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:

[squoozer]

Or possibly 88 (two fat ladies) for those who like that sort of thing.

oooh, that was so non-PC on soooo many levels.

Re:Let me guess:

[SatanicPuppy]

The whole thing is stupid on the face of it. I'd love to use BT at work, but I can't because we block every port except 21,22,25,80, and 443. There are a few exceptions, but they're all NAT'ed to specific internal IPs, and there is a mountain of paperwork on top of each one.

I'm sure most business networks are the same. So it comes down to port 80, but there are a million ways to filter port 80. People have been making products to do that for years and years.

So whats the problem?

Re:Let me guess:

[archgoon]

Great idea. The politicians could refer to the movement as:
rm XXX

Re:Let me guess:

[Tobbe Starfield]

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.

Re:Let me guess:

[kyhwana]

You mean like http://www.empornium.us/ ?
It has lots of good porn, and usually good amounts of seeds.

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:

[jeremymiles]

For German/English speakers, possibly a worse pun:

Q: What comes between fear and sex?
A: Funf

(Vier, is four, funf is five, and sechs is six, in German. It works better if you are English and saying it to a German, because the pronunciation of sechs is more like Zeks. If you're English, it's more likely that you'd say it wrongly, and then the joke works.)

Re:Let me guess:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've got the hang of it now...

Port 230 for any porn under a Creative Commons Licence ?

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:Let me guess:

[ChairmanMeow]

I suggest ports for financial news, spam, penis enlarger advertisements, and so on.

Spam already has a port... port 25.

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:

[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: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:Let me guess:

[LordLucless]

Same in New Zealanderese

Re:Let me guess:

[Bacon Bits]

If only there were some way of adding "xxx" to every website name... kinda like how they add "com" or "net" to just about every website name now. Then you could block porn by just blocking the "xxx"!

Someone should tell the President!

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.

[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.

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.

[fireweaver]

>>But: unlike most people I don't think politicians
>> are evil assholes, suck-ups or idiots.

>That's because you live in Norway. Try living here
>to the US sometime, you'll change your opinion
>very quickly, since it's precisely the type of
>politicians we seem to get.

Only because they are a reflection of the masses who
elect them.

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.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[jbolden]

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.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Um, sorry. Democrats suck too. Most of them do not have good intentions. A small minority do, along with a small minority of Republicans. Both of these groups are mostly ignored by party leadership until they stir up too much trouble, at which time their minimal support is revoked, and they are voted out of office.

This isn't some strange artifact of a large bureaucratic system, it is by design. They're really one party, and any display to the contrary is just theatre.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[Shakrai]

I seem to remember there being more than two names on the ballot for president. But everybody sees that as "throwing their vote away". I ALWAYS vote for the third party. It could be hitler, ghandi, mother theresa, saddam...

And that's as stupid of a statement as the idiots who always vote party line Republican or Democrat. You'd vote for hitler (third party) against FDR (Democrat) or Abe Lincoln (Republican)?

I seem to recall their being more then one name on the ballot in the Democratic Primary. Perhaps if people hadn't been too busy to vote for "the guy we think can beat bush" they might have voted for somebody a little less stuffy then Kerry. Likewise, perhaps if Republicans cared less about staying in office and more about effective leadership, they would have run somebody against Bush.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[GileadGreene]

You know, I really get sick and tired of hearing this. Of all the issues that you have listed, how many are actually seriously likely to get implemented anytime soon? Most of the stuff you've listed is simply rhetoric used by one side or another to appeal to their "base". Very little of it ever turns into real legislation. Mostly because you can find people on both sides of each of those issues in both parties - it'd be hard to muster enough support to jam through legislation on a lot of these issues. Both parties use divisive issues to scare you into not voting for the other guy. Because all either of them really care about is power and pork.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[GileadGreene]

It's not rhetoric to the people that care about those issues.

It's rhetoric if it's a bunch of words that are used to get people on your side when you have no intention of actually doing anything about the issues in question. Yes, people care about those issues. That's why the two parties use those issues. But there's a difference between talking about an issue, and actually doing something about it.

Like you aren't using rhetoric to scare people away from voting for a major party candidate they like?

Am I? I certainly didn't intend to do so. You can vote for whoever you like. I'm just pointing out that voting for either of the major parties will produce effectively the same result. If you like that result, then, by all means, vote for them.

Whether or not you'd agree with it there are major differences between the two parties.

Asserting that something is so doesn't make it so. You claim there are major differences. I say there aren't. You point to "policy differences". I claim that those are a smokescreen, because none of them turn into legislation, nor are they likely to any time soon. Show me real, major differences between the actual legislation produced by the two major parties. Don't just claim that there's a difference, without providing any proof that there is one.

Re:I want to restrict things, too.

[zoomzit]

"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.

The port that will be used...

[quigonn]

The TCP port that will be used for it is obviously 69. Actually, this is a great help, as a simple "tcpdump -w pr0n.log 'port 69'" writes all the porn downloaded by your colleagues to a tcpdump file, from which all the video and image files could be extracted later.

People should learn

[whereizben]

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"!

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.

Re:People should learn

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is an unpopular opinion here, but I have to throw it out there anyhow.

I just got back from fixing parental controls on my Aunt's computer. Her 11 year old son managed to sneak his way past her parental controls and look at some pretty hard core pornography. Her son is a very good kid and raised well, but has the hormones of an 11 year old. He has to use the Internet for school, and also IMs his friends, and she was about 10 ft away in the next room when he was looking at the pictures. Basically, she was involved and he knew why porn was wrong, but no parent can be expected to watch every single click, nor should every parent be expected to be a computer security expert so her child can do school work.

As for b, let's consider the harm of porn to a developing boy. Said boy has unlimited access to pictures of men demeaning women, and learns at age 11 to treat women as sexual objects, there for his gratification. Though he's taught about monogamy being the norm, he frequently sees people engaged in acts that clearly aren't monogamous. Though he's taught that it would be worthwhile to wait for sex, he's inundated with pictures of people who are clearly not married and usually not using protection. On a mind that's in the process of learning right from wrong and the consequences of his actions, this all can make a negative impression.

Re:People should learn

[Toone_Town]

I agree - pornography is a HUGE problem in our society. Children are especially vulnerable...but the responsibility for filtering out such crap falls upon the parents - not upon legislation.

5 years ago, nearly half of all homes had an internet filter of some sort installed - now, only a quarter do. Is this because of the percieved inadequacies of filters? I agree that in the past they have had problems, but recently, there have been many advances which reduce false-positives (the "breast cancer" point is all but non-existant now).

You can get a filter for free at http://www.k9webprotection.com - they offer it as a community service. You can also find some for-profit filters reviewed at http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/.

Re:People should learn

[One Childish N00b]

Said boy has unlimited access to pictures of men demeaning women, and learns at age 11 to treat women as sexual objects, there for his gratification.

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? how is the man less degraded than the woman? You're just going back to the rather medieval belief that women lie back and think about knitting and kittens while men ravish them - *women enjoy sex too*, and if getting paid for sex is exploitation, then the men are being just as exploited as the women - there are no passive performers in porn, the women are there by choice as well; If a girl watched porn (and trust me on this, a lot of them do), are they learning to 'treat men as sexual objects, there for their gratification'?

Please don't start on the 'pornography exploits women' bullshit, it's not true, and if you don't believe me, here's a BBC article about a (female) performer who agrees that if anyone's exploited in porn, it's the buyers.

Whatever your opinion on whether porn degrades or not, claiming one sex is more exploited than the other (unless you were talking about the nasty S&M stuff, but then even that has a *huge* niche of women dominating men) is an entirely unfounded suggestion rooted in the belief that women do not have sexuality or sex drive - if women want to get paid to have sex, and are paid handsomely for doing so on camera, precisely where is the exploitation occurring?

/feminist_rant

Re:People should learn

[micheas]

And any response besides "this is how porn hurts women" with real examples is increasing the likelyhood that the porn filter is what is stopping him from surfing porn sites, not the ethics of how he should treat women.

Which is what I would hope your aunt is trying to teach your nephew.

What does your action teach the kid? That only adults can demean women?

I'm sure you ment to help, and maybe in some way you did, but only in the sense of providing an example of helping family members. You certainly didn't tell him anything about porn, the porn industry, and why maybe you wouldn't want to vist those websites. (He already knows why he would want to vist those websites.)

The filter doesn't change how he treats women, and amazingly enough, people's sex habits don't directly correlate to behavior out side of the bedroom. (See Strom Thurmond's life for proof.)

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: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.)

Re:People should learn

[Shakrai]

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?

And where did you get the idea that your concept of sex just for fun should be enforced on the rest of humanity (mainly, other peoples children)? And how do you draw the conclusion that I'm forcing my viewpoints on the rest of humanity? Did you see me say that I support these laws? Did you see me say that I think pornography is immoral?

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.

Oh, give me a fricking break! In case you didn't notice I largely agree with you. You won't find me preaching the value of abstinence or waiting until marriage. That would certainly be a bit hypocritical of me (yes, AC, this is your cue to reply and say /.'ers can't have sex so I must be lying ;)

Your position does seem a bit extreme though. I make the perfectly reasonable suggestion that it probably isn't a good thing for teenagers to learn about sex from pornography and you jump all over me and accuse me of being "the arbiter of sexual correctness". It probably isn't a good thing for somebody who is sexually inexperienced (as all teenagers are) to be exposed to limitless amounts of hardcore tasteless pornography. And before you accuse me of being a prude I think that most people would agree that most pornography is quite tasteless. If nothing else it will cloud their expectations of what sex should be or is like.

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.

Indeed. And I would much rather educate my kid without the help of the porn business, thank you very much. There's a reason why you need to be 18 to enter an adult store. There's also a perfectly valid reason for parents not wanting limitless amounts of internet smut (some of which is beyond disgusting) being viewed by their kids.

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.

And I would maintain that most people would not be open to trying some of the things depicted in a lot of pornography. And this is all besides the point! I never said that you or I didn't have the right to buy porn. I never even said that I supported laws against porn no matter how well intended. I only suggested that it might not be a good thing to expose sexually immature people to hard core pornography. You obviously represent the other extreme of this argument so I don't really know why I'm wasting my time debating this with you.

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.

That's nice. Again, why is it even relevant to the point that I was trying to make?

Re:People should learn

[Fafnir43]

If we can assume that 99.9% of people disobeyed their parents at one time or another, we can safely say that parents, no matter how concerned or controlling, cannot regulate everything their children see and do.

Granted. However, in some areas, where exposure would tend to be more of a repetitive thing, you would expect parents to have some ability to control their offspring. For example, in the violent video games debate, you shouldn't expect parents to regulate what their children see at their friends' houses, but it's reasonable to expect them to notice if their children buy M-rated games themselves. Likewise, in terms of porn, you would expect parents to notice if their children are viewing porn regularly.

There needs to be a balance so that parents are given the tools they need to help protect their children. And one of the things kids need protection from is porn. Pop under ads, spyware, adware, hijacked IE preferences, and domain squatters are all gunning for our eyes and wallets. Kids being reeled in are just collateral damage to pornographers - future customers to others.

I totally agree that porn sites that employ things like pop-ups on non-porn sites, spyware and the like are evil, evil bastard-whores who must be found and killed (and not just for the childrens' sake). However, these threats generally require an entirely different set of tools (spyware/adware checkers, pop-up blockers, etc.) to deal with than the problem of children actively looking for porn, and you seem to be arguing for the latter set of tools rather than the former.

Now, I'm from Utah and I think Ralph Yarro is misguided. I think his plan is poorly thought out, but Hatch, who wanted to blow up my computer for using P2P networks, will probably love this guy, and maybe so will others. Sense and reason haven't always been employed when laws were passed. Not when a politician can look like a golden boy during an election by "saving the children".

*Sigh* I know exactly what you mean.

One issue that hasn't been discussed much is addiction. Why isn't the fact that pornography is addictive gaining any traction?

I would dispute this as a valid point against pornography. Just about everything is addictive. Gaming is addictive. Tasty food is addictive. Alcohol is addictive. Reading is addictive. (You'll probably want to contest that one, but I'm sure you can remember a few times you stayed up late to finish a book and ended up half-dead from sleep deprivation in the morning.) I, personally, am addicted to computers. I literally start to get mental withdrawal symptoms if I can't use one for a few days. I don't care though, because there are no real long-term effects except (perhaps) a good job later in life.

This is the most harmful aspect of porn on the mind. It's one thing to enjoy a woman's naked form. It's another to be compelled to enjoy hundreds of them all in one sitting. Nameless, sometimes faceless, they depersonalize sex while feeding a craving. Can anyone really argue that this addiction to sexual stimulation is not damaging to relationships or one's own mind?

*Blink* Addiction to sexual stimulation comes with being young (at least for males - not sure about females). Testosterone. Think about it. The only question is where the "fix" is going to come from, and in most cases the answer is Mrs. Palm and her five lovely daughters. Porn is in this sense simply an aid - without it, the mind would simply be visualising naked women rather than seeing them. Whether or not the addiction is harmful to relationships, it long predated porn.

Young minds don't know these are actors playing out fantasies for profit. They certainly don't know these actors are surgically augmented. It's enough to give any sex an inferiority complex. At best kids are growing up thinking that sex lasts for hours and involves awkward poses - oh and you need to look like Ken and Barbie. At worst they expect women to beg to be covered in body fluids while swingi

Re:People should learn

[fyngyrz]

And where did you get the idea that your concept of sex just for fun should be enforced on the rest of humanity (mainly, other peoples children)?

I have no such idea. In fact, I said that you can do whatever you want to your children, implying that the next person can do what they want with theirs, and so on, ad infinitum. What I was saying is that your idea of "loving sex" is no metric for anyone but yourself and those you can control, e.g., your kids.

Oh, give me a fricking break!

Yes, well, if it hadn't been for that ridiculous "loving sex" thing you tossed steaming on the floor, I would have. :-)

And before you accuse me of being a prude I think that most people would agree that most pornography is quite tasteless. If nothing else it will cloud their expectations of what sex should be or is like.

Even if most people would agree, that still does not give them the right to say that others should conform to their preconceptions. What is tasteless to you may be tasteful to me, and vice-versa. Personally, I find sex intriguing and often beautiful. I have a huge amount of fun with it, and I appreciate that others enjoy it in their own ways, whatever those are. The only "hot buttons" internal to the issue I have are informed consent and safety. Other than that, I know better than to think it's any of my business to be critical, unless someone is attempting to step on my own toes.

And I would maintain that most people would not be open to trying some of the things depicted in a lot of pornography.

So? Does that somehow give an imprimatur to your vision of "loving sex"?

I only suggested that it might not be a good thing to expose sexually immature people to hard core pornography.

And I disagree, just as you surmise. Sexuality isn't "hard core" behavior, it is natural, inevitable, and frankly beautiful and interesting. Hiding it from kids (while letting them watch murder, assault, theft, teaching them entirely unsubstantiated tripe about mythological entities and events) is simple prudery, in my view. Kids ride snowboards. You can do that relatively safely. Some people ride snowboards off of cliffs onto avalanche-prone slopes (there's a movie coming out about this very thing, in fact, this spring.) Is it a terrible thing to let those snow-boarding kids see that movie? Will they all immediately decide that's the norm, and go out and leap off ledges? Even though they are the "snow-boarding immature"? The fact is that sexual immaturity is something you resolve with experience and education. Movies are one way to show them the length and breadth of sexuality without having them actually do, yet letting them think about it. When you're a sexual prude, this will frighten you. That's fine for you, and you can in turn inflict your prudery on your kids. My position is that you, and people like you, don't get to inflict it on mine.

That's nice. Again, why is it even relevant to the point that I was trying to make?

The text you are referring to there related to the idea of safety; you brought up coprophilia. Which is, in my evaluation, an unsafe behavior, and indeed, a talk with your kid, as you said, would be called for. I was lumping (heh) coprophilia in with unprotected sex because in the normal context (that is, outside of a movie depicting sex) this can be unsafe behavior as well. Perhaps I was mistaken in that you identified coprophilia as the problem; I confess I did jump to a conclusion, perhaps you are a fan of coprophilia. Was there something else in that scene that had you motivated to talk to your child? Multiple participants, perhaps?

I don't really know why I'm wasting my time

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!"

Re:Qualifications

[AndroidCat]

Sure, after all, his company has such an impressive web site, if you like 100% Flash and no content except meaningless buzzwords.

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.

This is a non-starter.

[TripMaster Monkey]

This idea is doomed for the same reason that the .xxx top-level domain was...namely, because setting aside a resource for pr0n is tantamount to condoning it on some level, and if Bush and his cronies want to continue to enjoy the backing of the fundies, they can't be percieved as giving adult content on the internet any legitimacy at all.

Re:this port

[vidnet]

6660 is unassigned but in a range commonly used for IRC.

Porn in other words.

I guess working with SCO caused his brain to rot

[vidarh]

The "business man" in question, Ralph Yarro, is the guy that used to run Canopy group (SCO's largest shareholder) until he was ousted after a battle with the Noorda family over control. Hardly the kind of guy you'd want involved in anything requiring a sliver of ethics...

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

Re:Here's an even better suggestion:

[iphayd]

Then of course strip search all of the (female) images that come in through the firewall.

Re:Here's an even better suggestion:

[maxzilla]

But then the ethernet cord and router lobbyists would be up in arms! think of the servers people, think of the servers!

Front-page worthy?

[Gothmolly]

Can we have a topic called "Yes its news, but its only flamebait on Utah republicans, so we're not going to post it, because it lacks any technical merit, and even the most ignorant of Slashdot readers could hack around these restrictions within seconds"?
C'mon, do we REALLY need to see this on the front page? Is the next article going to be "Sometimes audio CDs have data on them too!" or "Government wishes it could read everyone's email" ?
I'd like to see Slashdot rise up to the "technical news that matters to technical people" instead of "Its on Yahoo! News and its about the Intarweb so we post it"

Re:Front-page worthy?

[confusion here]

At least it's not a dupe... yet.

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.

Re:utah and the internet

[S714726]

It's always wonderful when someone rips a web page in its entirety without citing any source. The first result from a Google search for the quote can be found here; this page credits a no-longer-existent page.

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?

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?

Re:Wow!

[maxzilla]

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...

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:Why it wouldn't work

[hey!]

Broadly, this is John Milton's argument against censorship in his famous essay Areopagitica.

It cannot be denied but that he who is made judge to sit upon the birth or death of books, whether they may be wafted into this world or not, had need to be a man above the common measure, both studious, learned, and judicious;
[...]
  If he be of such worth as behooves him, there cannot be a more tedious and unpleasing journey-work, a greater loss of time levied upon his head, than to be made the perpetual reader of unchosen books and pamphlets, ofttimes huge volumes.
[...]
  no man of worth, none that is not a plain unthrift of his own hours, is ever likely to succeed them, except he mean to put himself to the salary of a press corrector; we may easily foresee what kind of licensers we are to expect hereafter, either ignorant, imperious, and remiss, or basely pecuniary.

In short:

1. Men worthy of the post of censor must be of uncommon virtue and character.
   
2. Such men will necessarily find wading through vulgar materials distasteful and will seek to vacate the post.
   
3. Therefore, ultimately the system must eventually employ the unvirtuous.
   

Milton was talking about theological writings here, but in this case the point is that the job of censor is a natural magnet for perverts. To this he adds a psychological argument about the way people use information:

To the pure, all things are pure; not only meats and drinks, but all kind of knowledge whether of good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled.

[..]
... best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evil. Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.

It may be that people have a set-point for titillation, the way some people think we have a set point for fat metabolism. To the Victorians, the sight of an ankle, or a woman in the very modest underclothese of the time, were no doubt as arousing as hard core porn is to modern Internet users. It may not be coincidental that prostitution was practiced on a scale never seen since.

Finally Milton makes another telling point about the legislation of morality:

If every action, which is good or evil in man at ripe years, were to be under pittance and prescription and compulsion, what were virtue but a name, what praise could be then due to well-doing, what gramercy to be sober, just, or continent? Many there be that complain of divine Providence for suffering Adam to transgress; foolish tongues! When God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose, for reason is but choosing; he had been else a mere artificial Adam, such an Adam as he is in the motions. We ourselves esteem not of that obedience, or love, or gift, which is of force: God therefore left him free, set before him a provoking object, ever almost in his eyes; herein consisted his merit, herein the right of his reward, the praise of his abstinence. Wherefore did he create passions within us, pleasures round about us, but that these rightly tempered are the very ingredients of virtue?

Enshrining values in law only makes them superfluous.

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?

Re:What about other content?

[dr_dank]

Where on earth are we going to leave all the other content?

What 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.

Great US exports

[melonman]

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.

Re:Great US exports

[dswan69]

What it boils down to is that you can't shield your child from the world. Parents can try, but expecting to succeed is silly and ultimately succeeding isn't necessarily good for the child.

Let's not forget that there was a time when your childhood was over by the time you were ten. We've extended it, and invented the ludicrous notion that our children should remain 'innocent' until they're magically transported into adulthood at whatever arbitrary age reigns in your region.

We'd all be better off if parents put their time and energy into raising robust, independent, free-thinking children rather than sheltered automatons.

Logic?

[Shoten]

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? :)

UK Woman is trying to 'block' violent Porn sites

[joely]

There is currently a petition being driven by my local MP to try and ban 'violent pornographic websites' see BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4460828.stm[BBC News]. Whilst not directly related to this article it is an example of the general public thinking that something can actually be done about these things!

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for Liz Longhurst who has lost her daughter I do wish that my MP and other MPs would spend 30mins talking to some IT guys to discover that this is an impossible task. Currently they must be wasting lots of time at the taxpayer's expense.

If anyone else in the UK feels the same as me then please use the http://www.writetothem.com/ Write-to-them website to get a message to your MP!

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.

Porn...what porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just 3 bright comments:

1. Wouldn't it be easier to establish a kid-friendly port (i.e. a sandbox port) - concerned parents and other censors can them simply block everthing else.

2. What is porn? A picture of a woman in a bikini might constitute porn in a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, in a liberal European country the definition might be different.

3. Privacy issues - if porn is transmitted thro the porn port all users of that port might be labelled as porn fiends.

M

Just extend RFC 3514!

[Advocadus Diaboli]

RFC 3514 already introduces the evil bit. So it should be easy to extend this RFC and also introduce a "porn bit". Tagged packets should be easy to filter out with a proper configured packet filter and there shouldn't be any fuss about proxies and so on...

SCNR this one, so don't mod me down for not knowing that RFC3514 is an april fools day joke.

The xxx tld

[MobyDisk]

The xxx tld was a better idea. Is the urban legend that it was struck down by the US conservative Christian right correct, or Slashdot propoganda? Even if this were possible, it would probably don the same fate.

Re:The xxx tld

[Snowhare]

Not an urban legend: Concerned Women for America - Tell Department of Commerce to Nix .XXX Domain. It's the old "You can't give it legal recognition because that would imply approval of it." You see the same behavior from the Christian Right regarding condom distribution, sex education, needle exchange programs, anti-homophobia campaigns and any other thing they view as 'enabling sin'.

Re:The xxx tld

[shrubya]

The fight wasn't quite so cut and dried. There were actually four separate, comparably loud, factions:

1. ANTI: conservatives as stated who felt that .xxx would legitimize porn
2. FOR: other conservatives who felt that .xxx would help them ghettoize & block porn
3. FOR: porn advocates who felt that .xxx would legitimize porn
4. ANTI: porn advocates who felt that group 2 would succeed at ghettoizing & blocking porn

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.

Re:UK Woman is trying to 'block' violent Porn site

[Ngwenya]

There is currently a petition being driven by my local MP to try and ban 'violent pornographic websites'

To be fair, this one is only about attempting to extend the laws which cover possession of child pornography to violent porn (rape, mutilation, etc). She's not trying to ban porn websites, just the (currently legal) possession of their materials within the United Kingdom. Yes, I think it's unworkable, but it's not an entirely incoherent approach. Yarro's proposal is just plain crazy. He could even make it less crazy by saying "Right, all web sites in the United States should have to be registered with the (Local/State/Federal government) Department of Naughty Pictures which will then determine whether the site can offer service on port 80, or should be on port 6969." And failure to register a website constitutes an offence.

Yes, it's still stupid; yes, it can be trivially circumvented; and yes, it doesn't address non-HTTP protocols. But at least it's a coherent argument. The tiny, tiny flaw is that it would be struck down by the courts before you could mention the words "prior restraint". I'm fairly sure that the US Congress is prohibited from restricting freedom of spech - something about the first amendment to their contraception, or convolution - some word like that, anyway.

--Ng

Use TLDs

[connah0047]

While I understand many /.'ers don't believe there is anything wrong with pornography, and don't flame me for having my own opinion, I do. That said, I also believe that there are enough people out there who also believe it's not right or at least want to protect there kids from it. So we should accomodate them.

Yes, routing porn images and text through specific ports is a joke. That would take such a major reworking of our present systems that it's not even funny. But what about TLD's? I have long thought that if all porn sites (and yes, "porn" can be defined) were hosted from sites with a TLD of .XXX, it would make blocking incredibly easy...and probably put all "Net Nanny" type companies out of business....for better or worse. The problem is who is going to force porn sites to be restricted to .XXX?

Oh, and if the people who WANT porn have a problem with this, why complain? It makes it easier for you to find it. Just google site:.xxx

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:Tell me again why the US should run the net?

[chazzf]

Speaking as a resident of one of the other 49 states of the Union (Michigan), Utah is a tolerated nuisance, not a standard-bearer.

Hard Core

[daveewart]

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

How appropriate.

It seems to me that ...

[hummassa]

you even did not see the dept. this article comes from ("the i-can't-define-pr0n-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it dept.") There IS NO Porn. A breast cancer site shows women (some of them beautiful) touching and massaging their own boobs. Is a Victoria's Secret catalog porn? To prohibit something, you should be able to define it first.
One absurd example: my son, one year and a half ago (he was four) took all his clothes by the pool; my wife snapped a picture of him as he had done so. Some jurisdictions consider possessing a picture of a nude 4yo as child porn, with some stiff criminal penalties. Does this seem reasonable to you?

Re:It seems to me that ...

[Peter La Casse]

That's all very sensible and logical, unlike this type of legislation. The fact that one can't define porn objectively will simply lead to an over-broad definition. Yes, that means that laws like this would affect breast cancer awareness sites. Yes, that means your wife's innocent picture of your son would interest your local child welfare agency. (I suggest not showing it to them; people have had their kids taken away for less than that.)

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.

One simple question

[Billosaur]

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.

Utah and Internet filtering

[hotspotbloc]

Years ago I worked for the State group that provided Internet service and support to Utah's k-12 schools. Each district controlled what was filtered and we reviewed/added/deleted any requests. While most requests were to block real porn sites other requests for blocking included sites including and like: now.org, mtv.com and the SI swimsuit issue.

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:

From "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing":

Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'

[...]

Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip. . .
SOME TAKE THE BIBLE. . .
(Aw gimme a half a dozen for the hotel room!)

Poor slashdoters

[linumax]

Hey, I'm really pissed
They are fu**ing with the only source for an slashdotter to know what the world fu** really means

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this

[resiak]

Technically speaking, it'd be much easier just to try and get all the pron people to put some kind of broadcast flag on their own stuff, and then just filter by that.

Sounds like you just reinvented the evil bit!

Quick Solution

[mitchell_pgh]

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.

Metatags

[jbeaupre]

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.

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)

Re:Parents would decide

[Jeremy Erwin]

Parents would decide to either have a child friendly IP addresss or not.

My children have already informed me that they've made lots of new friends on the internet. I'm glad that I unblocked 6667. One of them even offered to buy her a very special wardrobe, if she'd install a webcam.

Cleanliness starts at home, Mr. Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

No matter what Web site children are visiting, Internet pornography is just one click away, Manning said.

Perhaps Mr. Manning should start by cleaning up his collection of bookmarks.

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.

Re:I would actually prefer a solution like this

[fireweaver]

> 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.

The funny part of this is that most of the "children" who
seem to be traumatised by sex/violence/etc seem to be OVER
the age of 18. Go figure.

More perspective

[scoove]

I just read through CP80's "technical briefing" which I'd strongly recommend /. readers review (it's located at: http://www.cp80.org/solutions/ ). Treating the matter seriously (which isn't easy), there are a few observations:

Viability: CP80 isn't. When you misunderstand the very basics of the subject material from the start (such as this nonsense: "Ports & Protocols = Internet Channels")a few minutes with RFC 1700 would be a good start for CP80's technical advisors, if they have any). Consider the following CP80 quote:

There are over 65,000 Internet channels available on the Internet today. These channels are already used to categorize content and services.

No they're not. They're used to correspond to applications that operate at a known port. This is much lower in the OSI model, where content filtering typically requires application awareness (OSI layer 7).

ISP Administration: CP80 wants ISPs to offer you channels (as if the believe ISPs create the content, which you'd have to do in order to control the content at the appropriate layers), presumably 80 & 443 for "clean content", perhaps 81/444 for rated PG (sorry hosts2 nameserver and snpp), 82/446 for R and 83/447 for X (working around microsoft-ds at 445 for the moment). Should we go down this path, this probably will be the necessary incentive for providers to move residential broadband completely to an opt-in protocol/port model and quit blocking ports. We'll just enable the few basics - your "web channels" (ugh), a mail channel that only goes to us and perhaps a couple of others necessary for audio/video streaming and such. We'll push all through proxies to make sure you're not tunneling something other than the desired protocol (and still, there will be ways around this). It's a radical departure at significant expense and unfortunately doesn't quite work (as most things that ignore Internet architecture do). Coordination between all ISPs, NSPs, OS and software vendors, standards bodies and content providers would be rather necessary and mandatory.

There /is/ a potential solution that addresses the unlikely mandatory compliance aspect and approaches the content filtering on an optional basis (usable for those that wish to integrate it) and I'll post and draft it out this morning so there's evidence of prior art (we know how the SCOG folks have a difficult time understanding how intellectual property works). I'd be willing to push it further into a public commons patent application e.g. under ODSL's patent commons (just so CP80 doesn't make the same mistake SCOG did by thinking they owned other people's IP and get congressional support behind misappropriated property).

An effective approach is to use a shim protocol, similar to how MPLS is implemented (and wedged), that would insert a content header immediately ahead of the IP datagram. The datagram would specify content settings and either be processed by equipment (CPE, firewalls, routers, PCs, etc.) that are Content-Shim aware or ignored by those that aren't. Service providers could implement it and push administration of the filtering to the end-user (though this assumes content providers are using the shim protocol as well as they push out traffic). Done at this level, it is independent of port management issues and other unworkable nonsense.

Contact me if you'd like to work on a content shim on sourceforge with the prototype code under GPL and intellectual property donated to ODSL patent commons.

*scoove*
(scoove-at-yahoo.com)

he's got it all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of a port, howbout a domain? it'd be super-easy to block adult content if all of it existed on .xxx domains.

then again, little horny hackers could memorize some IPs and bypass DNS.

Clueless libraries Re:Free our libraries!

[hackwrench]

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.

Porn

[nukeade]

If you think porn scars a kid... wait until he gets a girlfriend.

~Ben

Re:Porn

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Actually, they've found that as a result of more access to porn, teenage boys are more into cunnilingus than they used to be. The only problem is girls aren't all that comfortable with it due to problems with their perceived body image. And blow jobs seem to have become (pardon the pun) cheap finger food rather than an a rare exotic dessert.

But we can still have Nazi porn.

[type40]

Right?

You know the kind with the hansom young Nazi officer on all fours with a leash around his balls being held by a burly black man saying, "So, what were you a saying about being part of the master race?"
que the porn music

that's still ok right?

Why not offer free blacklists?

[flashingcurser]

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

Re:tissue?

[fyngyrz]

Ok. Let me be a little more blunt, since the long version didn't make an impression.

I really don't want my kids to be exposed to religious preaching without my being there to explain the lack of objective fact that underlies it, as well as the various brands of greed, hypocracy, and political control that are being excercised, subtly or otherwise.

Currently, I manage this by ensuring that I am there when they surf. I am perfectly ready to admit this is more difficult than having someone lock all religious material away from their eyes. That, however, does not (in my opinion) so much solve a problem as it does cause one: Now they know nothing about it, and they're going to be curious, and probably chase it down when I am not around. Still, I'd have more free time, and that has value, even if gained at the expense of my children's ability to deal with reality.

So: If you want porn put on a particular port, I want religion put on its own port as well.

Now, if you don't like that: Why exactly should your failure to monitor your children's activities on the Internet have priority over my failure to do so?

On the other hand, If you do like that: exactly how many things offensive to some segment of the population shall we lock away on specific ports so it is "easy" for parents to opt out? There are millions of issues, and only 65536 ports. So there's a practical issue as well as an administrative one.

Finally, why is software like "Net Nanny" not a reasonable answer if you want to censor your child's network experience? Why is ghettoizing better?