Joshua N Pritikin
jpritikin at pobox.com
Wed May 7 16:09:23 EDT 2008
[Already sent to Cahalan, forgot to CC devel]
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin at pobox.com> wrote:
> > That is totally half-assed. As a parent, I would be pissed off when I
> > became aware of the quality of such an OLPC web filtering solution.
> > How about if we place a DansGuardian transparent proxy on a public IP
> > address (e.g. proxy.laptop.org). The laptop can use iptables to route
> > everything through the proxy. Then we don't have to waste precious RAM
> > filtering on the laptop.
> Your solution doesn't meet the requirement of the law.
> The filtering MUST be on the laptop.
My filter is an iptable rule to redirect port 80. That's on the laptop.
At worst, we can combine your filter and my filter. If the DansGuardian
server is down then the kid won't be able to browse the web. That's OK.
> (but again: this only applies to school-owned laptops)
> Since the filtering MUST be on the laptop, and the laptop
> is already suffering performance problems, a half-assed
> solution ON THE LAPTOP is sensible. Schools can also
> do something sensible with their network connection, but
> that doesn't help with compliance.
> BTW, another interesting point is that the law only applies
> to images. Kids can read all the filthy stories they want.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow them to read filthy stories.
It's one thing to comply with the law, but we should try to comply with
the spirit of the law. I don't want to invite an attack on OLPC by
Christian conservatives. OLPC has enough problems already.
Make April 15 just another day, visit http://fairtax.org
More information about the Devel