The dangers of proxy servers

Yes, we know they're there.

We even pick up when they're being used, although we don't think it's that widespread (tends to go through peaks and troughs to be fair).

Interesting article though - links quite interestingly with the EDP front page I ranted talked about a couple of weeks back...

The internet in school

Oh dear.

The front page of today's EDP screams something about kiddies in Norfolk schools getting access to, well, dodgy content (I don't want this blog filtered by using the obvious words, so it will remain DC and we'll all understand what I mean).

Here's what it says in the lead paragraph:

Norfolk children have been exposed to... [Dodgy Content] ...while using school computers, with education chiefs admitting last night they have no “100pc safeguard”

Shock! Horror!

Well, that would be my interpretation of the lead. I'd be thinking "Oh noes, there is DC rife throughout the schools and the council isn't doing anything about it".

And I'd be wrong - and the EDP should, in my opinion, be ashamed of it's front page today.

You see, reading the article further turns up that:

• there are 180,000 school children in Norfolk schools
• there are 450 schools in Norfolk
• there were, over the last two years, 25 incidents of children accessing Dodgy Content

Hang on, let's think about that. 25 incidents? 25 in two years? By 180,000 children?

The EDP has it wrong. Norfolk County Council is clearly doing a splendid job at stopping it's school kids accessing DC. Let's face it - how many of those children do you think access the odd bit of DC at home? Or on their phones? Or hear the odd DC phrase (because that's included in those 25 incidents - not just images, but words as well).

But, oh no, the EDP assures us that

parents will be concerned by evidence that even schools are not 100pc reliable in protecting their children against [DC].

No! Parents should be applauding Norfolk County Council for restricting this to 25 incidents. And, to be honest, anyone who doesn't appreciate that hasn't got the faintest clue how the internet works, let alone how it's used by teenagers.

Yes, it's worrying that 18 of the 25 incidents were in primary schools. But overall I'm with this view:

With so many new sites constantly being created, no internet security system can provide a 100pc safeguard, but our systems our in place to spot and act upon inappropriate site and 25 instances in two years, given the 30,000 computers being used daily in schools, shows that in the large majority of cases the system works robustly

Exactly. Demonstrating, yet again, that journalists know little about schools and usually less about the interwebz...

How to misunderstand the interwebz...

Sometimes big companies puzzle me.

There's this internet thing, yeah? It works pretty well. Stuff is easily available - you go, click, read/listen/watch and then go someplace else. Fine.

Now, what happens when you run across a site that requires you to log on? If it's offering something unique or interesting then maybe you might bother to register and put up with their spam.

But what happens if you have to pay to get that content?

I dunno, maybe I'm just cheap, but I reckon that 99% of the time I go someplace else. Particularly if it's something, like the news, that I can get free just as easily and just as good.

So, maybe someone might want to explain that to Rupert Murdoch - obsessed as he seems to be with making money from the internet (other than the advertising space he can sell). Seems like access to all the Murdoch press (the Times, Sun etc...) will be restricted to those who are willing to pay for it.

Stupidity.

It's not as if news and comment isn't a plentiful resource on the interwbez, what with all those bloggers and so on who seem happy to comment on just about anything (cough). Or as if there aren't plenty of competitors out there who will give you the news for free - let me think, oh yeah, there's that BBC thing.

Here's the thing: the internet works best when it's free. Make your money from adverts or some sort of premium content (in the Murdoch press? - yeah, OK...), but if you don't let me in to get the basics then I am going somewhere else.

We don't need no school (we got a learning platform)

Fantastic! The government is at least considering extending the summer holidays to reduce the spread of swine flu. Or maybe temporarily closing schools in the autumn (quick, everyone cough and complain of a sore throat!).

So, what do we do about the education stuff then?

Easy - use the interwebz.

Teachers can just set work via e-mail or on the web or on a learning platform and it can be done and sent back, checked and whathaveyou. Hey, we coul duse podcasts, quizzes and all sorts of stuff. Look, at what Becta (a government sort of agency) is thinking:

Becta's advice would include that schools make sure they have email addresses for parents and that teachers have access to the schools' websites from outside school, so they can set work.

Now, I know what you're thinking - there are some teachers (no, I won't name them, we all know who we're thinking about) who might find this rather complex. Well, yes, but think of the fun they'd have trying it out! Think how much they'd, err, learn...

Cackle.

And, you never know, this thing about using technology to help people learn might catch on. We might be bluetoothing video from mobile phones and listening to podcasts on iPods before we know it...

How the net keeps going (Holy webserver Batman...)

Interesting article from the BBC website summarising some thoughts on how the interweb keeps going. Happened across it on a ferry - now there's an example of increased connectivity.

The way data is divided up and sent around the internet in many jumps makes it "delicate and vulnerable" to attacks or mistakes.

However, Professor Zittrain added, the "random acts of kindness" of these unsung heroes quietly keep the net in working order.

"It's like when the Bat signal goes up and Batman answers the call," Professor Zittrain told BBC News.

The ferry was on it's way to Denmark from where I was going to Sweden - where there be pirates (letter's in the pirate alphabet? 1 - Ahhhh...), Some interesting points in a Newsnight article about the whole file sharing issue, which is becoming a fairly important political issue in Sweden.

It raises lots of questions - not least about the impact of fast internet connections on society. We can share files now, because of fast internet, so we do, so what impact does that have on our views about stuff like intellectual copyright and the ability of things like record companies to make money (or, logically, my words and pictures to be controlled by me).

One of the key things to realise is that Sweden, because of it's nature (big country, population v spread out) has really great, fast internet access. File sharing has become easier there quicker, so there's a more immediate impact on Swedish society. Perhaps.

Hmmm, that may be too deep for this time in the morning on ferry after about 8 cups of coffee. But important perhaps.

Who can't read this?

People without access to the web of course - who are also, as it happens, missing out on cheap rail fares.

But who is that? Who isn't online in this shiny, nearly brand new 21st Century?

Official statistics seem to show that the group of people who don't have web access include:

• the elderly
• the less educated
• women (no, really)
• possibly the more remote

In particular, the over 65s have less web access than anyone. Around 70% of this group have never accessed the web. That drops rapidly when you get to 55-65 year olds, but at present the retired element of the population - the group which is increasing, has more leisure time and an increasingly disposable income - is the worst off in terms of accessing that "so called information superhighway" (quote TM BBC news circa 1995...).

And not all the internet "have nots" are unwillingly so. When asked why they didn't have the internet almost 60% said they didn't need it or want. Twenty-seven percent cited the cost of equipment or internet access as too high while 15% thought they didn't have the requisite skills.

From Who doesn't have the internet?, from the BBC Magazine

The less educated is interesting. It seems that 93% of university graduates have home internet access, but that figure drops to 56% of those with no qualifications. I suppose this could be related to income and not having access at home doesn't have to cause an issue for people nowadays (libraries, schools etc...), but it is an interesting disparity. Interestingly we know from our own research at work that about 95% of Year 9 children have some form of internet access at home.

Ah, women. Really. 29% have never used the interwebz, compared to 20% of men. Honest. It says so.

The remote group is also interesting - probably it's because of a lack of infrastructure (the wires and whathaveyou) which slows or limits access to people who live in really, really remote areas (even more remote than Eastbridge, put it that way).

The numbers come from Who doesn't have the internet from the BBC.