Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

thinkbroadband.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#21

Post by laumars »

csmithuk wrote: post #13

Sky user here[1]. Turn it off then! This is entirely optional. It asks you when you first install and connect the router via the WiFi landing page if you want to use any blocking. If you don't answer the question or select no, there is no blocking at all apart form the IWF firewall stuff. Every kind of blocking comes with problems of some description. You either live with it or trust your users. [1] £7.50/month for A…

You're missing the point here. Some parents are not tech-savy and thus depend on the controls given to them by their ISP (etc) to help manage the level of access their kids have to the internet. Suggesting they simply turn off the parental controls doesn't actually fix the problem, it just shifts the problem (ie the problem is shifted from sites not functioning properly to kids having access to everything).

While I do agree that parental controls are not foolproof; occasionally legitimate sites get caught up in the blacklist and kids will usually find a way around many blocks, suggesting parents completely disable such censors is a little like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#22

Post by johneth »

csmithuk wrote: post #13

Sky user here[1]. Turn it off then! This is entirely optional. It asks you when you first install and connect the router via the WiFi landing page if you want to use any blocking. If you don't answer the question or select no, there is no blocking at all apart form the IWF firewall stuff. Every kind of blocking comes with problems of some description. You either live with it or trust your users. [1] £7.50/month for A…

> I'd go for Andrews & Arnold if I could afford idealism at the moment.

I've heard Xilo are quite good regarding filtering, quality, etc., and they're cheaper than A&A.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#23

Post by aidos »

raverbashing wrote: post #18
belorn wrote: post #3

ISP interference makes for a interesting question regarding liability. Their interference are now potentially causing massive amount of economic damages to companies which relies on jquery library. Webshops, economic infrastructure, hospitals, transportation systems are just a few that relies on having fully functional websites up and running. But for liability, a few questions pops up. Who is the offended party, and…

So, yeah, one thing that I learned about these CDNs They will stop working eventually So you may try to load from them, but always have a fallback. In your website An example: what if code.jquery.org gets compromised?

In that case your fallback isn't going to help - unless you're performing a checksum on the response you get from code.jquery.org.

I know it's probably not considered great practice anymore but I generally just self host js libs. One less thing to go wrong and I often develop without an internet connection. Saves on having to dropback to a fallack every time.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#24

Post by jobigoud »

nly wrote: post #7
markdown wrote: post #4

Sucks for the people affected by this, but if the result is that more people use google for this, I'd be a happy bunny. Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? They obviously don't mind a third party hosting their js, so why not use the most popular service (google) to increase the chances that users arrive at their website with jquery already cached?

> Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? Because webmasters would rather compromise the security and integrity of their site, and the privacy of their users, than pay for the initial burst of bandwidth and latency for first time visitors. jQuery 2.1.0 production, minified and gzipped is still over 30KiB, compared to this thinkbroadband page which is only 6 KiB (and yes this page uses about half a dozen externa…

Having the hash would also be very valuable in case the CDN gets compromised so you don't inadvertently serve js malware to your users.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#25

Post by csmithuk »

laumars wrote: post #21
csmithuk wrote: post #13

Sky user here[1]. Turn it off then! This is entirely optional. It asks you when you first install and connect the router via the WiFi landing page if you want to use any blocking. If you don't answer the question or select no, there is no blocking at all apart form the IWF firewall stuff. Every kind of blocking comes with problems of some description. You either live with it or trust your users. [1] £7.50/month for A…

You're missing the point here. Some parents are not tech-savy and thus depend on the controls given to them by their ISP (etc) to help manage the level of access their kids have to the internet. Suggesting they simply turn off the parental controls doesn't actually fix the problem, it just shifts the problem (ie the problem is shifted from sites not functioning properly to kids having access to everything). While I d…

Perhaps the parents should spend some time with their children and show them what is appropriate and what is not?

I have three children, all of whom use the Internet regularly and bar some passive monitoring, I've done nothing. They have healthy browsing habits.

Blacklists, censorship, firewalls and control are missing the point...

Plus you're going to get goatse'd at some point in your life...

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#26

Post by rmc »

taspeotis wrote: post #8
octo_t wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that Google wouldn't be blocked by the same mechanism?

Well let's assume that each URL or domain that is blocked is reviewed by a human who's paid to look at content, not necessarily to have technical knowledge. They'd be much more likely to know that blocking anything from Google is probably a bad idea/false positive but they've probably never heard of jQuery and when they look at the jquery*.js files all they see is The Matrix. So if you allow the above assumption, it'…

Well let's assume that each URL or domain that is blocked is reviewed by a human who's paid to look at content, not necessarily to have technical knowledge.

That's unlikely. Some parental control filters from ISPs were blocking big name childrens charities like Childline. If they blocked that, then that shows they are very incompetent

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#27

Post by csmithuk »

johneth wrote: post #22
csmithuk wrote: post #13

Sky user here[1]. Turn it off then! This is entirely optional. It asks you when you first install and connect the router via the WiFi landing page if you want to use any blocking. If you don't answer the question or select no, there is no blocking at all apart form the IWF firewall stuff. Every kind of blocking comes with problems of some description. You either live with it or trust your users. [1] £7.50/month for A…

> I'd go for Andrews & Arnold if I could afford idealism at the moment. I've heard Xilo are quite good regarding filtering, quality, etc., and they're cheaper than A&A.

I can't see any ADSL offerings on their site. Do you have a link?

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#28

Post by rmc »

csmithuk wrote: post #13

Sky user here[1]. Turn it off then! This is entirely optional. It asks you when you first install and connect the router via the WiFi landing page if you want to use any blocking. If you don't answer the question or select no, there is no blocking at all apart form the IWF firewall stuff. Every kind of blocking comes with problems of some description. You either live with it or trust your users. [1] £7.50/month for A…

(a) Non-techie mundane people have heard about the vast wave of horrible kiddie porn and grooming stalkers just waiting to kill your child. Why would they turn off the only thing protecting their loved ones from harm?[1]

(b) What should you do? Phone up the tech support line and tell them you (essentially) want to look at fisting porn? What if they recognise your voice? What if someone finds out that you want to look at all that dodge extreme porn sites?[1]

[1] I'm not saying this is accurate, just how some people think.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#29

Post by al2o3cr »

nly wrote: post #7
markdown wrote: post #4

Sucks for the people affected by this, but if the result is that more people use google for this, I'd be a happy bunny. Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? They obviously don't mind a third party hosting their js, so why not use the most popular service (google) to increase the chances that users arrive at their website with jquery already cached?

> Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? Because webmasters would rather compromise the security and integrity of their site, and the privacy of their users, than pay for the initial burst of bandwidth and latency for first time visitors. jQuery 2.1.0 production, minified and gzipped is still over 30KiB, compared to this thinkbroadband page which is only 6 KiB (and yes this page uses about half a dozen externa…

Sure, that sounds brilliant: allow anybody who can compute a hash collision to poison other sites' JS libraries. facepalm

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#30

Post by youngtaff »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #9

window.jQuery || document.write(' ') Source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1014203/best-way-to-use-g...

I'd question whether this is a worthwhile fallback as depending on what the error is then the browser may still wait 30 (ish) seconds for the original request to time out.
Post reply on HN