Re: Belkin router parental control feature no longer works

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <43898715$0$69024$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> on 27 Nov 2005 10:14:45 GMT,
jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:

>While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
>it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
>- or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
>quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
>want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
>www.virgin.com?)

Whether that is the "general consensus here" or not (which isn't something
that matters to me), my own real world experience (based on SonicWALL) is that
it can work well, blocking most of the objectional material with relatively
little collateral damage. As in most things, different approaches work
differently, so you can't really generalize. Of course it's never perfect --
few things are -- but it can nonetheless be valuable.

>It's a question that comes up often, and, if you had actually searched
>the archives, you would have known that the response you received is
>rather typical of these questions in this group.

Your insinuation is uncalled for. I've done my homework.

>There are a few points:
> + technically, it doesn't work (well enough). It's far too
>difficult to restrain access by 100%. E-mail filters are far more
>sophisticated, usually, because there's that much more demand - and even
>those don't come anywhere near to 100% (actually, you can get pretty
>close, but that requires using a lot of technologies not present in web
>filtering).

My own real world experience is that it can be made to work well enough to be
useful.

> + false negatives defeat the whole purpose, after all, a couple
>of pr0n sites is enough.

I disagree. That's like saying it's pointless to lock your door because some
thieves will break in anyway.

> + false positives are annoying, and will require you to
>reconfigure the router often, if it allows whitelists at all (I assume
>it does, though)

That's just not been a problem here (and yes, the router does support
whitelists, as well as blacklists for that matter).

> + circumventing such a device is usually very possible

Nope -- secured physically and password protected.

> + the premise is flawed - kids will see equally bad stuff on
>television, when visiting friends, and so on. And the forbidden fruit is
>always the most attractive.

Again, I disagree. That's like saying spam filtering is pointless because
some will always get through. It's still worthwhile to block most of the bad
stuff even though some may still get through.

>And probably a couple more; all in all, it's quite likely that you will
>not receive any helpful responses at all

Sad that so many people would let their personal biases get in the way of
being helpful.

>(of course, the fact that very
>few people ever used such a feature makes it less likely that people
>will know the answer, anyway - I, personally, don't have half a clue for
>example). Try the manual.

You're confusing me with the OP -- I'm not having any problems at all.

-- 
Best regards,        FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas           <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>