Topic: Childproof TheaterView Lock (Read 10126 times)

Sandy B Ridge · « **on:** April 20, 2012, 04:52:36 am »

Now that young Haswell is crawling and cruising around the furniture, it's time for me to think about childproofing my Home Theater Setup! I'm sure glynor (and others) will be having similar thoughts! So I'd value any comments. I have already locked away the amp/HTPC in a 'media cupboard' and tied the speakers to the wall!

I'd like some comments on how to setup MC to be childproof and child friendly so that Haswell doesn't inadvertantly stray to watch nightmare inducing stuff.

Ideally a locked down Theater View with its own kids library would be ideal with no way of escaping theaterview (by remote at least - I can lock away the wireless keyboard or put it out of reach.). A way of running MC in a shell with no access to Windows Desktop without a password would be even better.

I've even considered building a small HTPC to connect directly to the TV for Haswells use only with the main files on the main HTPC.

How are you guys 'locking down' your MC?

Cheers

Sandy & Ivy B Ridge

MrHaugen · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2012, 05:14:22 am »

I've been thinking of such things my self. I can't think of another way than to make MC database for multiple users (playstats etc), and adding some password and library switching options in Theater view.

Adding Access Control Lists in MC would allow not only parents, but also people with houses or businesses with more people, to have full control of what each can access and do with the library. Things like password or key combination to access a database both on startup and wakeup would be good. Touch keyboard for screen input. Easy Switching between users from the roller menu and so on. It would be so sweet.

I'll manage with a single user library for now. But the day I get my self a family, this will easily become a huge problem.

As for your current problem Sandybridge, I don't really have much advice. It's limited today. As you say, you can hide things away. That helps a bit. You can drop sync from the client, to be sure that the kid don't mess up things. You can lock down the files by adding a deny on file deletion of the media, tied to the client computer. But this require that you access the media directly from the client. Not via the server.

locust · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2012, 06:43:25 am »

Quote

Adding Access Control Lists in MC would allow not only parents, but also people with houses or businesses with more people, to have full control of what each can access and do with the library.

True, but I think it would be nice if you could add user accounts in mc that each had their own access control lists so that you don't have to constantly change the settings - just switch user account (With passwords aswell) "And maybe an ability to create admin accounts that are the only ones allowed to tag media and change any settings."

MrHaugen · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2012, 07:41:38 am »

Yes. If ACL was ever used in MC, you would need a way to automatically set this on the media. Nobody would want to change the ACL for media imported. One way would be to allow customization of such things on auto import settings. So you could give each users different right for all types of media, without lifting a finger. A way of locking settings from users would be most welcome. At least an ability to block the sync back of such changes.

If such things like this is ever to be included in MC, I think it's a good idea to think a bit small in the start though. Such a complicated and big system will probably never see the day in one build. A simple way of adding users, the ability to switch users and to maintain separate play statistics for those uses would be a small but good start that most would benefit from I think.

JimH · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2012, 07:48:47 am »

MC has had Access Control for a few years.

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Access_Control

mojave · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2012, 08:25:49 am »

You might also want to use Party Mode.

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2012, 08:33:34 am »

Quote from: JimH on April 20, 2012, 07:48:47 am

MC has had Access Control for a few years.

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Access_Control

Thanks Jim. I had a feeling I'd seen the wiki before, but failed to find it this morning.

Are folks using this in any capacity? What's the verdict on its childproof-ness?

I guess this feature will restrict MC showing excluded titles, but presumably the files will still be accessible via the explorer window and so pretty easy to circumvent.

SBR

MrHaugen · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2012, 09:15:18 am »

That's good news. I knew about the party mode, but kind of forgot about it when writing these replays. Glad to hear that there's some sort of Access Control as well. Have to remember to try that when I have the time. It might help child proof the setup, or to hide some media from some people. There's still almost impossible to lock theater view down without getting a limited remote and removing the exit item I think.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2012, 05:58:56 pm »

I've tried the access control now, and enabled a custom rule to hide all Media Sub Type with the Adult tag. This works. It hides all files with Adult tag in it, but I can NOT figure out how to enable viewing of this files. I need to write the password and the files is shown. I do not think it works this way. It seems like it only are supposed to "permanently" hide media on certain clients. This is nice, but it's not what many need. They need this to be more dynamic.

The second problem is that this info is in no way synced to other clients. The tags might be, but the the Access settings are not transferred, so you can't have global rules to change client settings. With the way it works currently, that might not be such a bad thing after all...

I really, REALLY hope that functions like this get's a bit more focus. We desperately need it. Media Network are becoming very common in households these days.

HTPC4ME · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2012, 06:00:04 pm »

rick.ca · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2012, 08:51:12 pm »

Surely Access Control is something most would want to set as appropriate for each client. To view the restricted files, enter the password and turn it off. How else would it work?

MrHaugen · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2012, 05:40:46 am »

Controlling Access does not only mean denying access. Microsoft is a company most have had to deal with in one way or another. Those how are a bit technical and have worked with their products have a good idea of how an Access Control system can work. There are also very similar ways of dealing with this in most other OS types. Access control is not only about blocking access to certain things, but also to give users the appropriate type of access. The most common things are read, write. But under this there are other things like delete, create, modify rights and so on. A good Access Control system would be able to say what users and what machines that have right to this media, and what type of rights do they or do not have. And it would be able to control this from the library server or on each clients for local installs. A system you can ONLY use for locking down media from access is hardly something most users would need. Hiding things might be one thing people ask for, but there are so much more that are needed here before MC can call it self a true media network application. That's my opinion at least.

It would be somewhat more useful if there was a built in way to change from Protected to Non protected mode in Theater View, with a touch screen keyboard for Touch users. But even with this, this system is really limited in use.

rick.ca · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2012, 06:31:56 am »

Quote

And how can you be so sure of that?

Because I was referring to the same Access Control feature you were referring to—the one in MC, not in Windows. You know, the dirt simple one you couldn't figure out how to use. If it can be set differently on different clients, it would have somewhat more potential (e.g., different access rights for the kids', family HTPC and adults' computers). And you want a far more complex rights-based system?

MrHaugen · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2012, 06:53:08 am »

I figured out how it worked right after posting. I was just looking for a more logical way of turning it off. It was mentioned in the Wiki that there was User names and passwords for this, and I could not find anything that allowed switch users. This system might help people hide their porn from the living room HTPC's, or locking out the most brutal movies for kids, but that's about the usability of such a limited access control. Even if a system is complex, it does not mean that using it have to be difficult to use.

I'm saying I want a much more complex rights management in MC, yes. But I do not say that this is something we should aim for right away. What is needed is simple improvements that is most needed.
Multi users for libraries would be a good start, with the ability to protect access with passwords and a user switch in Theater View and standard view. Ability to lock down theater view would further hinder tampering and accidents, and is something that should not be super hard to introduce. THEN you could start looking at expanding the ability of the current Access Control System. I think that at least Read/Write/Delete, Read/Write and Read Only access should be introduced in time.

I can not understand that anyone with more than one user and one computer would not want this. this group is starting to get really big. One Laptop or just a HTPC is not longer the normal situation. People have HTPC's. Sometimes more than one, often a workstation and then a laptop or two. Then there's the Pads and phones. If MC will not adapt to this, then it might quickly be hurting compared to other professional media systems.

rick.ca · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2012, 04:34:45 pm »

Quote

It was mentioned in the Wiki that there was User names and passwords for this, and I could not find anything that allowed switch users.

You can tell from the dialog it's for a single user. You can tell from the date of the wiki entry it's very likely not up-to-date.

Quote

I can not understand that anyone with more than one user and one computer would not want this.

Most people don't want or need it because they're not interested in going to a lot of trouble to share a library with other users they don't trust. The existing system simply and effectively prevents one class of co-user—those who don't know the password—from accessing specified files. That's sufficient for preventing children from accessing files they shouldn't, for example. There are other solutions for other situations. Like sharing the files you're comfortable sharing, and letting the other party manage their own library. Or their own library in their own MC installation under their own system account. MC doesn't need to become an operating system. We already have one.

In any case, access control is only part of the issue asked about. Some sort of 'kiosk mode' for Theatre View (perhaps integrated with Access Control) simply by turning that on for kiosk mode) could be used to lock drunks and toddlers in a bullet-proof Theatre View.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #15 on:** April 21, 2012, 06:00:17 pm »

Even though you manage with the tools at hand does not mean that everyone else does. Most people might not need things like this, but there is certainly many that want bigger Media networks these days. Many people I know who live together with someone and that have several computers and are a bit technical want functions discussed here. They are looking for some or several of the things discussed in this thread. Multi user database, Theater View lock down, user switching in Theater View, child protection, hiding of data on certain machines or for certain users.

Yes, things like locking down wanted media and the Party mode is available, but without this being tied to a user or a machine it will still be a hazel for people to use in every day use. It's not even added to theater view, which many people use almost EXCLUSIVELY. People might not even have keyboard/mouse or shortcuts available to easily navigate and use Standard View. I don't... It might be possible to add this things as items to Theater view and activate it there, but it's not things that normal users will figure out how to do. So what I'm suggesting is to do it a bit more user friendly and available, and at the same time to improve the system a bit.

When people use a Library server and clients, the very least people need is to separate their stats for the media. The biggest strength of a Media Center is the ability to actually see what you have watched or played before, and create views of this. If several users use the same system, this falls together. Then you need to create several databases and to maintain all of that, which is not a trivial task.

MC is not an OS, but it's not to far away imo. On my HTPC and server it's the only thing running. This is where I spend the time. This is where I control everything. Using an OS, you often access files. With media center you almost do this ALL the time. MC is nothing without the media files, so in a way MC is far more dependent on this, and thus should handle this in similar way. When you create a Library server and have several clients and users, you expect it to be able to control the access even more. MC library server should work like a media server AND an access hub when it's used like this. Much like a domain controller. That is unfortunately not the case, and that is the reason why people ask for such things every week on this forum. The demands will not be any smaller with time.

I've just bought a house now, and I'm expecting to have at least 3 HTPC's in the house, and probably some Android or Win8 units in a few rooms. Without some centralized management and user access control, my everyday life will certainly be more complicated in the future.

rick.ca · « **Reply #16 on:** April 21, 2012, 08:53:36 pm »

Quote

Even though you manage with the tools at hand does not mean that everyone else does.

The usual lame argument. The fact I might "manage with the tools at hand" has nothing to do with my ability to use common sense to evaluate your suggestion. The fact I can manage and you can't doesn't make you an authority on what's required. I don't believe a viable case can be made for what you're suggesting—certainly not one worth the development effort required.

Quote

The biggest strength of a Media Center is the ability to actually see what you have watched or played before, and create views of this. If several users use the same system, this falls together. Then you need to create several databases and to maintain all of that, which is not a trivial task.

What you're suggesting won't magically make this a feasible task. Who is the user of an HTPC? Whose stats get updated when the whole family watches a movie together? Who is the listener of music playing in common areas of a home? If any individual cares about their play stats, aren't they going to want to maintain their own library anyway? Can you provide any common scenario for which a full-blown multi-user system will provide the only viable solution? If I've lost my mind managing with the tools at hand, the least you can do is enlighten me with a concrete example of where this might be of some practical use.

Castius · « **Reply #17 on:** April 21, 2012, 11:37:34 pm »

There is no reason to knock down any ideas. The point of a open discussion is to bounce ideas around and maybe come up with something better.
If not oh well.

However i'm not sure multiple users is what i would want. Maybe just expand view modes like party mode.
To be able to define custom view modes, would be nice.
I certainly wouldn't mind multiple theater views. For other reason like one for Me and one for my Wife.

I'd say one important note would be.
With all the ways you access JMC library.
How would something new like this work?
Gizmo
WebGizmo

rick.ca · « **Reply #18 on:** April 22, 2012, 12:25:42 am »

Quote

However i'm not sure multiple users is what i would want. Maybe just expand view modes like party mode.
To be able to define custom view modes, would be nice.
I certainly wouldn't mind multiple theater views. For other reason like one for Me and one for my Wife.

Thank you for putting this back on track. Yes, these are practical things that might be handled by recording and using some specific user preferences for things like a smartlist of files to exclude, views to exclude, features to disable, etc. The user could be changed and their settings applied by hotkey or selecting a user in a menu. It could encompass the existing Access Control and Party Mode by including passwords. Each user's settings could include a list of other users allowed to use the same settings. So, for example, Dad could switch to 'Kids', but the kids wouldn't be able to switch to 'Dad'. A 'user' could be an 'access level' or 'mode' as well as a person. So 'Party' might be strictly locked-down, while 'Guest' is designed for any sober adult visitor. Maybe 'mode' is a better term than 'user'. Such a thing could be used for a variety of different purposes and circumstances, and probably wouldn't be difficult to implement.

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #19 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:36:35 am »

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

I had a look at the Access Control feature and I think it is really powerful. I don't think I would trust the generic filters though, the wrong MPAA tag could have been assigned by mistake or more likely none at all. A custom search for a keyword that I assign specifically to a movie, or audio or even TV channel would probably work more reliably (or maybe that's too draconian!?).

I could set up Theaterview without an Exit button, and an explorer function, so that it would effectively be locked down to the set views with a remote control. A keyboard would be required to hack it.

It's really cumbersome to unengage Access Control though. Being able to toggle it in Theaterview itself would be great (with a password of course!). I like rick.ca's comments above for multiple users and being able to switch between them. Useful if we have any more kids.

SBR

MrHaugen · « **Reply #20 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:37:37 am »

Quote from: rick.ca on April 22, 2012, 12:25:42 am

Thank you for putting this back on track. Yes, these are practical things that might be handled by recording and using some specific user preferences for things like a smartlist of files to exclude, views to exclude, features to disable, etc. The user could be changed and their settings applied by hotkey or selecting a user in a menu. It could encompass the existing Access Control and Party Mode by including passwords. Each user's settings could include a list of other users allowed to use the same settings. So, for example, Dad could switch to 'Kids', but the kids wouldn't be able to switch to 'Dad'. A 'user' could be an 'access level' or 'mode' as well as a person. So 'Party' might be strictly locked-down, while 'Guest' is designed for any sober adult visitor. Maybe 'mode' is a better term than 'user'. Such a thing could be used for a variety of different purposes and circumstances, and probably wouldn't be difficult to implement.

So, now that I'm not the one mentioning it, this would be a wonderful idea? Amazing.

This is part of what I've been saying for some time now. Yes, we have some systems to handle small parts of what are asked where. But we have no user control. So, why not tie it together, and to allow some things to trigger on user switches. As you mention, things like party and access control can be triggered on specific users. Add the lockdown of theater view (removing exit TV, and add user switching instead), and most wishes from the Thread starter would come true.

And while this should not be some super hard thing to implement, I also urge you to consider adding more user fields for play statistics so we eventually can tie this users to it's own playing now stats.

Instead of getting to this faster I'm using pages to defend a very legit discussion and requests. I love that.

rick.ca · « **Reply #21 on:** April 22, 2012, 06:41:03 am »

Quote from: MrHaugen on April 22, 2012, 04:37:37 am

So, now that I'm not the one mentioning it, this would be a wonderful idea? Amazing.

Quote from: MrHaugen on April 20, 2012, 05:58:56 pm

I really, REALLY hope that functions like this get's a bit more focus. We desperately need it. Media Network are becoming very common in households these days.

Quote from: MrHaugen on April 21, 2012, 05:40:46 am

Microsoft is a company most have had to deal with in one way or another. Those how are a bit technical and have worked with their products have a good idea of how an Access Control system can work. There are also very similar ways of dealing with this in most other OS types.

Quote from: MrHaugen on April 21, 2012, 06:53:08 am

I'm saying I want a much more complex rights management in MC, yes...Multi users for libraries would be a good start...I think that at least Read/Write/Delete, Read/Write and Read Only access should be introduced in time.

What I've suggested has nothing to do with networks or access control systems used at an operating system level or even "multi-user libraries." Certainly not "much more complex rights management" or file-level access rights. On the contrary, it's a simple extension of the the existing Access Control feature to save multiple sets of settings, and for those settings to include view and feature exclusions as well as files. Amazing indeed.

JimH · « **Reply #22 on:** April 22, 2012, 07:02:15 am »

Quote from: Castius on April 21, 2012, 11:37:34 pm

There is no reason to knock down any ideas. The point of a open discussion is to bounce ideas around and maybe come up with something better.
If not oh well.

Agreed that it should work that way. Some members sometimes get personal when they feel the need to argue their point. It can make things unnecessarily unpleasant.

BTW, I haven't looked to see who was throwing rocks.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #23 on:** April 22, 2012, 07:22:38 am »

Quote from: rick.ca on April 22, 2012, 06:41:03 am

What I've suggested has nothing to do with networks or access control systems used at an operating system level or even "multi-user libraries." Certainly not "much more complex rights management" or file-level access rights. On the contrary, it's a simple extension of the the existing Access Control feature to save multiple sets of settings, and for those settings to include view and feature exclusions as well as files. Amazing indeed.

I made it perfectly clear from the start Rick, that I did not look for a complicated system right now. I've painted a picture of what I would like to see in the future, yes. But for now, easy to implement things, as both you and other have suggested, is what I'm aiming for as well. Both according to the topic and somewhat beyond. Discussions is very helpful to get to better solutions and ideas. There are lots of them on this forums, and the results are great at times!

What I really don't like is the way you dismiss most things as a pure waste of time or idiocy, just because you don't need it or don't see the need yet. The pattern of the way you handle things you don't appreciate, are pretty obvious. Instead of just leaving the subject dead (and it might fade if it get no support), you have to criticize. And very often it is not constructive at all. Why can't you focus on things that might actually be of your interest instead of annoying people? I have no objection to being tested or criticized if some requests are totally bad, or based on some wild thoughts. Most of my and others requests for new functions are based on limitations they find, and often there are lots of others that feel the same way. So, I think it's pretty darn rude of you to constantly try to smother other peoples ideas, even though they might be a bit rough around the edges in the beginning.

JimH · « **Reply #24 on:** April 22, 2012, 07:33:45 am »

Let's see if we can't all focus on details and eliminate personal remarks entirely.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #25 on:** April 22, 2012, 10:01:05 am »

Yea. Sorry about that. Had to blow of some steam. Would much rather have a constructive discussion that leads somewhere though.

Back on topic! Considering the ideas of this thread I would suggest the following. I'll add long term steps here as well but I'm not asking for all to be introduced in MC 17 or 18. It's just for consideration.

Step one
Users tied to libraries
This would allow you to create several users, and tie them to features we have today. Like Party Mode and Access Control. Add this users to the sync, so you don't have to manually add users on each client, and it would be both effective and easy to manage. If local Party Mode or Access Control was added, this could allow clients to add it's own restrictions. Deny setting would trump "allow" perhaps? IF this is to much, you could consider just allowing local or server settings. Not both at one time. For example only allow Library server settings if it's connected to server, and only local if it's using local library (it kind of have no choice, but yea...)

Example:
- A kids PC. You would deny settings manipulation globally by adding the Party Mode function, and then perhaps set Access Rules to block all video locally on the client. If they want to watch video, they do it in the living room. Not at night in their room.
- One user would have access to the Adult Media Sub Type globally, while the other users might not. Add a local Access rule to the living room PC to not show these items if you use your own user.

Disable Theater View exit
If you could choose whether a user is allowed to use, or even see the exit item, you could avoid lots of trouble in MC and the OS. And MC would suddenly be much more interessting for businesses, as customers are locked in the interface. I would also consider blocking the shortcuts to jump to other views. (CTRL+1 and so on)

Step two
User based library fields
This would be an evolution of the earlier user access control system. Adding individual Play counter, play dates, skips and so on to each user account. A master account could have access to all of them. This would solve a lot of issues we have today with users sharing the same stats, and people want different things. Views could also be tied together with user accounts, making it much more personalized. It could make a lot of the cases where users have to have several libraries go away.

Step three
More granular access control
Access control today just disables items in Theater View. There are cases you don't want certain users to see, access or write stats or tags to media. There are cases where you would want only access to Music in certain rooms, and full access in others. this could be done by evolving the user based access even more. Allowing Read, Write, Modify, Delete rights for each user or computer. It would help in bigger media networks as well as well as businesses.

This could get complicated. But it does not have to. Either set a few logical combinations for access, or you could experiment by using the windows users perhaps? IF you could tie the access to the servers files, depending on the actual NTFS rights on the disk, you could save a lot of trouble here. User names in MC and Windows local users or domain users would have to be the same, and you would need clients to read the access rights on the server somehow. I know I'm reaching here, but it might be a feasible way.

Step one and two are the once I hope will get some attention soon. I think they are doable, and that it would not take that much development time to add. The third step however might be a bigger job, and a bit more out there when it comes to how many who needs it today.

rick.ca · « **Reply #26 on:** April 22, 2012, 05:35:38 pm »

I don't think it's helpful or productive to pursue this as if it's a multi-user issue. That leads to solutions that are overly complex and would not serve users well even if they were implemented (which, of course, they won't). The fact MC is often used by more than one person doesn't make it or require it to be a multi-user application. In most cases where one library is being used by more than one person, it's being used jointly by those people. They generally have no interest in signing in and out of the application to have their own preferences applied. In many cases, this would not even make sense—they're watching or viewing the media with the other people.

No one would think of calling the existing Access Control a multi-user feature, although it does allow for two 'users' or classes of users—those who know the password and those who do not. It can also be used without a password, as a simple means to filter the media (e.g., files retained for the sake of completeness, but which no one wants to see or hear). This same sort of mechanism could be expanded to include any number of groups of settings. These should probably be called 'modes' to avoid confusion with 'users'. Along with file exclusions, each could include view and feature restrictions, and other modes restricted.

This would provide a simple, flexible way to create any set of modes desired for any purpose, and to easily switch between them (but restricting which modes can be switched to without a password). The primary user may have it set to a default 'unrestricted', and change that to 'Dad' to filter-out files he doesn't want to see while relaxing with Theatre View. With a button press, he changes it to 'Mom' mode (to restrict the media to that she likes) and hands her the remote (talk about WAF!). Perhaps she can switch it back to 'Dad', but would have to enter a password to change it to 'unrestricted'. What she really appreciates, however, is being able to select 'Kids' with a button press and turn the remote over to them—knowing they'll be locked in a mode where they only see appropriate media in views designed just for them. Who knows, maybe even set to shut-down the system at bedtime.

This one feature could be designed in way to accommodate the needs of those requesting 'childproofing', a configurable 'party mode', a 'kiosk mode', etc. Even those not requiring any such special modes might appreciate the ability to easily switch between different modes that use different views and file selections. One simple solution to many different needs.

struct · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2012, 10:39:55 pm »

This does not address many of the subsequent questions, nor foolproof but may help with the OP...

1. If your kid is young, don't worry about them getting to content they shouldn't. Make a view for them with "Haswell's Movies", tell them to use it and they do. They aren't interested in "boring grown up stuff". It is not till they are much older do they want what they can't have (this only goes for movies). You have to have your media tagged sufficiently to make the view, but that is a given.

When they are older they will figure out how to circumvent your clever schemes (i.e. you will be much older and they much smarter).

2. The one simple item I would like MC to have for those with younger familes, is to be able to automatically have a client sync with a server library, but only in one direction, i.e. the client automatically refreshes to match the server database but the server doesn't accept changes from the client. Thus my kid can screwup MC on his computer, but the server stays safe.

At the moment, if you want it to sync, you have to make it two directional updating, i.e. both can make changes. I don't understand why the option above can't be made really easily and would help with many who want a synced but low (no) permission client.

Craig

rjm · « **Reply #28 on:** April 22, 2012, 10:48:09 pm »

Just a reminder for anyone relying on party mode or access control. Any kid with regedit and 30 seconds can circumvent this security.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #29 on:** April 23, 2012, 02:45:27 am »

Quote from: rick.ca on April 22, 2012, 05:35:38 pm

I don't think it's helpful or productive to pursue this as if it's a multi-user issue. That leads to solutions that are overly complex and would not serve users well even if they were implemented (which, of course, they won't). The fact MC is often used by more than one person doesn't make it or require it to be a multi-user application. In most cases where one library is being used by more than one person, it's being used jointly by those people. They generally have no interest in signing in and out of the application to have their own preferences applied. In many cases, this would not even make sense—they're watching or viewing the media with the other people.

Sure, it's common to view things with other people. But there are also lots of cases where this is not true. Some couples might always watch the same things, but this is suddenly far from truth as you think of students living together, kids that want to watch children movies, older kids that have other TV Show and movie preferences, guys not interested in watching Paradise Hotel or One Three Hill with their better half and watches some manly shows instead, or people living in an apartment in your house that want access to your impressive collection of media. All of this and more are examples of cases where you'd absolutely would like to separate play statistics and perhaps control access to different media based on users.

Even though there would be a possibility of separating this, it would not be necessary for those that don't need it. You could even combine it, and create a user that are used for you and another person, so you can know exactly where you and your spouse left of the last time. And when she or he is off for some family reunion or a work thing over the next days, you can easily switch to your user and know exactly where you were on YOUR favorite shows. There would be no need for compromise. This fields could even be more open, so you could create views based on what YOU have watched, together with what you're other half have watched, and quickly find a movie you can watch together.

DVD profiler had a system for this. On each movie you could flag each user that had seen the movie, and when. This way you could create views that not this and that person had watched. I think it was a very nice feature, but somewhat badly implemented. Not to intuitive or easy to use.

This is a bit beyond what the OP requested, but I think it might be best to neatly wrap certain functions together to be more competitive to other media network solutions in the future.
I do not believe such a thing would be overly complicated. Why should it? Just tie the normal stats fields together with each account, and make it seem like the same field for each user. When viewing it from the server or management user you could have each field with an added user ID at the end to easily spot the play stats.

There might be better ways to do Access control and lockdown than I suggested. Rick have some valid points there. I would have no objections to just expanding the Access Control and Party modes to create different lockdown and access scenarios. I just thought it would be neat to include it directly in "user profiles" if such things was ever planned.

rjm have a very good point about the Server/Client sync. If there was an option to not sync changes back to the server, then you could have high risk clients wide open. This settings would probably have to be set on the server. I would just like to add that even though you don't want users to mess up the library, there might be some cases where you would like play stats to be synced, but not anything else. In other words no file tagging, deletions and so on, but still an update on play dates, play and skip counters and so on.

bil1010105 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 23, 2012, 05:09:19 am »

Quote from: JimH on April 20, 2012, 07:48:47 am

MC has had Access Control for a few years.

http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Access_Control

Unfortunately I can't find a way to use this via Theatre View, which makes it pretty much useless for the living room.

I'm in the same position as the OP, but my child is 6 so slightly older... she's already figured out how to turn the media PC on though and set all the various options so she can watch films. It scares me sometimes.

For me, there are three access levels required.

1) For the child, so everything should be (at most) PG rated.
2) For us, so up-to and including 18 certificate.
3) For me (and us sometimes

), with Adult movies.

I don't really care how it's done, but I would like to be able to set these up and not have to say "Oh, just use that view and ignore the rest" because in practice that just won't work.

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #31 on:** April 23, 2012, 05:57:25 am »

Quote from: bil1010105 on April 23, 2012, 05:09:19 am

Unfortunately I can't find a way to use this via Theatre View, which makes it pretty much useless for the living room.

Agree. The current way to set access control and party mode isn't congruent with how I use MC most of the time.

A solution to 'set access control without password' would go part of the way to make it easier. I'd be much more likely to remember to set it if it was a one button press.

Could the MCC command line expression for Configure_access_control (or whatever it is) be modified to allow 'setting' of access control without a password? If this was the case I could set up a single remote control button (or possibly a 'lock' item in theaterview) to run a .bat file with 'set party mode', 'set access control', 'set view to theaterview'. I've already deleted the 'Exit' menu option from theaterview, so in theory theaterview should be locked.
I could also set windows scheduler to run the same .bat file at 5am every morning in case I forget the previous evening.

Unsetting access control would be a different kettle of fish though and low WAF with the current setup (unless she wanted to watch some kids stuff!)

SBR

rick.ca · « **Reply #32 on:** April 23, 2012, 06:50:57 am »

Quote from: bil1010105 on April 23, 2012, 05:09:19 am

I don't really care how it's done, but I would like to be able to set these up and not have to say "Oh, just use that view and ignore the rest" because in practice that just won't work.

The system I've suggested would handle this nicely. Thinking of your three levels as a hierarchy of 'modes', you would move freely (i.e., with a button-press in an 'Access Mode' menu) from a higher to a lower level. Moving from a lower to a higher level would require a password (via the OSK in Theatre View). Your child, of course, would not know the passwords to the higher levels. You wouldn't have to restrict level 2's access to level 3, but you probably want to do that so it's harder to forget it's being set to 'Adult' mode. Each of the three modes would exclude views not suited to the intended use. An even better way to configure an 'Adult' mode might be to exclude everything but adult media. It would therefore only be used for that specific purpose, and it would be very difficult to forget to switch back to another mode when done.

Quote from: Sandy B Ridge on April 23, 2012, 05:57:25 am

A solution to 'set access control without password' would go part of the way to make it easier. I'd be much more likely to remember to set it if it was a one button press.

What I've suggested would allow you to configure 'modes' so changing them is as easy as possible in the circumstances. You simply configure each one by specifying which other modes are restricted. Restricted modes would require the password of mode selected to proceed. Other modes could be selected freely. In some modes (e.g., 'Kids' and 'Party') there may be nowhere else to go without a password. Other modes may be just for the convenience of the primary users to restrict files and menus to a particular purpose (e.g., 'Classical' for classical music listening only), and movement to or from such views would be unrestricted.

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2012, 07:21:12 am »

Quote from: rick.ca on April 23, 2012, 06:50:57 am

What I've suggested would allow you to configure 'modes' so changing them is as easy as possible in the circumstances. You simply configure each one by specifying which other modes are restricted. Restricted modes would require the password of mode selected to proceed. Other modes could be selected freely. In some modes (e.g., 'Kids' and 'Party') there may be nowhere else to go without a password. Other modes may be just for the convenience of the primary users to restrict files and menus to a particular purpose (e.g., 'Classical' for classical music listening only), and movement to or from such views would be unrestricted.

I really like your ideas rick.ca. Really user friendly.

I was just thinking short-term for now how it could be part-fixed with little dev time, but I agree that in the long term your solution would be great. I have a liitle time yet, before I really need this to work, we are still at the 'everything goes in the mouth (and what doesn't go in the mouth gets whacked on the table/floor) stage', so the RC is deffo off limits now!

SBR

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2012, 07:39:29 am »

Just to reiterate what I think rick.ca is getting at with a few illustrative examples:

I think there are two requirements to make this work.
1) Different Users or Modes (as rick.ca called them), such as 'Kids','Teens','Classical','Wife','Me','Admin', etc. The number I guess could be as complicated as you want.
2) Access Control Tier, I guess numbered from 1 to 4. Admin would be a 'default' with no restrictions and Tier 4.

Each User or Mode could have it's file restriction in the same way as the current Access Control Feature (BTW I think it's really powerful). But also have check-boxes for 'Restrict to theaterview' and 'allow sync'.

Movement within each 'Tier' would be allowed without password, as would moving user down a Tier. But a password would be required to move up a tier.

I could even restrict Ivy to Theaterview (shhhhh don't tell her I said that!)!

SBR

rick.ca · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2012, 02:04:55 pm »

Quote

But also have check-boxes for 'Restrict to theaterview'

Good idea. My suggestion assumes some mechanism for excluding views, but that's probably something that would prevent this from being implemented sooner rather than later. An initial implementation that included a restriction to Theatre View, but not the ability to restrict views within, would still be a good start. Whatever internal mechanism is required to restrict views might go hand-in-hand with the ability to disable views in the Theatre View configuration (something that would be very useful for other reasons).

My suggestion also assumes some features could be restricted, without explaining what those features are or how they would be selected. I suppose there are many different features that users might want to disable for a variety of reasons. But a good start would be just a few obvious general restrictions, like deleting files and tagging, perhaps with [Rating] and [Flag] handled separately (the latter to provide a means for the restricted user to indicate "there's something wrong with this file or it's tags").

Quote

Movement within each 'Tier' would be allowed without password, as would moving user down a Tier. But a password would be required to move up a tier.

I'm not sure if you're describing how you think the feature should work, or how you would use the one I've suggested. What I've suggested does not include any restriction on the number of modes or impose any hierarchy. The configuration of each mode would include specifying the other modes to be restricted (i.e., requiring the entry of their password to change to). That's a key attribute of the system, as it's what makes the whole thing so flexible. For any mode, the 'Access Mode' menu (a special 'view' added to the Theatre View, placed wherever desired) would list all modes, indicating the ones requiring a password.

Quote

I could even restrict Ivy to Theaterview (shhhhh don't tell her I said that!)!

She'll be able to hack her way out of any restrictions soon enough. I think it's important to design such things so they're easy to use and as much a convenience as they may be a restriction to anyone. Ivy may be very happy being 'restricted' (and less inclined to look for ways to circumvent the feature) if it means she doesn't have to see all your boring media and complicated views.

HTPC4ME · « **Reply #36 on:** April 23, 2012, 02:21:17 pm »

what about just having the ability to load multiple server's from one machine? would solve most of the problems. wouldnt need to spend money for another machine/S just for a separate library... giving all family members, friends, outside sources, the ability to all be connected to same machine, but diffrent libraries at once... once multiple libraries are setup you could just do an auto import, then go through ones whole library tags, removing those tagged/files that you dont others to have access to, then upon future imports jriver would skip those files that are not intended for those libraries... everyone would have access, you would only need 1 machine, and you could have 20-50 diffrent libraries running on the server. others would have to know the library name, AND the password to connect.. for those who want faster access/want to switch libraries, then there could be atick box to remember credentials for that library server. for kids you could have it set in settings to only show library (kid name) brandon with no exceptions for loading additional libraries.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #37 on:** April 23, 2012, 02:58:31 pm »

Sorry, but that is just so wrong in my opinion. To focus on adding more libraries, with all the confusion that will make regarding all services that are supposed to be accessed on each library and so on. It would be such a huge job making it all work seamlessly. Nothing can beat the simplicity and convenience by having it all in one library, and instead adapting it for more users and the ability to customize the access and experience.

To remotely load libraries would be one thing, but simultaneously running several libraries, no.

HTPC4ME · « **Reply #38 on:** April 23, 2012, 03:03:46 pm »

Quote

but simultaneously running several libraries, no.

understandable... probably turn into a big resource hog that way as well.

rick.ca · « **Reply #39 on:** April 23, 2012, 03:03:59 pm »

Quote

what about just having the ability to load multiple server's from one machine? would solve most of the problems.

I think what we're trying to address here is how a better form of access control for a single library might be provided. In that context, this would not "solve most of the problems." Having different users use different libraries is a way to obviate the need for access control within a library, and your suggestion may help those who make that choice. But the much more common situation is where one library is strongly preferred, and the notion of there being separate users of that library is not particularly useful (because the users are often listening/viewing the media together, and are not interested in separate user statistics).

MrHaugen · « **Reply #40 on:** April 23, 2012, 03:20:08 pm »

Quote from: rick.ca on April 23, 2012, 03:03:59 pm

But the much more common situation is where one library is strongly preferred, and the notion of there being separate users of that library is not particularly useful (because the users are often listening/viewing the media together, and are not interested in separate user statistics).

Come an. This again... Can't we have a poll so we can figure out what people REALLY want instead of guessing? And yes, I mean my self as well. It would be better to figure out what people need, than to create features that will not be used, or drop things that would be used.

rick.ca · « **Reply #41 on:** April 23, 2012, 06:57:34 pm »

Quote

Can't we have a poll so we can figure out what people REALLY want instead of guessing?

Sigh. Polls generally work better when people have clear choices to vote on. I'm doing the best I can to discuss and define an idea I believe is relevant to the topic, feasible to implement and useful for a variety of needs. That's not easy to do while responding to your concerns my idea might not be exactly what you want. Let's be clear about this. I really really don't care to tailor my idea to accommodate what you think you want. I don't agree with you. You come across as if you're terrified someone will listen to me instead of you. No one cares. If you have a concrete proposal to make, make it. If the proposals conflict (i.e., only one could be implemented), then we can have a poll on which proposal is preferred.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #42 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:41:42 am »

I have made my proposal. I'm not afraid that your suggestions would be picked over mine or anyone else. I think it would be a huge step forward in access control in either way. I just think it's bad to rule out multi user database just because you think no one would use it. You say it out loud that you know it will not be implemented. Quote: "if they were implemented (which, of course, they won't)". That is a tad arrogant probably just wrong. You base this on personal opinions, and neither you nor me know what will happen in time.

Of the people using MC now, there would of course be LOTS that does not know the benefits. It's the same with most products. If people manage with what they have and are happy, they are often blissfully unaware of what COULD have been done. People live with the limitations and they adapt. Apple people are experts in this field imo. That does not mean that there could not be lots of people living or working together that could benefit very much from a small user and computer separation in the database.

The things we discuss in this thread (Lock down and access control etc) could have a real advantage of being tied to user and computer accounts, and that is why I'm concerned about this. I know this thread is not really about that multi user databases, so I'll shut up about this now...

I would be very happy with any changes that would allow me to tailor better what person or computer be used to watch, change media tags, sync and prevent people messing with my library and settings.

bil1010105 · « **Reply #43 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:33:40 am »

I'm not sure why everyone seems to want to over-engineer this.

A simple, intermediate solution that would solve 95% of the problem, would be to just have password protected views.

The password protection should work with Theatre View using a remote - maybe something simple like a PIN number.

Select a view -> enter correct PIN -> view displayed
Select a view -> enter incorrect PIN -> view not displayed

PIN unlock lasts for the runtime of the application, with possibly a "panic" button somewhere to re-lock everything.

PIN can be different for each view if you wish, thus giving you multiple access levels.

Simples.

HTPC4ME · « **Reply #44 on:** April 24, 2012, 11:26:32 am »

great suggestion, as long as that view doesnt show thumbnails/or filenames (for those of us with adult libraries)

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #45 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:45:34 pm »

Thanks for the comments all, I'm sure Matt, Jim and the team will consider all our suggestions in due course.

SBR

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #46 on:** April 24, 2012, 01:35:20 pm »

I would love to see increased access control options. In particular I would like to see:

1. Controllable via Theater View
2. More than the current "On or Off" type. Needs to support more than two "roles"
3. Needs to be enforceable from the server. Otherwise any 10 year old can circumvent on a client.

Don't really care how it is done as long as it is simple to use.

Sandy B Ridge · « **Reply #47 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:16:42 pm »

Quote from: gvanbrunt on April 24, 2012, 01:35:20 pm

Don't really care how it is done as long as it is simple to use.

+1!

SBR

rick.ca · « **Reply #48 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:17:06 pm »

Quote from: bil1010105 on April 24, 2012, 08:33:40 am

A simple, intermediate solution that would solve 95% of the problem, would be to just have password protected views.

I'm not sure why you prefer this over my suggestion, or consider it simpler...

This would show the restricted user views they don't have access to. Do you really want to show your kids and party guests a 'Porn' menu, even if they need a password? I suppose it might amuse them for hours trying to hack the password.

This would require creating separate views for restricted media. Not only will that often be unnecessary work (i.e., not simple), it will just be an annoyance for the unrestricted user if they would normally use another view for that media. An adult may want to exclude 'mature' films from their child's view, but they probably want it included in their movie views.

Instead of just selecting the appropriate mode and being presented with the views and media you prefer or have been restricted to, this would mean having to enter a password for each and every view that has been restricted. It's possible one would have one or more restricted views in each of Audio, Images and Video. This would be so unacceptable to the unrestricted user, there would have to be a master access control (like there is now)—and you're right back were you started (but a lot more complicated).

Quote from: gvanbrunt on April 24, 2012, 01:35:20 pm

3. Needs to be enforceable from the server. Otherwise any 10 year old can circumvent on a client.

I don't use Library Server, so I'm unfamiliar with the nuances. My suggestion involves the use of 'modes' associated with the library. I assume those would apply equally, regardless of how the library is accessed. But I suppose this raises a good question no matter what. If it's for security rather than convenience, there needs to be a way to require the choosing of a mode on startup—whether that's starting a single instance, or connecting to the server. So as to not annoy those using the feature for convenience only (or not at all), there would need to be a password-protected master control for enabling or disabling the whole thing (i.e., as there is now).

Remember, this cuts both ways. I think what most people get is the idea of restricting the 10 year old. But what about the 16 year old? In that case, you're more likely to give up on the idea of employing any sort of control he'll circumvent in 30 seconds. At the same time, assuming he even wants to continue using your library rather than his own, he'll probably want to continue to use the same feature to filter out his parents boring media and views designed for the feeble-minded.

gvanbrunt · « **Reply #49 on:** April 24, 2012, 04:49:30 pm »

Quote

3. Needs to be enforceable from the server. Otherwise any 10 year old can circumvent on a client.

My reason for saying this is that as far as I know, the server always sends the whole library and lets the client decide how to display it. Obviously that means there is 0 security/filtering if accessed from a client. No matter what you have enabled on the server "access control" all the Library Clients, DLNA Clients, etc have full access to everything.

As for 10 vs 16 year old that is exactly the point. A good security system should not be trivial to circumvent no matter what the age.

That doesn't mean it has to be difficult to use etc, just designed decently. The server should only send data to client that it is allowed to see.

MC has been (and is) a leader in many areas of Media Players. Security would again put them at the front of the pack while everyone else has basically nothing. At the Very Very least I would like to see a readable only "mode" for clients etc. The danger of damage grows with the number of clients accessing it.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Childproof TheaterView Lock (Read 10126 times)