Ports for Porn - Using Firewalls to Block Porn

vicpylon writes "A Utah businessman and his non-profit organization wants to limit pornography to certain ports in the TCP/IP protocol. He is literally suggesting legislatively restricting porn sites to certain ports, so that the "offensive" content is easier to block. This is not workable on so many levels that it is laughable. International adult sites not subject to US laws, proxy servers, enforcement issues all leap to my tired mind as major flaws in his plan. He is lobbying congress, so do not be surprised to see this discussed by some headline grabbing politico. "

Comments

Let me guess:

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Port number 69?

Re:Let me guess:

[Stephen Williams]

According to the /etc/services file on my box, 69/udp is already taken by tftp, though there's no reason why 69/tcp couldn't be assigned to www-pr0n or whatever.

The same /etc/services file indicates that port 30 is unassigned for both tcp and udp; that'd be my pick, as it's XXX in Roman numerals.

-Stephen

Re:Let me guess:

[FluffyWithTeeth]

Do you really want your teenagers first impression of sex to be some woman with six inch long nails taking it up two orifices while screaming "CUM INSIDE OF ME!!!"?

Lnk plz

Re:Let me guess:

[fyngyrz]

Hmm. Limiting insidious influences to specific ports. Not a bad idea. Though I really don't think we want to do it to porn, as this could potentially do damage to a major part of the US's, even the world's, e-commerce base, not to mention ruin many people's lives.

Instead, I have a counter-proposal: let's put all the Internet web traffic from Utah on a specific port, say, port 1827. We can call it MINDER (Mormon Isolation Network Denial Enabling Restriction.)

We can follow up with the nationwide program ITSCRAP (Initiative To Stop Christian Religious Abusive Packets) on port 666.

Then, bring in the UN and implement the worldwide system SOMEQUIET (Shut Off Muslim Entreaties Queering Up Internet, Ethernet, and Telnet) on port 569, along with its sister program JUSTSHUTUP (Jewish Uploads Shunted To Some Handler Using TCP User Protection), using port 1000.

In this way, we can prevent superstition, arguably the most divisive and harmful force in our society and the world today, from causing harm to random readers who might stumble over it by accident. We must think of the children: Truly, is it fair to allow the superstitious to present stories with no evidence to impressionable kids, victims, really, undermining any tendencies towards logical and scientific thinking they might have? Of course not. We must proceed!

With religion throttled, we can turn our attention to the next most insidious problem facing the Internet with the new PINHEAD initiative: (Politician Interdiction Network Handler Ends Appalling Deceptions) on port 1600.

In this way, we can make the Internet safe for science, education, commerce, gaming, and of course, pornography, that most important segment of every young man's consumer role: Tissue purchasing.

Re:People should learn

[Anonymous Coward]

I was terribly damaged by porn when I was only 3. My father had a huge porn collection which unfortunately fell on top of me.

Here's an even better suggestion:

[Ihlosi]

Just block every port that could possibly be suspected to be used to transfer p0rn, i.e. 0-65535. You know, just like with terrorists ? Just being a suspect is proof enough.

Then your computer and kids will be safe from p0rn from the Internet

utah and the internet

[romit_icarus]

Utah Woman Deletes the Internet! By Tom 7 (Dissociated Press) REDMOND: Millions of frustrated calls rushed into internet service providers this past thursday as "The Information Superhighway" was reported Missing In Action for several days. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) traced the problem to a home in Utah where Doris Packuko resides. She was allegedly found "hysterical and crying", police say. "That much information flowing through the phone lines all at once generates a lot of heat," Doug Wernicke of the IETF told us, "We just followed the smell of burning fiber optics." "Apparently, she just deleted The Internet right off her desktop. Even after being warned, 'are you sure you want to delete The Internet?', she persisted." Experts claim that this is a major problem with The Information Superhighway, perhaps even worse than animal pornography. "The Internet is a great cooperative work, built by millions of people. It is so unfortunate that it can be ruined by just one person. Thank God we were able to save it," commented Packuko's neighbor. The IETF was able to recover most of The Internet by opening up Packuko's Recycle Bin and dragging The Internet back onto the desktop. The rest was restored from the master backup copy kept on Zip Disk in the pentagon. Puckuko claims ignorance was the cause of her act. "I just didn't know. I was trying to clean up my desktop and I deleted it. I ... I just didn't realize." Microsoft Corporation reports that they are currently working on a bug fix.

The better answer...

[jonwil]

Is to implement a special top-level-domain for porn, something like the .xxx domain that was proposed (and rejected IIRC).

That would have almost no technical issues and be just as easy to block as this braindead proposal.

Might I suggest port 80/http?

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Everyone okay with that?

What about other content?

[Rob Kaper]

There are only 61538 ports. That's barely enough to categorise my personal fetishes, let alone everyone else's. Where on earth are we going to leave all the other content?

Gives whole new meanings to the phrases...

[ettlz]

.."port knocking" and "port sniffing".

Re:Gives whole new meanings to the phrases...

[ettlz]

ooooooooh! I just pinged myself!

Try finger instead.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[jasen666]

Will the balance ever shift in the other direction?
What, you mean protect us from the children? Amen brother, those kids are ruining my porn experience.

Hard Core

[daveewart]

From TFA: "we are all hard-core technology businessmen".

How appropriate.

Technically bad.

[eyeball]

That's such a terrible implementation. It should be incorporated into the OSI model:

• 8 - Application
  
• 7 - Presentation
  
• 6 - Moral Control Protocol
  
• 5 - Session
  
• 4 - Transport
  
• 3 - Network
  
• 2 - Data Link
  
• 1 - Physical

(BTW, I'm joking)