Slashdot Mirror
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.
"
That if your kids are doing it, a.) you might want to try getting more involved with them so they understand why you think porn is "evil" and b.) they may not actually be hurt by it, but who knows. As for the technological aspect, it is ridiculous, but people don't seem to understand these sort of things when they suggest them. Now whoever opposes it, even if on the basis of saying it won't be plausible, they will be "unpatriotic"!
This idea is doomed for the same reason that the
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
International adult sites not subject to US laws
True, but just getting US-generated and US-hosted porn under control, as well as porn passing through US-owned ISPs, would account for quite a lot of sites, and an awful lot of the sites that tend to pop up in Google. America is regularly cited as one of the obstacles to dealing with Internet porn - if it took any steps, however technically incompetent, to address the issue, it would make an enormous difference.
I realise that restricting access to porn may not be a subject dear to the heart of all /.ers, but I have the impression that most of the rest of this thread is going to boil down to "no-one can do a thing about porn, la la la la I can't hear you", when the reality is that a lot of people around the world would like to see the present situation changed, and, one way or another, sooner or later, that will result in legislation. And if a solution is finally imposed, it may well turn out to be as draconian as the French government's anti-nazi legislation, which has been successfully imposed on Yahoo.
Virtually serving coffee
I particularly love the notion that they have that, by sequestering porn off to its own ports, they'll manage to avoid the risk of infringement of First Amendment rights that has come with things like the CDA. But I guess they really aren't thinking about WHO will decide what is and isn't porn, are they? :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
We don't need to restrict porn to a certain port, why not have a "dirty bit" in the tcp/ip wrapper instead? php_enable_porn()
unfortunately the politicians don't know its not a workable plan. Maybe if they spoke to someone who could explain how dumb it was before they get on a CNN press confrence we could stop this. maybe instead of making laws to restrict porn we could make laws to make sure politicians check the technical feasability of a plan before they run with it...
Just who is this guy going to get to do this? I'm not volunteering... Leave the p0rn alone. Most of it is harmless. Expend the energy going after child pornographers; that's a fight I'll sign up for.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The controlling interest in Utah will not be happy and will not stop until the State is blocked off with something like the Great Firewall of China. Look at who owns the newspaper in question. The Internet and it's ability to encourage people to be challenged by new ideas is not compatible with their interests. While the call is to stop "porn" now, we all know it's the first step down a slippery path.
Personally I think Zappa gives the best advice here:
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
The answer to the "can't define porn well" problem is not that there is no porn, it's that too much is considered "porn" by somebody, and attempts to ban it will necessarily overreach. That's what your parent poster is getting at.
In many ways, porn can be compared to recreational drugs. Some people say that it's bad, and some people say that it isn't. Some people say that it needs to be banned for the good of society, but really, whatever activities it supposedly promotes that should be made illegal already are (like robbing stores to get your porn fix.) In many ways, the police state that would be necessary to successfully ban porn (or recreational drugs) would be worse than simply tolerating that activity and dealing with whatever negative consequences occur.
Scandinavian random facts: In Swedish, the word for both "six" and "sex" is the same: "sex". In Norwegian and Danish, "six" is "seks" and "sex" is "sex", so the spelling is different but the pronounciation is the same. Needless to say, these circumstances are an endless source of terrible puns in these languages.
Why a port?
Here is my idea, require a <porn> or <adult> tag on all sites that contain porn or are intended for an adult audience.
We could also implement a <safe=040382672178283940405> code for all sites that are safe for children... which only major sites would bother registering for... this would let parents lock down their computers. You can either now allow porn or only allow approved sites...
Good idea? I think requiring a different port would only lead to mass censorship.
It's not just porn that needs filtering. Ever do research on Google and have to wade through tons of irrelelivant hits? I honestly think Google could improve searching and help people self select content in one stroke. A quick metatag, or equivalent, that encodes subject type and maturity level would be happily picked up by web designers ... if it helps drive traffic. And it could. If Google had an option that let you say "I want to limit to X" then those people who are promoting "X" will be highly motivated to include that tag on their page. The tag couldn't be used for multiple subjects, or it would act as a key word search again. But if I could say "I'm looking for an ACADEMIC ABSTRACT" then I won't find porn, commerical sites, or little Susy's musings. I'll find abstracts. On the flip side, a browser filter that people can self select to avoid certain types of content based on the tags isn't censorship. It's personal choice.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Because except for them, I can't really see how you can get from anywhere on disney.com to a porn site in a single click.
Seems to me the people currently in office:
1) Don't protect the environment
2) Don't protect people from product related fraud
3) Don't protect people from violations of labor law
4) Don't protect people from investment fraud
The balance has changed. The society is a lot less government controlled than it was 25 years ago.
In Lorain, OH, the library had computers with internet access set aside for kids and only kids (under the age of 12, I believe, and I think they changed it to under 9). They also only had chairs in that area that were comfortable only for small children.
They also had and have a disclaimer that they would not be stand-ins for parents.
Talks with the staff demonstrated that they were unaware that:
1. Children of such an age should not be unaccompanied by adults.
2. Most children of that age cannot read and lack other skills necessary for the utilization of a computer.
3. To the extent that some of the children are school age, they are required by law to be in school for a specified time several times out of the year, during which they cannot use the library computers set aside for them.
4. While adults generally have to have jobs, their job options are flexible enough that a good number of them can be into the library during the time that children of school age have to be in school.
5. People are children of the ages that they have computers set aside for, for a relatively short time of their lives, so the number of patrons that are not in that category vastly outnumber those that are.
On the basis of these facts, I tried to explain to them that dedicating those computers for the use of children was an extremely inefficient use of resources, but they would not hear me out.
They do not appear to have material regarding their computer allocation and policy regarding chld only computers online, so it's hard to speak definitively, but the whole point is to illustrate how those who try to make decistions with kids in mind may have no idea what a kid is, nor remember their own childhood well.
I'm currently getting ready to set up a squid proxy/content filter for a local boys and girls club. The lab has 30-40 kids ranging from 6-10 years old with only one instructer... huge liability. The thing that strikes me as wierd is that the internet is full of FREE porn, but good porn blacklists cost big bucks (well for a small town boys&girls club anyway). Most offer "grey lists" and age appropriate lists. If these politicians really want to help they would hire a good blacklisting company to provide these lists for free. Then there would be no major change in the internet and people who need to do some filtering (like childrens charities) could choose to use the filtering. dan
"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." I suppose you have just proved your point. Your whole post is composed of bitching without any sort of solution. You say that all politicans are swine. This may be true, but this will never be changed unless we roll in the mud with them. If we want a better political system, we must participate. I do not believe that this necessitates "selling out." Even in our current political environment, there is hope. Senator McCain's Anti-torture laws and his attempts to correct issues with political fundraising are good things, no matter which side of the isle you root for. Similarly, Senator Byrd's well reasoned opposition to the Iraq invasion was brillant and exceptionally well presented. These politians aren't perfect, and there are certainly some things that they do that I disagree on, but they are doing more good than harm, and its a start. The only reason that our political system is broke is that people only bitch without taking part in the system. The people still have the power to change our government, elect new representatives and pass new laws to make the system work better.