Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ports for Porn - Using Firewalls to Block Porn

Posted by Hemos on from the i-can't-define-pr0n-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it dept.

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. "

7 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. Qualifications by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    1. Re:Qualifications by bloodredsun · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. time and time again by Loconut1389 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:I want to restrict things, too. by squarooticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    [ home ]
  4. Wow! by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  5. Re:I want to restrict things, too. by rundgren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Tell me again why the US should run the net? by Snowhare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....