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

I want to restrict things, too.

[Vengeance]

Unfortunately, what I want to restrict, in general, is the power of the people in charge... Political types just aren't very good at running things for anyone but themselves and their buddies. This is not a (particular) jibe at the Bush administration, just a general observation about the worst suck-ups on this planet, the politicians.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[squarooticus]

And yet, for some reason, whenever the people speak, they keep electing those who want to take more of our rights away in the name of protecting the children, or protecting the environment, or protecting old people, or protecting stupid people, etc. Will the balance ever shift in the other direction?

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[rundgren]

I consider myself the "political type," yet I agree that politicians should have as little power as necessary to keep society safe. Especially here in Norway, with it's socialist traditions, most of the politicians should learn to let go of their power and give more power to the individual and the market.

But: unlike most people I don't think politicians are evil assholes, suck-ups or idiots. I think they have mostly good intentions, but often select the wrong solution - not because of evil intentions, but because of short-sightedness, lack of understanding of consequences, wrong priorites, lack of respect for the indidual's right to autonomy and so-on.

Bottom Line: The only way to improve politicians is to become one yourself.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[keraneuology]

The real problem is that everybody says that their senator/representative/president/mayor/governor is the single breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant cesspool of politics. Their elected is truly a member of the elect and if only he could call the shots then everything would be straightened out. This is why - despite an overwhelming disapproval of the electees by the electors - the same people get voted back in time and time again.

In another thread somebody was waxing long about how his electee was great and did this good and that good - in the form of sponsoring bills - without acknowledging all of the bad bills this guy had voted for. His initial support of the PATRIOT act (something that only the evil or the stupid would have voted for) was dismissed with "the guy made a mistake and shouldn't lose his job over it". THERE is the problem.

We need more elected like Cincinnatus - and fewer with the raw, naked ambition, powerlust and sense of entitlement as present in the families of Bush and Kennedy and, most recently, Hillary - aspiring to be the first woman to sleep her way into the oval office. (Let's face it... if she didn't put out for Billy all those years she wouldn't be a senator today - everything she is stems from her willingness to share the task of polishing Slick's Willie.)

Democrats seeks to appease the dead weight of the nation - and as such have direct financial and political incentive to make people as dependent on the government as possible. Let's face it: Dems directly and unashamedly benefit from having welfare rolls as large as possible and have zero incentive to shrink their guaranteed constituent base and every reason to make those numbers increase.

Republicans seek to appease those who actually make the economy work - at the expense of everybody else - and are, unfortunately, less interested in allowing everybody a fair chance to reach the top than maintaining the status quo.

As has been said, if you aren't a democrat at 20 you don't have a heart. If you aren't republican at 50 you don't have a brain.

Bottom line: I don't want to become a politician because I don't want to play in the mud with the swine. I don't think anybody can be a successful politician unless they are lying sell-outs willing to conduct interior visual inspections of their own colons on demand by a lobby rat for a special interest group. And I don't think the citizens want it any other way. Our last presidential election was, for all intents and purposes, split 50/50 between a liar and a ... well, between two liars. The only difference is that Kerry wanted to advance himself and King George II wanted to advance his friends. The citizenry bickered (and continues to whine) about how unfair the election was, how poor of a selection there was... but never called for the ouster of the chairs of the GOP/Dems who are responsible for putting these two twits on the ballot.

The nation sucks. The people don't want to do anything but whine about it. This is what they want. This is what they demand. This is what they deserve.

Qualifications

[NormalVisual]

Hmm - this wingnut used to be the CEO for The Canopy Group and is a major SCO stockholder? Yeah, he'll be the first guy I run to for tech advice....

Re:Qualifications

[bloodredsun]

Not just a major stockholder but Chairman of SCO. So he's the man that said "I agree we should sue...EVERYBODY!"

time and time again

[Loconut1389]

Time and time again we see that the courts and politics in general are just flat out not equipped to handle technical issues- then throw in people who don't know much about technology to begin with and you really have a problem.

I don't know if there is a solution but to wait long enough to get a techy judge in the supreme court (and lower courts hopefully), get techy guys in congress, etc.. Some how I don't think we'll live long enough.

One port to rule them all

[interiot]

It really is obvious, but one of the reasons this wouldn't work is that it would force all porn transports (HTTP, Usenet, FTP, Bittorrent, ...) to listen on the same port number. Yeah, it could probably be done if there's a truly dire need to do so (eg. on corporate firewalls, everything proxies over :80 these days), but it's almost certainly always a bad idea to do.

Wow!

[kamapuaa]

So to sum it up: A Utah businessman nobody cares about plans on asking politicians to implement an unworkable idea. This wouldn't make page 9 of a high-school newspaper, what's it doing on Slashdot?

Why it wouldn't work

[Anita Coney]

The first problem: What's porn? The second problem: Who decides what's porn? The third problem: Who enforces it?

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this

[TheRaven64]

But who decides what is pornography? Is a site about breast cancer? What about a movie web site for an 18 rated film? How about an anti-abortion site? How about some of the latest RIAA-sponsored acts who seem to sell more on sex appeal than musical talent? How about any picture of a woman exposing any skin at all, and not wearing traditional muslim dress?

If you want to make the web safe for impressionable people, then create a .kids domain that is heavily censored (expensive to register a subdomain, money goes to policing it) and only allow children who are likely to be traumatised by seeing sex / violence / social commentary / intelligent conversation / whatever to browse that, at their parents discression.

Feel free to moderate this redundant, since exactly the same point was raised in all of the articles about the .xxx domain.

Change is in the wind

[selil]

What a boon if done. Think about it! Law enforcement would only have to monitor one port for specific traffic. If you were caught off port then you are already breaking the laws. Not only would companies be able to filter, but ISP's would be able to charge extra for Porn Ports. YOu want this access to this content and wham! it's an extra $19.95. Don't believe it? What about comcastic locking down port 25? NNTP dying on the vine just add Porn Ports? Are we going to need specific Porn Browsers? AOL will be able to charge extra for adult access. This has all the novelty of another idealogues attempt to protect the wayward from themselves.

Tell me again why the US should run the net?

[Snowhare]

Something about other governments wanting to impose censorship on the net?

Oh, you meant evil censorship of things the US government approves of rather than good censorship of things it disapproves of....

Re:Let me guess:

[ZorinLynx]

Hmm, another case of trying to use legislation to solve a social non-problem. Good luck.

-Z

Re:Let me guess:

[Shakrai]

And anyway, since when is sex a bad thing? Did I miss a meeting? "Hey Bill, we had a vote, fucking's out."

Sex isn't a bad thing. But have you looked at some of the crap on the internet lately? 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!!!"? I highly doubt that comes remotely close to an actual representation of sex for 99% of the population.

I'm about as Liberal as they come and I don't want my kids looking at shit like that. The difference between me and this asshole is that I don't think I need the Government to raise my kids for me. Involved parents should be able to know what their kids are doing online -- without the Governments help.

Re:People should learn

[Shakrai]

Unless this kid has been watching sado-masochist master-slave bondage hardcore, he hasnt seen anyone degraded - how is a woman degraded by having sex?

Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults? Forget the hardcore stuff that no sane person would want their blank slate child seeing. Do you really think that even mainstream porn is an accurate depiction of sex?

I don't see porn as exploitation of the actors. If anything it's exploitation of the idiots who buy it. But that doesn't mean that I think it's good for my 11 year old to see. If he is curious and downloads a few pictures of naked chicks off Usenet then I'm not going to be too worried about it. If I find a DivX movie of some chick having sex with three guys who ejaculate on her face and then shit on her -- well, I'm going to have to have a talk with the boy ;)

Re:Let me guess:

[ak_hepcat]

Well, you could always talk to them about it. Let them know about the standard stuff. Let them know about the fun stuff. Let them know that there are other things that people do, that is particular to a small group of like-minded enthusiasts. "Hey, it might not be your cup of tea, but it's out there. Don't get too upset by it if it doesn't involve you, just quietly walk away from it. Or, heck, give it a try, and if you don't like it, you haven't lost anything, you've gained the knowledge and experience to be able to make an informed decision about _your_ likes and dislikes. Just don't use that to judge other people"

Oh, wait...Is that prosthyletising? I never know...

Re:People should learn

[fyngyrz]

Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults?

What does "love" have to do with it? Are you suggesting that all sexual behavior should involve love? I mean, if that's how you want to behave, why then I think that's how you should behave, but where do you get the idea that your prerequisite of love is something that should be enforced on the rest of humanity? Who died and left you arbiter of sexual correctness? The fact is, plenty of sexual behavior, mutually consenting, goes on that is just for the fun of it, and this has always been the case. If you want to teach your kid that "love" is required (thereby biasing him in such a way that he's going to have a heck of a lot less fun than my kids, for instance) that's certainly your right as a parent. Because you're the parent. Stop assuming you know what's best for other people's kids. You don't. Aside from that, you're not the parent of other people's kids. It is doubtful you know what is best for your own — you just have the power and authority to impose your will on them, that's all. You may be correct. But you may not. You do what you think is best; that's your right, mostly.

Do you really think that even mainstream porn is an accurate depiction of sex?

Some is, some isn't, but the key thing that kills your idea is that it varies by viewer, not by production. Personally, I make it a point to try lots of things I see in porn. My sweetheart encourages this behavior, it has benefited her in the obvious manner many times. We own plenty of toys, films, and in fact, we run a pretty cool online store that in its own humble way, encourages people to enjoy themselves.

If I find a DivX movie of some chick having sex with three guys who ejaculate on her face and then shit on her -- well, I'm going to have to have a talk with the boy ;)

So... you went from "Forget the hardcore stuff" to "shit on her"... apparently, you've got a little problem separating the idea of sexuality from that of dangerous behaviors. There's a reason we bury, flush and otherwise dispose of our solid waste products; They are uniformly dangerous. Urine, in a healthy person, is pretty sterile. Fecal matter is not. So what you're talking about here is general education, not unlike condom education, where certain behaviors carry risks. As a parent, it seems to me that your duty is to educate the kid(s) about what the risks are, what the preventative actions for those risks are, and they'll be able to draw decent conclusions from that information.

Aside from that, just as Hunt for Red October and Murder at 1600 were fantasies, so are all other movies with fictional plot lines. Unprotected sex in a movie is, you might want to point out, acting of an unprotected sex scene between individuals who are tested (weekly, I think, but at least monthly) for STDs, and you should probably be able to point out that the adult film community has an excellent record of avoiding STDs because of this testing and certification. The general public does not, and that is the difference between on screen unprotected sex and the same by the general public. Unprotected sex between two committed, tested, monogamous people is just fine by all rational metrics; prevention of unwanted children can be done (and should be done) by means other than condoms; condoms have a pretty poor record of preventing pregnancy. On the other hand, some condoms can be fun, now and then, if you know what you're doing. Just don't count on them to "protect" anyone. They slip off, they tear, they overflow, and they suffer damage when stored improperly (such as in a wallet, where many men often keep them.)