is it? I think it's close enough, because I too know what you meant.

      If it was really close enough, you would not feel the need to change what I said to help your rhetoric.

      Now there you have a false analogy.

      I disagree entirely. I believe it teaches them to easily submit to authority, especially when they're arbitrary taught that certain things are 'poison' because some people don't like them.

      So what do you really support? A family should be a democracy?
      If you think that a man can treat his child as a friend, you are simply denying reality.
      If my father had treated me like this, I would probably not even be alive today.
      When I was 13, I was damn-sure I was smarter than adults, I could drive a car
      very well, etc.
      It is common knowledge that this was not an exception; young people think they are Superman.

      accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables.

      How would you force anyone to eat vegetables, anyway?

      Oh please. It is freaking obvious. Talk to the child about the importance of eating vegetables, and if they don't, speak sternly to them and punish (TV deprivation, for example). Dot it every day and, in due time, the child will simply realize that eating vegetables is the least painful option.

      I would love to see Gallup or Pew study the correlation between people who think like you and people who want to have only 2 children or less.

      Because if I thought like you (that a child must be treated as my buddy) I would know that my child would be an insufferable spoiled brat, and I would be terrified at the thought of dealing with them.

    6. Re:We need education, filtering and surveillance by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If it was really close enough, you would not feel the need to change what I said to help your rhetoric.

      That was to make it more accurate, but I do feel that it was understandable to begin with. I don't see how anyone could read your comment and come to the conclusion that websites like Wikipedia or pictures of kittens are poisonous to children.

      So what do you really support? A family should be a democracy?

      That isn't necessary. There are things I believe should be done and things I believe shouldn't be done. I disagree with the censorship approach, but it is someone else's property, so there's not much that can be done about that other than voicing disagreement.

      If you think that a man can treat his child as a friend, you are simply denying reality.

      I'm just Denying Reality. I couldn't disagree otherwise.

      If my father had treated me like this, I would probably not even be alive today.

      Well, you're also not every child. But I did not say that you shouldn't save someone when their very life is in danger. That has nothing to do with children specifically. I'd hope people would save anyone of any age if their life was in danger.

      It is common knowledge

      Irrelevant.

      Oh please. It is freaking obvious.

      I did mention punishment, actually. I also mentioned that that doesn't necessarily bring immediate results. That doesn't have to be a requirement, though. But "forcing" someone to eat vegetables made me envision something that brings more immediate results.

      (that a child must be treated as my buddy)

      Don't know where you got that.

      I would know that my child would be an insufferable spoiled brat

      You know that? I see.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  81. Re:Just don't allow it at all by mark_elf · · Score: 1

    Moodle no good. No Mafia Wars or Farmville. It doesn't have a "timeline". You can't "like" anything. No great content. ;o(

  82. 10-year school district network admin here by rfquinn · · Score: 1

    I've seen this handled a few different ways. There's a tendency to let the technology staff dictate website appropriateness since they're in direct control of the filters. However, what seems to work best is to leave these decisions up to the curriculum department. They may in turn leave it up to the teacher's discretion. I see my role as an adviser. Let the people in charge of what goes on in the classroom know the risks, and what our tools are capable of, then let them decide. (I'd suggest these decisions be in email/writing, to cover your ass.) Now, as for the tools, there's some pretty slick filters out there that can block certain elements of Facebook, such as games/third party apps, chatting, etc. without blocking the entire site. We used Palo Alto firewalls for this, but I know there are other products out there that can do the same. Good luck! Just let me know if you have any questions.

  83. You can block the lan but you cannot block smartph by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Kids are getting Samsung Galaxy 3 phones and with it comes wifi, and data. Via data, they can do everything that is possible, as if the school has no firewall.

    I would block facebook, except for lunch hours. Ditto for the other sites.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada