Post by jojo on May 10, 2011 10:13:29 GMT
There is a report, on BBC news, that an ISP is proposing to install security software at the ISP level.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13309720
The advantages are obvious, faster, best quality, up to date.
The arguments against this, that I'm aware of are that it won't be able to react fast enough to new threats, that it might block legitimate sites, that it might stifle innovation.
The first is a nonsense. It will be as fast as it is, whether it is on a local PC or an ISP's server.
That it might block legitmate sites, and possibly be used to block politically or economically is just silly. This can and probably is being done right now. How will anyone know?
(There are numerous sites attempting to tell the truth of the actual alien invasion which are being continually blocked by an alliance of the CIA, the KGB, MI5 and the saucer people, right now. But no-one knows about it, apart form me. And no-one will listen. I know because I have a tin foil hat which portects me from the effects of this blocking.)
Stifeling innovation is a bit more controversal. But if those developing new ideas fail to ensure the most basic security then they need to be kicked into touch. The recent debacle of Sony who failed to provide even basic encryption for customers bank details is a good example.
But what I find so strange is why it has taken so long for anyone to come up with this proposal. I recall asking about this when CIT was still on MSN. But there were no rational responses other than the technical problems ect..
It should be said that the report is heavly emphasising protecting children. Which makes me somewhat suspicious. As if children need protection.
But the proposal of installing security software at an ISP level, rather than on individual computers seems so obvious.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13309720
The advantages are obvious, faster, best quality, up to date.
The arguments against this, that I'm aware of are that it won't be able to react fast enough to new threats, that it might block legitimate sites, that it might stifle innovation.
The first is a nonsense. It will be as fast as it is, whether it is on a local PC or an ISP's server.
That it might block legitmate sites, and possibly be used to block politically or economically is just silly. This can and probably is being done right now. How will anyone know?
(There are numerous sites attempting to tell the truth of the actual alien invasion which are being continually blocked by an alliance of the CIA, the KGB, MI5 and the saucer people, right now. But no-one knows about it, apart form me. And no-one will listen. I know because I have a tin foil hat which portects me from the effects of this blocking.)
Stifeling innovation is a bit more controversal. But if those developing new ideas fail to ensure the most basic security then they need to be kicked into touch. The recent debacle of Sony who failed to provide even basic encryption for customers bank details is a good example.
But what I find so strange is why it has taken so long for anyone to come up with this proposal. I recall asking about this when CIT was still on MSN. But there were no rational responses other than the technical problems ect..
It should be said that the report is heavly emphasising protecting children. Which makes me somewhat suspicious. As if children need protection.
But the proposal of installing security software at an ISP level, rather than on individual computers seems so obvious.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
