Blocking Facebook


S

s|b

Good call!
Is it? Others already mentioned the HOSTS file can just as easily
changed by the user. Also, it's my experience that a HOSTS file doesn't
work if you use a proxy.
 
S

s|b

Someone has asked me how to stop a computer that can be used by a
number of people from connecting to Facebook.

Is this something that could be done with the HOSTS file?

If so, how would that be done?

If not, any other ideas for a simple solution?
You probably use a router? If so, check the router's settings for URL
blocking (and change the default username/password, so others can't
login and change the settings).

Don't use OpenDNS.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

OpenDNS's HQ is based in the US, so it falls under US law. For instance,
the Patriot Act. No way in hell would I use OpenDNS...
I'm having some trouble connecting the dots...
What does all of that mean, in plain everyday language?
 
J

John Williamson

Char said:
I'm having some trouble connecting the dots...
What does all of that mean, in plain everyday language?
Their data protection laws are those of the USA, and under the Patriot
Act, as I understand it, if you are suspected by the authorities of
breathing in a manner which may affect national security, they are
required to surrender all the information they hold on you on request.

It's also possible, though untested as far as I know, that banning
access to Facebook and other social networks could be a considered crime
under the First Amendment of the American Constitution. (I am not a
lawyer, etc., etc.....)

What might be of concern to those wanting privacy on usenet, is that the
same rules apply to news archives held in the USA, and of course, *all*
usenet posts end up on all USA news servers anyway...
 
S

Sam Hill

It's also possible, though untested as far as I know, that banning
access to Facebook and other social networks could be a considered crime
under the First Amendment of the American Constitution. (I am not a
lawyer, etc., etc.....)
I doubt if the First (or any) amendments will override an employer's rules
about what an employee can or cannot do during work hours while using the
company equipment. One is supposed to earn one's salary, eh?
 
S

SC Tom

John Williamson said:
Their data protection laws are those of the USA, and under the Patriot
Act, as I understand it, if you are suspected by the authorities of
breathing in a manner which may affect national security, they are
required to surrender all the information they hold on you on request.

It's also possible, though untested as far as I know, that banning access
to Facebook and other social networks could be a considered crime under
the First Amendment of the American Constitution. (I am not a lawyer,
etc., etc.....)
That would be a trial to follow :) I can't imagine it being a violation of
your FAR if your employer has made it a no-no in the workplace.

We had a case a number of years ago when a religious zealot engineer
insisted on putting up religious calendars, pictures, scripture, etc. in his
open work area, the break room, lunch area, even his screensaver. When he
was asked to tone it down, and remove the screensaver from his (work) PC, he
tried to file a suit that the company was denying him his FAR by making him
take down his stuff. He had no case, and it never went to trial because one
of the rules in the employee handbook that he signed before getting hired
forbade the display of nudity, erotic pictures, religious items, etc. in the
work area or on the computer. Nobody would have said a thing except a couple
of other engineers happened to have the SI Swimsuit Issue screensaver on
their PC's (which wasn't allowed either), and he complained about it. Of
course, when one person complains, everybody gets cracked down on, so out
went all of his stuff, too. Granted, no one was supposed to have any of
those items, but if no one complains, the bosses figured no harm, no foul. I
think the final straw was when he refused to take down a "Free Paul Hill"
banner he put up on the wall over his desk.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

In message <MPG.2b0f4389dbf3e9ab98dbaa@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown
1. Identify the Facebook domains, such as www.facebook.com. (There
are probably others; I don't have an account so I can't check whether
Just a few ...

127.0.0.1 ads.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ads.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 api.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 api-read.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ar-ar.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 bg-bg.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 blog.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 creative.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 da-dk.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 de-de.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 developers.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 en-gb.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 en-pi.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 error.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 es-es.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 es-la.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 eu-es.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 fbshare.me
127.0.0.1 fr-fr.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 id-id.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 it-it.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ka-ge.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ms-my.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 nl-nl.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 pl-pl.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 pt-br.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 sq-al.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 static.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 sv-se.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 th-th.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 tl-ph.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.api.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 www.hs.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.static.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 www.thefacebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 zh-hk.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 zh-tw.facebook.com
[]
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote:
Oh c'mon, even you know that permissions are ONLY enforced within the
instance of the OS in which those permissions are defined. That's why I
said that any user that has physical access to the host can alter the
'hosts' file because, gee, permissions are worthless if you boot using
another instance of Windows or some other OS.
Also, hacking the Windows password really isn't that hard. Start
Googling around and you'll find both free and payware products to do
that. Hacking into an instance of Windows as an admin in which
permissions are defined means you can then change permissions.
See the OP's comments about the qualifications of the offender.
 
X

XS11E

LocalHero said:
The company has 3 employees - the manager and two job-share people
- i.e. the culprit, and her co-worker. Although the job-share
people don't ever work at the same time, they each have their own
desktops. Now that the culprit's own PC has been denied all
internet access, the only other machine she can access is the
other person's, and that should have the Hosts file modified by
now. The manager is quite happy to try out this approach for a
while.
Ridiculous, the manager should NOT modify the Hosts file or take any
other such action. He/she should have explained to the culprit that
using Facebook during working hours was prohibited and if she continued
to do so she'd be replaced by someone who could obey the rules.

An employee who doesn't follow company policy should immediately become
an ex-employee, no company can afford to tolerate an employee who
breaks rules.
 
W

..winston

@Sam
The FA deals with establishment of religion, right to peaceful assembly, freedom of press, free exercise and establishment of
religion

- None of which are legal constraints placed on a business.

@John Williamson
This lawyer says see the above. No FA crime would be committed by any business banning Facebook, having a policy to do the same ,
and/or reprimanding or terminating an employee for an act contrary to policy. It is incumbent upon a business to inform employees
of policy yet informative information does not have to be verbal in nature (i.e. policy could be information that the employee has
access to review upon request, a contractual agreement to abide by policy via signature, initialed, or agreed upon when hired
etc.)


--
....winston
msft mvp


"Sam Hill" wrote in message
It's also possible, though untested as far as I know, that banning
access to Facebook and other social networks could be a considered crime
under the First Amendment of the American Constitution. (I am not a
lawyer, etc., etc.....)
I doubt if the First (or any) amendments will override an employer's rules
about what an employee can or cannot do during work hours while using the
company equipment. One is supposed to earn one's salary, eh?
 
C

Char Jackson

Their data protection laws are those of the USA, and under the Patriot
Act, as I understand it, if you are suspected by the authorities of
breathing in a manner which may affect national security, they are
required to surrender all the information they hold on you on request.
I'm still not seeing the problem, but thanks for trying.
 
V

VanguardLH

Gene E. Bloch said:
See the OP's comments about the qualifications of the offender.
You mean the OP's response 10 hours after my first reply? Read that
OP's response. It doesn't preclude employing censorware somewhere
upstream. You think the uber-boob (claimed by the OP) can't figure out
how to use an online search, like Google, or come here pleading for help
under the pretense that someone screwed over "her" computer. She
doesn't even have to ask. She could search and happen upon this thread.

There's more "politics" going on than the OP has so far divulged. The
claim is the offender is such a uber-boob that they couldn't figure out
or elicit help from others on why access to Facebook suddenly stopped.
If true, this OS-ignorant job-share employee would only have expertise
in using some app. Nowadays there are lots of people waiting to replace
an ex-employee and very willing to work reduced hours. If the offender
keeps offending, get someone else. Of course, an employer that thinks
employees should be twiddling their thumbs while staring into space
instead of using that idle time at Facebook shows a problem with the
employer. If the employee is idle (and wasting time at Facebook), the
employer isn't keeping busy the employee. Time twiddling thumbs is just
as much a waste as putzing at Facebook. Wonder if this employer has a
max number of toilet visits, too.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> said:
Is it? Others already mentioned the HOSTS file can just as easily
changed by the user. Also, it's my experience that a HOSTS file doesn't
work if you use a proxy.
My AV software (Avira, but I'm sure others offer this too) blocks any
writes to the host file. Since I am the only user here, when I want to
add to the host file, I turn off that protection and then turn it back
on again; that way I have _some_ confidence that malware won't do it.
Presumably if the offending user does not have access to the AV
software's settings, this would work. (As would them only having an
account without write privileges to the hosts file.)

There are an awful lot of entries to be added to the hosts file though
.... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

New research shows that three to five cups of coffee a day will cut the risk of
Alzheimer's by about 60 per cent. There is also good evidence that tea is good
for memory. - Michael Mosley interviewed in Radio Times, 7-13 February 2009
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Char Jackson said:
I'm having some trouble connecting the dots...
What does all of that mean, in plain everyday language?
I've not seen the start of this part of the thread, but it means that if
some agency asks them under it to - for example - release a browsing
history for someone who's been using their service, (a) they have to do
so (b) they _can_ be prevented from revealing that this has even
happened (and is happening).

IANAL either, though.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

New research shows that three to five cups of coffee a day will cut the risk of
Alzheimer's by about 60 per cent. There is also good evidence that tea is good
for memory. - Michael Mosley interviewed in Radio Times, 7-13 February 2009
 
F

FDK

"Justin" wrote in message
Greetings

Someone has asked me how to stop a computer that can be used by a
number of people from connecting to Facebook.

Is this something that could be done with the HOSTS file?

If so, how would that be done?

If not, any other ideas for a simple solution?

Many thanks

You should probably be more worried about blocking Brazzers.
FISH ON!!!!!!! JUST COULDN'T PASS THE BAIT WITHOUT SWALLOWING!!!
 
K

kreed

"LocalHero" wrote in message


Greetings

Someone has asked me how to stop a computer that can be used by a
number of people from connecting to Facebook.

Is this something that could be done with the HOSTS file?

If so, how would that be done?

If not, any other ideas for a simple solution?

Many thanks
--

*********************************************************
If they are not IT savvy you could just add Facebook to the list of
restricted sites in the browser.
K
 
S

Stan Brown

"LocalHero" wrote in message


Greetings

Someone has asked me how to stop a computer that can be used by a
number of people from connecting to Facebook.

Is this something that could be done with the HOSTS file?

If so, how would that be done?

If not, any other ideas for a simple solution?

Many thanks
You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.

The problem is that Windows Live Mail 2011 (version 15) has a
quoting style that is completely broken. (Apparently WLM 16 is
broken in the same way.) Unfortunately that poses a painful
choice to you: either fix every quote manually, or get a real
newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews, and Forte Agent (to mention
some that come to mind at the moment). OR, if you really want
WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve.

(I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you can un-break WLM 15
by installing and using an Autohotkey script:
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
But why spend time patching a broken tool?)

Thanks for your consideration!
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

kreed

Personally I prefer top posting. Don't see the the point of reiterating all
of the previous posts but just trying to fit in your arcane methods.
K
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top