Slashdot Mirror
New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous
netcentric writes "A post on CircleID has reported about an RFC prepared by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com's Washington D.C. correspondent, analyzing proposals from various parties to mandate the use of special top level domain names (such as .sex or .xxx) or an IP address bit to flag 'adult' or 'unsafe' material or the like. The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view. Here is the post to this report on CircleID along with some commentaries and link to the entire RFC 3675."
Bah! .xxx rocks!
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
A Request For Content, as it were.
...I am releived of the burden of being a responsible, involved parent. Thanks Mr. Eastlake. *sigh*
At first blush I would consider this a good idea, but seeing that Lieberman endorsed it, I'm forced to knee-jerk the other way.
Now would this "adult bit" be incorporated into the evil bit? Or what?
I think this has already been accomplished throught the infamous se.cx area of the internet.
Earlier efforts in his three decades of work with computer technology include contributions to the Greenblatt Chess Program at MIT, the first computer program to plan chess in tournament competition and be granted a chess rating
If Donald E. Eastlake can't get any (.)sex, nobody can!
I didn't know they weren't using virtual protection methods!
Karma whorin' since 1999
The Sticky Bit?
I just told someone at work about this, and he said ".sex? What would that be for...porn sites?"
Lets just say I should hope so
...that we will be seeing more posts with Goatse links?
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
...to read why showing a nipple on US TV is immoral, while executing the said owner of the nipple and selling the nipple is a good deed.
Does she have the clap or what?
Free the West Memphis Three!
I don't know about you, but it certainly gives new meaning to some already existing sites.
tomshardware.sex
slashdot.sex
irs.sex
gateway.sex
Internet's about to get real interesting.
At first I read it as .sex STD.
Now _that_ would be a dangerous series of websites.
wbs.
Huh?
get .xxx. At new.net you can get all kinds of crazy extensions, i tried to post `em but: "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted." so oh well, go check em out.
At first it seems like a good idea, protect the kids and all that, but what this would lead to is easy censorship. Filtering right now is a nightmare with probably just as many ways to bypass it as to filter in the first place. READ: anyone that wants to get information always can. Also, this would never work, the us would try to enforce it worldwide without making much headway.
:(){
Bad code!
That should be
const char *main()
{
const char *gender;
gender = "male";
return gender;
}
I do not in any version of reality think that anyone should force "obscene" websites to .sex; however it would be good and should be available for anyone who would want to do business there. Free speach should be above all. Noone should be forced to move their website there but it could be a boon to helping me look for my pr0n.
cheers.
"Extrudited"? Is that where they squeeze you through a small hole and then send you back home?
I call dibs on:
jesuslovesgay.sex
I wonder if the FCC will come after me....
1. Create a special place for something considered deviant.
2. Mandate that this is the only place where deviance can take place.
3. Eliminate special place for deviance.
4. ?????
5. Profit!
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the internet there'd only be one website left and it'd be called "BringbackthePorn.com".
.cx is the domain extention of christmas island, and some people thought it cleaver to combine it with goatse.
If the govt (specifically that group of old nags in the FCC and their ilk) can identify all pr0n at the flick of a wrist (pun!) then *controlling* that traffic is much easier than it currently is. Think I'm being paranoid? Well that's what happens when you have a president who wants to hold prayer circles in the oval office; you start to worry about your right to enjoy sin and debauchery.
If you bothered to read the article, or even the summary, you'd see that the RFC prepared by Mr. Eastlake is against a .sex top-level domain.
I don't think that any sites should be forced into doing this, but that it would be cool if sites did it voluntarily. I mean, I'm sure the sites don't really want kids visiting anyway... they probably aren't going to be able to find a way to pay for content.
That's "Post" by the way. Quoting from the (usually inaccurate but not this time) story blurb at the top of the screen:
The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view.
Emphasis mine.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
penny-arcade.sex
whitehouse.sex
yahoo.sex
While this seems to be a good idea in some ways, I can't help but be reminded of those "free speech zones" they command protesters to stay within if they want to protest something. After all, the entire country is supposed to be a free speech zone, and the entire internet is supposed to be open to any form of speech (that is, within reasonable limits).
VinDiesel.xxx
And then sell the domain to that loser for hefty sum.
Let's work through this. If they came up with ".sex", many workplaces would filter out sites that were listed in .sex. I mean, wouldn't you? Now, let's pretend that you've got a porn site. You want as many people to see it as possible. You could host it at whitehouse.sex and get some traffic, or at whitehouse.com and get more traffic. Which do you pick?
Both, of course.
I mean, why wouldn't you?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
It's a good thing that the author of the RFC is opposed to such an idea.
.sex or .xxx set of websites, then only the most naive people would make use of it. All of the real nasty/devent/illegal porn would be hidden in any of the usual TLDs or possibly obfuscated in the new .mob(ile) TLD.
If the gov't would force all sexually oriented material to a
So while we'd be busting Christian husbands and teenagers for looking at softcore pr0n we would also be happily turning a blind eye to all of the child molesters accessing fbi.gov kiddie-pr0n files.
I guess, from the gov'ts perspective, it's an easy out to say,"We're doing all that we can. Send more tax money."
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
here
Yes, yes you were all happy when the GOTO was considered harmful. But it didn't stop there. Oh no. I warned you, I did.
And now see where it's led? Sex considered harmful!
Bring back the GOTO before it is too late!
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous
Emphasis mine.
I guess it's too much to ask these days...
I'm all in favor of this kind of TLD.
Preferably something easy to type with one hand.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
No, but maybe just some plain old 'goat' or 'anal' links.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Just ask any parent.
Ask your own parents... Another fine mess you've got us into, dear
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Create the TLD (preferrably .xxx to indicate an "adult" nature, as opposed to .sex which indicates, well, sex. Not all "adult" material is sex). Encourage the porn community to use this new TLD. Let them keep their .coms, .org(ie)s, and .nets. But encourage them to have those domains forward to the .xxx domain. There are responsible site owners in the community. If a .xxx domain suggesst to the potential customer that the site is more legitimate with its business that will create a competitive edge for .xxx domain businesses.
If it doesn't take, maybe then we can discuss this mandate.
Essentially, give them the freagging tool and see if they take to it before forcing them to use it. What ever happened to the "graded-approach?"
So apple,aol,people on mars , profane speech, tivo and .sex are all dying today?
Gosh I'm so flattered that they thought to use our world.std.com as an example of a domain name in the
If we could only restrict xxx ads/pop-ups/flashing banners to .xxx sites...
For Content That's for adults. .xxx & .sex limit to only sex sites.
Chances are, adult-oriented websites will have little to no incentive to move their domains over to a different TLD.
.xxx domain could cause non-adult sites to move there, which would cause them to be restricted to children who may otherwise have legal and unrestricted access.
"When faced with the slippery nature of what depictions of sexual activity should be illegal or not, one U.S. Supreme Court justice blithely defined obscenity as: 'I know it when I see it.'"
Using legislation as a means to force such sites to the new TLD is impossible to implement, since the courts are simply unwilling to touch (no pun intended) on the technicalities of the issue. Trying to ask any judge what they consider sexually explicit will get you a different answer every time, and will change as you go to different parts of the world. The United States is in no position to impose it's ethical views on other contries.
Getting back to my oringinal point, what is the incentive to migrate to the new TLD? Webmasters are generally more interested in getting more visitors to their site rather than placing restrictions. Placing a price cut, which I can see as the only viable incentive, on registration to the
Just append .condom to your .sex and you're all set!
i agree. just hope that DDD will have homepage at http://www.ddd.xxx/
that will be fun.
my endian is bigger than yours!
While I agree that a .sex TLD is 1.) a dumb idea, and 2.) a potential legal and regulatory morass, I think it's shortsighted to just roll your eyes and write it off as another "won't someone think of the children" proposal.
.sex domain is one such idea.
Some people just don't like being inundated by porn when they use the Internet. Period.
I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some porn -- or reference to porn -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of porn.
So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.
Most communities regulate porn theaters, porn magazines, etc., very strictly. Even if you, personally, like and consume porn in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a porn theater opening up on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving porn there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from porn companies on park benches and bus stops.
I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing porn. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?
It seems to me that the porn industry has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their products out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the porn industry does business. The
Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.
Breakfast served all day!
Putting all the porn under the .xxx or .sex domain is as necessary as adding the front button to pants. Did anybody question the person that invented the zipper????????
An IP Address bit to signal if material is unsafe or adult?! Are you crazy? That's modifying the IP protocol for something carried many levels above it!
It's akin to making a big sign on every car/truck that says there are toxic materials on board, and only light the sign for those that actually carry the materials.
Rediculous!
As I had stated in another /. post, I really think that we need to re-think the way we compartmentalize information on the web. There are a number of reasons, but primarily the fact that we let any and all websites sit anywhere on the TLDs that were originally meant to be a *starting point* for site hierarchy just proves that people are being resistive and lazy.
.coms to block it all based on TLD). .po or something for mail systems - maybe requiring some sort of adherence to installation of non-relaying systems based on agreed standards... or something to that effect)
I really think we need several more TLDs for more things than jsut porn;
-.com - company commercial sites.
-.org - NFPs and other groups that are not commercially oriented.
-.xxx - (or something sim to put all porn and easily allow
-.kid - (or something sim to put youth oriented sites).
-.ppl - individuals websites blogs etc.
-.net - isps and carriers - including mobiles like nokia and other cellular companies.
-.mail (or
-.med?
But since this is not likely to happen until these morons at ICANN die off, I propose that we implement vTLDs on our own.... look here
I'm not so sure about this idea. Personally I think they should be a bit more cautious about opening new top level domains. I mean who would not like their own top domain, or one special for their interest. Eventually the entire yahoo-list of categories will be on a top level domain. Is this a good way of evolving the net. I think perhaps its time to think about how the net top domains should be structured logically, maybe this is the way, and the traditional way is obsolete. Does anyone of you see a better way that could be more logical and helpful in structuring the information out there? Is there something to gain by structuring the domain information in a different ways?
No, that's the Dirty Bit.
Now, some person bent on mischief registers a ".com" domain name that points to my website.
Am I in trouble here? Who committed the offence?
Now, imagine, I pay some person in Nigeria cash to set up domain names in ".com" that point to my website and continue to do so as each domain name is taken down.
So much potential for abuse by or against adult webmasters.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It doesn't matter what flags are put on a website's address. If your kids really want to see porn, they know how to find it. Don't think kids are that dense. It just takes a knowledgable parent to do anything about it. Still, there are plenty of workarounds. Example: Lets say you have a son, the age of 14. You think he's looking at Saraf****thisc********whatawhore.com. Do you honestly think he doesn't know that shows up in their history? Of course they do! They delete that first. And trust me, kids know about Spector Pro and the like. Word spreads between kids, and they will be sure to delete it or records from it. We have to face the music. A simple .xxx or .sex is not going to solve the problem. Listen, if you don't want your kids looking at porn, teach them yourself, don't let them watch TV, don't let them use the computer, don't let them draw(Yes, kids are quite creative), don't let them have friends, don't let them do anything! Oh, wait, there's the thing! You can't stop them from doing anything! You can't stop your kids from looking at porn, so just don't bother. They always come up with another solution to find it. They always do.
So now the underlying protocols that drive communications for the entire world need to have bits to designate "sexual content", just to appease the ridiculously puritanical Amercians.
Sometimes I wonder what the hell happened to your priorities. You'll go to war and kill 1000s of people to find WMD (which it seems never existed). You'll televise your murderous rampage to the world in all its horrifying brutality. Yet if a woman shows a breast on television then there's a "moral" outcry. Whose morals? It seems your society's morals are those of a prudish spinster.
The incredible thing is that in the area of morals and censorship, America shares more in common with religious regimes like the Taleban than with any other group. I can only think of two regions in the world that are so ridiculously out of touch with their human nature: the USA and the religious nutcases in the Middle East.
It'd be so easy to dismiss this rant as a troll or flamebait. Sure, it's easier to ignore that which you wish wasn't true, but you know that I'm making you uncomfortable because I'm telling the truth. There's a serious problem with morals in America right now. Your laws are repressing a natural part of the human existence, imposing an incredibly puritanical view of humanity onto millions of people, yet your same lawmakers allow a 10 year old child to see a man murdered on television. What the hell is wrong with you people?!?
...no, not the TLD, but the fact that a journalist is here working on policy and creating news. It's one thing to comment after the fact as Declan does in his articles and in Politech, but this is ridiculous. This is a more blatant abuse than the talking heads on the weekend political talk shows--at least they don't have direct affect on policy.
So we should ban it; especially as it creates the very kids we are trying to protect from it, shame on you!
I thought they were the dangly bits.
That this is a good idea, that way people stop making random porn .coms, .nets, etc. And just go .sex and .xxx, etc. That way you can just have your broswer deny access to .sex or .xxx domains, and you don't have to worry about your children stumbling upon them. This, of course, wouldn't put an end to .com porn, but it would still be a big help in filtering out porn in the future.
Buckethead
That is the the main concern of the article. Sex is just so much a part of normal life that you can't put it in a box and hope to keep it away from the rest of the net. By creating a safe walled zone material of a sexual nature is ostracised. The problem is that it cannot be thus contained because it crosses over with so many other areas, examples cited are discussions about AIDS and birth control. As to 'reasonable limits' that's a whole can of worms.
I have thought about this a few times, and I actually think the benefits in terms of keeping pr0n away from people who do not want to see it outweigh the risks in terms of keeping pr0n away from people who do want to see it. After all, where there's a will(y), there's a way.
However, I also think it's unlikely to happen. The UK and US governments seem to think that there is something wrong with sex -- especially the non-procreative varieties -- but prefer to deal with it by pretending it doesn't exist. Creating a special domain for pornography and then taking action to ensure it is used properly would mean having to admit that people do enjoy sex.
And that's something I really can't imagine the authorities ever agreeing to, given the way the USA reacted to a lady's chest being shown on TV, and the fact that until recently, you weren't even allowed to depict a hard-on in Britain. The only way it would ever gain any sort of approval would be if someone else started it off. But in countries where sex is seen as just being something people do, they probably would not see the need for a separate place on the Internet.
I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. But it's going to require a pretty major attitude shift somewhere.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
After one day of browsing the web, you are sure to come by porn, or porn-related contents. If porn had its own tld you could easily filter out if the link you are about to follow contains what you expect, or just another porn-site. However, it will take a loooong time to move all the porn-sites over to .xxx
this is probably the most boring sig in the world
That's the point. What's your problem with .sex? That the kids will now ahve (even) liess problems finding the porn? Well if their finding and viewing the porn RIGHT NOW, and you don't like it, what are you doing about it RIGHT NOW? There is no down side to .sex at all. As far as the kiddies locating pron, they will find a way, .sex or not. It is left to YOU as a parent to be involved with your childrens Internet viewing to address this issue. If you MUST depend on The Government to raise your kids, perhaps you should not have had any.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Yeah, both of you. This should be marked redundant, if anything. Look about 2 or 3 threads down, and then mod this cocksucker to hell.
Hell, you're probably the same person posting both posts.
This is completely true. I have had to clean up countless people's computers who have this new.net trash installed. Its a royal PITA.
I guess pointing out spyware is now a troll.
I don't think that creating an "adult" TLD is a bad idea. The danger would come when websites and judged and rated and then forced to operate under that domain and no other As the article pointed out, laws and standards defining pornograpy vary wildly, and there's no way you can fairly and impartially judge web sites, especially if their content is constantly changing.
But if joining the adult TLD was a voluntary act, I think it would be very useful. I'd certainly give it strong consideration if I ran an adult website. I don't know how their costs break down, but surely there's a significant bandwidth usage by minors who have no method or intention of joining the website, but are just poking around looking for free stuff. There must also be some fairly hefty legal costs involved. If using an adult TLD would offer some protection from those problems, they might actually become quite popular.
One thing, though... don't use that stupid ".xxx"
extension to identify the adult domain. Any website that ends in ".xxx" is automatically going to be classified as some cheesy '70s porn sex site, and I think that there are other businesses besides pornographers who might be interested in being able to place their website where minors can't access it. Dating services, or online casinos, for example.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 ("C9x") section 5.1.2.2 specifies that the function called at program startup shall be called "main"; furthermore, that function must return int. If you define a function called "main" in a program running on a conforming hosted environment, your function must return int.
Your code is undefined. HAND.
Instead of trying to figure out what's naughty and what's not, we can just whitelist all white-middle-class-evangelical-family-friendly content, put it in .PRUDE, and they can block everything else.
Advantages: the evangelicals are happy because they can be pure and clean without having to actually make any moral choices, and the rest of us can use this thing called "free will", which allows people to view and avoid whatever content they desire.
For Content That's for niggers. .spade & .coon limit to only some niggers.
There once was a fellow named Dillon,
He cried, "That's not me!"
"I use BSD!"
"Because I find it fulfillin'."
W
Merely my brief experience with Gentoo, when they first upgraded glibc (from 2.2 to 2.3 iirc) and broke half the packages, then downgraded it again and broke everything else. This is really a pet peeve: aren't minor versions supposed to be compatible? And a zillion similar but smaller-scale annoyances, well expressed by Bill Paul many years ago and the years haven't eased the pain all that much.
And BSDs are more likely to introduce binary incompatibilities
Clearly you haven't used the BSDs. You may have library incompatibilities between major versions, but just install the earlier "compat libraries" and you're set. I upgraded from FreeBSD 4 to FreeBSD 5 -- a huge upgrade, over 2 years in the making -- and all my software just worked, even complex stuff like KDE and Mozilla that had been compiled under 4.x.
Dummy up you parents, start taking back control of your kids lives instead of letting MTV and the internet be in control.
Do I really want to read something from that CircleID-jerk!
Even if there is no perfect system, the one proposed in the RFC (hooks to allow browser software to consult your choice of 'rating authority') seems to be much more promising than this TLD nonsense.
As the RFC points out, if you create 'adult and non-adult' TLDs, how do you decide (on a global scale) what it means to be 'adult' or 'non-adult' when countries, religions and communities have such incredibly divergent views of what they should be? For any answer to work, it -must- take this into consideration, and provide a mechanism for different communities to select different filtering criteria.
The persecution of people accessing some adult TLD is potentially a serious issue, or perhaps not, but it's the technical issues that make adult TLDs not only pointless, but inherently dangerous.
The owner of a computer has **NO CONTROL** over what DNS names are pointed at their IP address. That means that there is no way you can prosecute an adult-themed site for being referred to by a non-adult TLD, or prevent an adult TLD from being pointed at a non-adult site for DoS purposes.
Who wants to write for Java or .NET when you could do it in .SEX instead?
the sticky key.
This is a -horrible- idea, and the RFC describes why, in at least three different ways.
Some of the key points, in very brief:
* The owner of a server has no control over what domains choose to point what names at his IP address.
* A TLD is a global designation, but there is no global consensus on what constitutes 'pornographic' or 'unsuitable' material.
P2P file sharing makes all of the effort (for or against .xxx) a COMPLETE waste of time.
The people who really want something will get it. If they are inconvenienced, they'll use p2p networks (or usenet) where TLD's don't matter at all.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
>90% of the home user population can't completely keep people on the internet out of their computers because most home users don't have a firewall.
With inbound security such a mess, and more relaxed rules for getting OUT to the internet, even with a firewall present, there isn't any way this will change a thing.
But, being a parent who keeps tabs on s/he's kids, is a completely different matter.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
If such a thing is implemented, all the horny lil teens will rush to it. Slashdot crowd, imagine you being 12,13. And to find sex, all you had to do was go to .xxx domains. Think of the mischiefs you did at that age, kids are downloading mp3s, they will download cracks for filter software, some of them will even crack it!
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
> While this seems to be a good idea in some ways, I can't help but be
> reminded of those "free speech zones" they command protesters to stay within
> if they want to protest something. After all, the entire country is supposed
> to be a free speech zone, and the entire internet is supposed to be open to
> any form of speech (that is, within reasonable limits).
Who sets the limits?
Who decides that's "reasonable"?
GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!
How can .sex possibly be dangerous, if we're all practicing safe sex? :)
I don't know what I did to deserve this heinious punishment, but I swear, it's true.
everyday, my inbox gets...
3 adds for very large towels
6-8 ads for mutual funds
20 for housing
and only about 10 for penis enlargement/sex aids/porn.
oh, the humanity!
Nothing new to see here. Move along.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
There is no need to set up any new TLDs, becuse it is simply a doddle to run the webserver using a port number appropriate to its content. There is nothing 'sacred' about the number '80'. You only have to change the number 80 in line 96 in /etc/apache2/conf/apache2.conf. Change the Listen parameter from 80 to whatever you want. This would allow the freedom of speech enthusiasts to say what ever they want to say and yet at the same time make it simple for those folk who do not want to hear that speech to eliminate it with ease. In effect this would allow for the creation of lots of WWWs. For Example:-
.tif files only. )
69 - SEXplicit Cunni-lingus Movies. ( Trivial File Transfer Protocol will have to be moved to 6969, drat! that's the orgy number. )
80 - Innocuous censored stuff.
81 - Computer Cracking.
82 - Sex Education.
83 - Free Software Source Code. ( Like your new neighbours? )
84 - SEXplicit Copulation Movies.
85 - Commercial Software Advocacy.
86 - Racial Supremacy Advocacy.
87 - Currently taken by ttylink.
88 - ditto kerberos.
89 - Artistic Nudes. ( High quality print ready
Then there are also literally dozens of high number ports available if needed. Never happen of course, because of the huge financial interests of the network nannies, but it could create a new industry called the Net Content Classification Tribunal. The whole exercise could be run by the UN and suck up billions of dollars.
- DOD employees including uniformed military (the expression 'curse like a sailor' comes to mind, although jarheads, grunts, and flyboys hold their own)
- DOD contractors in industry
- researches at universities and technical institutes.
But demanding that adult sites label themselves as adult is the wrong way to go, and mandating a particular filtering scheme for everyone is worse yet. Somewhere along the line, somebody decided the it was important for schools to be connected to the Internet. And now they're shocked, shocked! at what they've found. It's as if a teacher took a bunch of grade-school kids on a field trip to a titty bar and then demanded that the authorities shut it down.If someone wants to create a TLD like .kids, and make whatever rules they want for their piece of cyberspace, more power to them. Net Nanny and its ilk can whitelist the 'safe' sites, blacklist the 'unsafe' ones, and parents who want their kids subjected to such filters may choose to employ them.
As a father (and grandfather!) I have always figured that if my children want to look at something really perverted, it's their desire to look at it that's the problem, so me putting up filters really won't accomplish much other than protecting them against fat-fingering an URL (or forgetting that the White House is part of the .governmnent
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
They should just ban all porn sites from using any cctld or gtld and force them to use a .sex or .xxx
:p
That'd sort out about 80% of spam
I started reading the RFC and I was initially alarmed by the title ".sex Considered Dangerous". Then I realized that I am a Slashdot reader, so I am unlikely to encounter any actual sex. Whew! That was close!
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I don't want to sound like some angry, concerned parent, but that idea really should have been implemented a long time ago. Hopefully it will get going though.
.com, .net, .org domain names and such should not be allowed. Just keep it at .xxx or .sex.
.con domain names... referring to gangs and whatnot? Haha.
Also, I think that in best belief, porn sites using the
Maybe we'll see some
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Between .sex and Verisign, all the pr0n on the net will be in one convenient place - no need to wade through junk like National Geographic or Teletubbies.
Here's what I don't understand: I have NEVER come across pr0n on the net. Why not? Because I never LOOKED for it. It doesn't just jump out and grab you unsuspecting, people!
[As for not liking pr0n: two dimensions is never as satisfying as three.]
Now, if they could force the v1@gra emails to end with .sex, that would make me happy.
(Unfortunately) We (the people) do.
Seriously though, every time one mistypes a URL, one invariably winds up at a pr0n site. If porn had its own TLD, perhaps this might change.
(Pppffffttttt. Yeah right!) At least it might make it easier to find quality porn on the net ;)
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
First, let me start by saying I don't have an answer to the problem of kids and porn on the net. Having said that, a few observations.
1. I don't think there is a kids and porn problem. Raise your hand if you viewed porn at one time when you were a kid. Now keep your hand up if you turned into a social deviant. Not many, eh! Speaking from personal experience, the people I knew growing up who turned into social misfits and freaks are the ones who were shielded all of their lives (see home schooled and religious fanatics).
2. Aside from border problems, HOW DO WE CATEGORIZE PORN?!!!!! Do art websites qualify? What if I model a naked woman in Maya and put that on the web? Or is it just 'real' photos and video we're concerned with. What about dirty letters? What if I run a site with pictures of a clitoris? Now what if I put info about women's health on that website? Whether or not I'm creating a site for commercial purposes is irrelevant to me. The fact is as someone who puts content on the web and views content, porn or whatever, I don't want censorship. If you don't like it, set the BIOS password on your computer and try PARENTING your child, instead of giving them the internet as a babysitter.
3. Does anyone realize how quickly content would be eliminated from the web if this were to go into effect? Do you think AOL or Earthlink will allow access to those sites when parents groups protest? This is not making it easier to identify this type of material, it's aimed at eliminating it.
That's my three bits. Take it with a grain of salt. Disclaimer-I run a website for profit (about $25 per month profit, but I just got it going). It has adult material on it. It's at http://www.aliengoods.com/ and I sell bondage furniture. And guess what? I have a disclaimer page that most content filters should catch and block. I don't care because I don't sell to children (let's not get into a public library filters debate - they anger me).
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
One thing is to for you in US to force all content in the whole world you don't like to a special domain.
/. is sexy and move it to www.slashdot.sex. Of course most people would then have to open their filter for .sex to get /. and it would all be for nothing.
But how will you keep everything else out of these domains. OSDN might think
...did the religious nutcases get to run the country?
You are painting with just a broad a brush as the idiots who are pushing this .sex shit are.
This is not productive. What would be productive is sharing with those who agree with you, and working to change it. Every culture has it's dissidents, man, including America. Dog knows we need it right now...our government is going batshit crazy...but support for the people who don't agree with it would be nice, generalization about how all americans think that way isn't.
A lot of Americans are pissed off at the idiocy here. Why do you paint us as all being a lot of greedy, grasping nutcases? From a personal standpoint, Fuck You. I've spent nearly twenty years fighting against the idiocy in our government. You know what? It's a losing fight - which I know goddamned well that a lot of Europeans are familiar with - so why are you so busy flaming rather than helping out?
I don't know whether we can stop these out-of-control powergrabs. I don't know if there any real solutions short of violent revolution. But it'd be nice if the Rest of The World would realize that we're not all a lot of greedy morons. You know, we just might need your support if it comes to stopping this shit. We certainly don't need more hatred.
Goddamn. I am seeing way too much of this on slashdot recently. Some of it is justified. Some of it isn't. We're losing the fight here, hey, and we could use all the support we can get! If we lose this fight, the world is probably going to be pretty fucked up. So quit flaming us and help out, godammit. Any way you can.
I'm sorry for the rant, but I also get the impression that a lot of the world doesn't understand the agony in the US these days. For some reason, it reminds me of the international reactions to the craziness that was going on in Germany in the 30s. Don't know why.
Sheeezus.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
And yes, nathanh, your country has religious nut cases too. I don't even have to ask what country it is.
Both Apache and IIS can be configured to only accept connections made with a particular name (or names). This is how multiple web sites can share the same IP.
This is a very, very compelling point, although it seems as though someone is going to have to spell it out for you guys.
.prude, too?
The point is, some people find pornography offensive. I, for one, do not--at least, not the kind of porn I like to look at. I find absolutely nothing disturbing or offensive about the human form, even when (*especially* when) it is engaged in the act of procreation.
Some people find black people/black culture offensive. I, for one, do not.
Many people find Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma inspiring. I, for one, do not. At the very least, I find it annoying. Often, it is quite offensive and/or disturbing to me. (This is NOT an exaggeration--I was recently forced to listen to several hours of fire and brimstone lectures via Christian radio, and I can assure you that I felt no better than a nun would if she were trapped in a XXX video store.)
As distastful as this is to me, it is completely unfair to ask the religious world to segregate itself so that I don't have to listen to their offensive (to me) statements. It's not fair to them, and it's not smart for me, either--whether I like it or not, these people exist in the world, and if I have legitimate issues with their beliefs and actions, I should be endevoring to explain my beliefs to them, not plugging my ears and singing "lalalalalala" whenever they open their mouths.
Minority vs. majority should NOT play a part here. The majority shouldn't have the right to censor or segregate the minority anymore than the minority has the right to censor or segragate the majority.
Hell, let's get back to the analogy at hand: a few decades ago, the majority of people in the south would have found the image of a black man and a white woman kissing highly offensive. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches, too, were probably quite offensive to many people. Maybe the mass media should have segregated these controversial things, put them all in one newspaper that you had to go out of your way to find, a newspaper that no *respectable* white person would ever read. After all, people have the right not to be offended... right?
Wrong. This guy's analogy was spot on. You are responsible for your OWN level of offended-ness, and if you desire censorship, you should censor your own eyes (or your children's eyes) yourself. If you can't, then maybe you'd better wise up to the fact that there's shit in this world you don't like, and it's best to just suck it up and move on.
Yeah, it sucks, but if you want ANY sort of progress to happen in this country, you must accept the fact that sooner or later, eveyone is gonna get offended by something or another.
Hell, I find it offensive that some people find the human body and/or sex offensive. Does that mean we need a
Which is entirely possible when there's a locality involved. The theatre is in a known place and the magazines are tangible objects. The applicable community standard is that of the community in which the theatre or magazine is found. How does a politician in the USofA regulate a web server in Russia? If a teen in Oklahoma visits debbie.does.donkeys.da.ru where does the offense take place? Sure, YOU can create a .xxx domain, but what happens if Ivan-the-donkey-owner is a nationalist and takes pride in hosting in the .ru domain?
One answer is to abolish all TLDs other than country codes and make it illegal for citizens of your country to "fly under a foreign flag". That way your government can censor its citizens without bothering the rest of us simply by black-listing the two-letter codes of countries that refuse to bow down to the White House.
If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving porn there.
In my company the stuff tends to end up in the male washrooms (whether for practical or ethical reasons).
Not all "adult" material is sex
Indeed. I think you missed another important one, though: Not all sex is "adult" material. There is important educational material, and general life information, that should _not_ be forced into some special list of 'restricted sites'. Not unless you _like_ your teenagers pregnant and saying "umm... what's happening? I thought babies came from storks."
<rant>
Many people outside America are disturbed by the way that things like violent 'police watch' shows, and other often extremely violent content, is considered par for the course, while anything vaguely smacking of sex is screamed about unendingly. The ridiculous and almost unending coverage of a certain recent sporting event is a good example - I mean, WTF?!?
</rant>
I think I would support this if the government would back down from obcenity prosecution.
What I do have a problem with is you (or anyone else) trying to tell me or my children what we can and cannot see. I have a problem with anyone trying to impose hir moral or religious views on the rest of us.
It's ironic that, although the US was founded (in part) by religious zealots, the reason they came to this continent was to avoid the Church of England imposing its theology on them - and then their (spiritual) descendants want to do the same to the rest of us. The current Administration has stated on several occasions that the US is a "Christian nation" - as I read the Constitution, we are most emphatically NOT a Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Santarian, Zoroastrian, Arian, etc, etc) nation. The US is (or should be, IMO) a secular nation - with tolerance for everyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
The entire population of the US of A are, by construction, religious nutcases who can't get along with other beliefs.
Deal with it.
"want to explore ICANN's rationale for not approving two particular top level domain names -- .kids and .xxx -- as a means to protect kids from the awful smut which is so widespread on the Internet".
Oh, please. It isn't that easy to visit such sites "by mistake" (although I have also entered "freshmeat.com" by mistake once or twice *S), what they really mean is that they don't want kids to be able to find out these things when they start being curious about them. What is the matter with today's parents?
.adlt or something else, not everything un-stuable for children is sex.
I'm not having a very good day for staying on topic here, but...
WEBSENSE! How I hated that rubbish. The last company I worked for squandered over 10k on buying it for a small department of computer programmers at the same time as cancelling overtime to save money.
Anyway, not sure why you're having trouble getting round it. We were able to use a simple proxy without problem. You could create your own with this elegant peice of work if you can't find a suitable legal one and don't have a suitable server at home. The URL you want will always be masked by the name of the proxy.
My problem with Websense was not so much that it showed the management didn't trust me (when I was working harder than they were), but that it was stupid! On my lunch break I liked to read a couple of things regularly - chess news / discussions and maths articles. Chess was banned under "online games" even when just reading strategy articles, and for some reason, several Maths sites got blocked as the same!
Sorry - I'll go back to being on-topic from now on... oh hang on - the topic is porn. Perhaps I'm better off talking about proxies, after all.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
...get over it, it's life.
If it is easy to identify that a website is adult or not, it would be easy to browser filter them when creating history. This would improve the privacy for those sites in computers that can be used by more then one person.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Creating .sex or .xxx could only make .com and .net kid-friendly if it all porn were legally required to use it. Due to varying worldwide standards and attitudes about free speech, and the difficulty of enforcement, that would not work. Since the creation of a porn-free space is the only compelling argument for creating such a gTLD, and there are compelling arguments against it, it's simply a Bad Idea.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Those who cry about free-speech issues, are just anal or incapable of the critical thinking necessary to realize that there really is no issue there.
.violent domain?
I think you need a mirror. What YOU classify as inappropriate for your children maybe different from what I or others belive. Just because someone says "It's for the children", does not make it so.
Who decides what goes where? Which "moral set" controls it? A group in Kentucky will have different criteria than one based in California.
I belive violence is a worse threat to kids than sex is, what about a
Or you can setup your browser so that ICRA ratings are required and don't let your kids view unrated sites. My daughter I let surf unencumbered, but I track her logs via proxy (which she can't defeat); My son on the other hand is restricted via ratings and a list to where he can go.
BWP
The decent citizens will stop having sex.
The outlaws will continue having sex.
Wait three generations, and your problem's solved!
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
You do realize that that is one of the most breath-taking oxymorons I've ever seen uttered on Slashdot? If you're willing to label a culture "barbaric relative to any acceptable moral standards", then you are not a relativist. You believe that there are absolute standards applicable to all cultures and that there can therefore be cultures in violation of those standards.
Its this thing called a >joke The use of 'acceptable' here was deliberate. I did not say 'true'. There can be no absolute definition of 'acceptable', but there is certainly an intersubjective definition. The closest we get to an absolute standard would be a Rawlsian original position, although the term 'veil of ignorance' starts to take on an ironic meaning in this case.
The very worst aspect of Whahabi islam is the absolutism, the claim to absolute knowledge of what is right, everything else, the treatment of women, the lack of all basic political rights follows from that absolutism.
I think that like many right wing critics of cultural relativism you miss the point. Just because a moral code might have internal logical consistency does not mean that it is acceptable. The point is that the absolutist moral convictions of John Ashcroft are no more acceptable than Whahabi absolutism.
Once you accept the 'Open Society' position that George Sorros and Karl Popper advocate, that there is no absolute truth then there is no place for a Whahabi state or an Ashcroftian state.
What we could do is to join the two ideas. The big problem with the Rawlsian veil of ignorance argument is that it is untestable. But the situation we have in liberal society is pretty similar. The question becomes, would anyone accept an Ashcroftian or Whahabi state if they did not already live in one and if they did not know what role they would have in it?
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
What if they could wortk together with other standards groups and implement a new meta tag for html? Something along the lines of
<meta name = "adult" content = "teens, etc.">
and it if no tag is found then it isn't an adult site. This would provide a transparent way for sites to label themselves as adult content. Filtering software could easily search for the tag, and if found would prevent the page from being downloaded.
Relax guys...it's no different than moving the stuff to the special rack behind the counter where the kids can't see it.
Personally, I'd like to see a better organized internet, which starts with properly assigned domain names. For one thing, they should move all the dang associate booksellers into their own TLD. I don't know how many searches for useful information have yielded me nothing but endless lists of table of contents of some book someone is selling. Works my nerve.
Why the fuck should it be this way around?? there is no advantage. The solution is simple, you make a .safe domain and you enforce strict rules on that domain only, you leave the rest of the internet alone. Already we have domains that are restricted (AFAIK) you cant get a .gov address unless.. your with the government, and the same for .ac/.edu - the next logical step is to do the same for this, not the other way around.
Lastly, if a kid is too young to risk seeing anything dodgy, then they are probably too young to even gain anything from using the internet as a whole for education. Think about the (educational) things you use it for, do younger kids need that?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
He'd probably give you the sober, Yalie daughter instead of the Texas party-girl....
> I just told someone at work about this, and he said ".sex? What would that be for...porn sites?"
Of course not. This is specially for the UK:
middle.sex, es.sex, sus.sex etc.
cd pub; more beer
I support it being illegal to fraudulently use a META tag to claim that a site is age-appropriate, based on whatever standard of age-appropriateness you're talking about. But fraud is already illegal, so we don't need any special new law to make it so (although one that codifies penalties for certain kinds of fraud wouldn't raise my hackles awfully much.)
If you want META, I think you ought to write up an RFC codifying a standard. Something like
That's a pretty lightweight protocol, which allows sites to certify compliance with whatever authority's standards you might care about. The filtering software can use various criteria of your choosing to whitelist safe sites, including allowing you to add certain sites or even entire domains to your own whitelist, while only making it illegal to take the deliberate action of declaring compliance falsely, and allowing every existing web page to remain legal (because none of them contain these META tags in the first place).Keep your kids off the Internet if you don't like it the way it is. The people who built it never for one moment claimed it was built for children, and it's wrong to impose a law at this date that places such a positive obligation upon webmasters.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.