Utah Wants To Give ISPs That Filter a "G-Rating"

An anonymous reader writes "HB407 in Utah would create a child-friendly designation for ISPs that block out a range of prohibited materials. Google, Yahoo, and others are fighting the bill, but Rep. Michael Morley says, 'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'"

Comments

Unworkable

[milsoRgen]

It will never work, the state and/or companies that would try and implement it would needlessly expose themselves to liability once parents who let the computer screen baby sit their kids realize it's not fool proof.

Re:Unworkable

[NekoIncardine]

Or, they go a seemingly-workable whitelist route and then get sued for, say, putting xenu.net on the whitelist.

Re:Unworkable

[KublaiKhan]

So they'll just pull an Australia and make it governmentally mandated or something like that.

O'course, now, children will grow up unable to see the Venus de Milo or the Vitruvian Man or any of those other naughty art bits, but that's OK, right? Because it's protecting the children?

And it's not like they'll be able to learn about STDs or how to protect oneself against 'em, but that's OK--without all those nasty naked people, why would they want to have sex?

Re:Unworkable

[milsoRgen]

It starts with naked people, who are incredibly dangerous and an affront to any morally upstanding U.S. citizen such as myself. Next we ban anything about drugs that isn't inline with our current policy. Then we ban violence. Then we ban info on anything the state deems illegal or subversive. Then we ban known dissidents from speaking in a non approved forum. Then we are safe.

Re:Unworkable

[Brian Gordon]

Except that's not pornographic. I guess it wouldn't stop the CoS though.

Re:Unworkable

[milsoRgen]

Utah would create a child-friendly designation for ISPs that block out a range of prohibited materials. Considering a scientologist is lead to believe that certain knowledge they aren't ready for can kill them. I could totally see CoS getting on board with this and blocking xenu.net to 'protect their children'.

Re:Unworkable

[Otter Escaping North]

The parent in me understands the concerns at play here; that we want to restrict the nature of the media that our children are exposed to. The geek in me understands why this short-term impossible, medium-to-long-term semi-workable on a small-scale, but undesirable for the ISPs, the search engines, and the like.

The only way you can pull this off is with a trust-system. The ratings analogy seems to conveniently skip over the existing infrastructure of that trust-system. The content producers are responsible for obtaining the ratings, and the end-distributors (movie houses, broadcasters) will only carry that content which already has obtained such ratings.

So you can try to get ISPs to only serve websites that have previously been "rated" by some certified body (something as reasoned and transparent as the MPAA-rating-committee, I'm sure) - but the sprawling nature of the web, and the user-driven-content model of the so-called "Web 2.0" sites are going to move most of the web off the field for that. What you're left with are a few sites that are specifically kid-oriented, and can probably be more easily achieved with a home-grown routing whitelist.

Are there not consumer products that easily allow parents to set such a list? Or are we talking about something that sounds nice in theory, but that no one is actually looking for? Seems to me that if you're worried about this kind of stuff in your home that it should be solvable with a $50 router and an hour reading the manual.

Re:Unworkable

[middlemen]

It starts with naked people, who are incredibly dangerous and an affront to any morally upstanding U.S. citizen such as myself. Next we ban anything about drugs that isn't inline with our current policy. Then we ban violence. Then we ban info on anything the state deems illegal or subversive. Then we ban known dissidents from speaking in a non approved forum. Then we are safe.

Haha... I am waiting for them to actually ban evolution, not the theory but the phenomenon. That law would have to be intelligently designed.

Re:Unworkable

[gnick]

And it's not like they'll be able to learn about STDs or how to protect oneself against 'em With the internet properly filtered, underage sex will no longer be a concern. Without pornography, kids won't know how to have sex until their parents present them with the "birds and the bees" book on their wedding night.

Problem solved.

Re:Unworkable

[KublaiKhan]

The weakness in that argument is that it requires that parents take responsibility and make an effort to educate themselves.

Your typical soccer mom "doesn't know anything about computers" and has no interest in doing so--but wants to make sure the kids are safe, because anything other than total and utter safety Just Won't Do.

Now, if you decided to build yourself a cheapass firewall/filter/proxy appliance, form factor about the same as your typical cable modem and priced at about the $50 point you mentioned (with, say, $19.95/month updating service) that you could plug inline between the modem and the home LAN, you could conceivably make a profit--but if it required any activation by the parent more complicated than a typical windows "click yes" wizard and selecting a secret code, you can forget about any sort of widespread adoption.

Re:Unworkable

[doubletrigger]

doesn't the Opt-In model work better for this kind of censorship? perhaps a panel of motivated parents (think PTA) that could decide what websites kids should be allowed to see (think MPAA)?

also WTF?!! the article mentions ISPs getting a "G-Rating" but then talks about "blocking pornography." using the MPAA guidelines as a reference point, there is a broad spectrum of morally and intellectually ambiguous behaviors that separate G from X (or NC-17 for that matter). block ron jeremy but allow jenkem? block jenna jameson but allow cutters? block polygamy but allow-- oh wait. utah is curious.

Re:Unworkable

[Firefalcon]

How did we manage to procreate before the internet? :-p

Re:Unworkable

[jc42]

Except that's not pornographic. I guess it wouldn't stop the CoS though.

That reminds me of a couple years back, when in one year Yahoo three times killed off their own breast-cancer support-group mailing list. Talking about breasts is porn, y'know, and we can't let impressionable children read about them. (It might be interesting to collect a list of examples of this sort of blocking.)

The problem here isn't limited to computer software. I was a student at the U of Wisconsin back in the late 60s, when there was an attempt to rescind the state's ban on birth-control pills. The problem was that even talking in public about birth control was legally considered pornographic, so the supporters of the bill couldn't get the media to broadcast or publish any of their material. People who tried distributing birth-control literature were arrested and charged with distributing porn. I recall the computer geeks calling this a bug in the legal system, and there didn't seem to be any way to debug the problem. It lasted until the US Supreme Court invalidated such laws. If they hadn't done this, we'd probably still have these laws on the books.

Once censorship becomes legal, it can be very difficult to do anything to fight it. Talking in public against the censorship also becomes illegal, as that would put illegal ideas into young minds.

Re:Unworkable

[KublaiKhan]

If they even do that....I have anecdotes of people who were raised in the 'abstinence-only' "sex ed" areas of the US (Georgia, specifically, IIRC) that even now did not know exactly what the deal was--to the point where they had no idea why a female would visit a gyno outside of pregnancy.

This was two weeks before her wedding.

She was instructed in what research to do on that count, and last I spoke to her things were going well--but given the rates of STDs in those areas, not all stories like that end happily.

Re:Unworkable

[longacre]

Seems to me that if you're worried about this kind of stuff in your home that it should be solvable with a $50 router and an hour reading the manual.

Plus several million hours visiting every website in existence to determine which IPs to block.

Re:Unworkable

[jarom]

I don't see how it is unworkable, as long as in the terms of service they make it clear that it is impossible to filter all offensive content.

Re:Unworkable

[Changa_MC]

Seems to me that if you're worried about this kind of stuff in your home that it should be solvable with a $50 router and an hour reading the manual.

Plus several million hours visiting every website in existence to determine which IPs to block. I believe he already addressed that: whitelist the 5 or so sites you want your child to visit, block everything else. Adds 2 minutes to his estimate, tops. It's not like I'd let my kids read slashdot anyway.

Re:Unworkable

[longacre]

Oops.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I agree that a binary certification, whether from a government or major private source isn't very politically feasible (I can imagine all hell breaking loose if someone risks losing their certification). What if, instead of a binary "certification", the rating consisted of a "score" -- a percentage of requested pornography that was blocked? That wouldn't be hard to do, and someone could keep an updated list.

Heck, all you'd need is to write a client to do the requests and you could even have a few friendly users on the networks run it periodically and get a score from many different ISPs. You could even have dslreports or a similar existing ISP rating company add such a score.

Re:Unworkable

[Kadin2048]

The parent in me understands the concerns at play here; that we want to restrict the nature of the media that our children are exposed to. The geek in me understands why this short-term impossible, medium-to-long-term semi-workable on a small-scale, but undesirable for the ISPs, the search engines, and the like.

I don't think that that blacklisting will ever be that effective on a wide scale; even the commercially-supported, subscription-based blacklists inevitably miss some stuff -- really the only purpose it serves is preventing embarrassment when you type "whitehouse.com" instead of "whitehouse.gov" in front of a big audience or something. It's certainly a stupid way to try and restrict the content that your kids are seeing: if they go looking for porn, even on a blacklist-enforcing system, they're going to find it.

Setting aside arguments about technological solutions to social problems, especially parenting problems, what probably would work (at least for very young children) would be creating "kid-friendly" domains within national TLDs. An example might be ".kids.us" or ".G.rated.us" (along with ".PG.rated.us" and the like). Because it's under the national TLD you would have an easier time enforcing compliance legislatively, and it would be a purely opt-in system both for sites and for users. One method might be to require any company wanting to register a domain in the rated zone to post a large bond, which they would forfeit if they put up any material that violated the ratings guideline for that particular zone. You'd have to spell out the requirements quite specifically (none of the MPAA-style "I'll know it when I see it" subjective ratings), but once you did, you could probably get a system set up that was mostly self-policing. (Particularly if you said that half ot 25% of the bond forfeiture went to the person who reported the violation to the agency or registrar in charge.)

I'm not saying that this is a good idea overall, but I think it's a better idea than blacklists, and certainly a better idea than enforcing misguided obscenity laws on speech in general (which I don't think ought to be Constitutional in the first place). I suspect that very few organizations would bother to register for the safe zones, but at least you'd be able to point bitching parents to the fact of their existence when they complain, and then tell them to lobby entertainment companies to set up sites there. I'd rather have the pitchforks-and-torches 'think of the children' crowd out in front of the Disney HQ building than in front of Congress where there's a chance they'll encourage politicians to do something really stupid.

Re:Unworkable

[BWJones]

Beyond unworkable, there are other issues at play including 4th Amendment rights. This is covered in Pete Ashdown's blog (Pete is an ISP owner)

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh - I modded up a post above you, then I saw this gem, and just had to reply. The very saddest part of your post is that I have no idea whether it is funny, insightful or scarily prescient. Personally, I think we're already at your last step - banning known dissidents from speaking in a non-approved forum (free speech zones, anyone?). Yes, the incidents are sporadic and heavily localized, but their mere existence - and the massive support that exists for them - scares the bejeesus out of me.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you either have free speech, or you don't. Just like you're either pregnant, or not. Yes, there are exceptions to the "all speech is allowed" rule. But it is a very narrow range of examples, all of which cause direct bodily harm, and which do so primarily by threatening immediate bodily harm. None of these new rules fall into that category.

Anyone know how much it costs to have your own island these days? Maybe I can get a nice chunk of Antarctica for cheap.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this bill really plays into the goals of the Mormon church. Many LDS teenaged girls get pregnant before marriage, and denying them access to sex education by blocking "inappropriate" content will ensure that more of them do get pregnant. Since the Mormons don't believe in abortion, more tithe-paying Mormons are produced, and the Church gets richer.

And it's not like they'll be able to learn about STDs or how to protect oneself against 'em With the internet properly filtered, underage sex will no longer be a concern. Without pornography, kids won't know how to have sex until their parents present them with the "birds and the bees" book on their wedding night.

Problem solved.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me or isn't this completely voluntary? The way I understood it is that an ISP can apply for the G rating and the state is simply the keeper of the standard. No where did I see that ~all~ ISP's have to submit to it or that teh state wa mandating it. While I generally don't like the idea of restricting the internet at all, I don't see this as a Bad Thing (tm).

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

How disappointing. I thought that link was going to tell us how to kill scientologists by talking to them.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope fallacy. I know you were joking, but you were rated as insightful.

Re:Unworkable

[hairyfeet]

The problem is this is just another case of government sticking their nose in,and probably screwing up,things that can be solved with the free market.If someone wants web filtering software,it isn't like they are helpless and without choice.There is plenty of it all over the web.And that way those that don't want big nanny government filtering what we read don't have to use it.Hell,you can even do it simply for free. When my boys were younger I simply made up a list of every dirty word I could find and put them into my firewall,which is Outpost Free,and then started to try to go to adult sites.About an hours worth of adding words to the filter and I had a nice,easy to deal with,and free way to keep the boys away from any pr0n.It also filters by site URL,which allowed me to get rid of those games sites the youngest liked that served up drive-by malware.

But,just like that stupid baseball hearing,this is just another way for the government to be worthless and waste time and money while pandering for votes.What they SHOULD be doing is working up a plan to increase broadband capacity state by state so we can be competitive this century.What we get is crap like this and baseball hearings while our economy and infrastructure fall apart.But of course when the biggest story in the news for weeks is "Oh Noes,Is teh Britteny Crazy?" what can we expect? Just another case of rearranging the deck chairs while the boat sinks.But as always my 02c,YMMV.

Re:Unworkable

[Jtheletter]

That reminds me of a couple years back, when in one year Yahoo three times killed off their own breast-cancer support-group mailing list. Talking about breasts is porn, y'know, and we can't let impressionable children read about them.

And that reminds me of waaaay back when AOL first started censoring chat room names based on a blacklist of words. For two days the "Breast Cancer Survivors Group" was the "Hooters Cancer Survivors Group" before it was fixed. Cancer is not funny, but 'hooters cancer' sure sounds funny.

Re:Unworkable

[poetmatt]

I wonder if this can be fought as unconstitutional as well? Just throwing that out, I don't know if its possible or not.

Re:Unworkable

[baboo_jackal]

The whole idea of making laws about porn (outside of preventing abhorrent abuses, like child porn and snuff films, for example) just bothers me.

I'm a conservative, and a Republican, but I just gotta say this is a perfect example of conservative, Republican hypocrisy. (There, I said it.)

I understand that parents want to be able to raise their kids however they see fit - if you want your kid to never see a boobie until he's 18, then fine. If you want your kid to start masturbating to hardcore porn at age 10, also fine. If you want to educate your kids on the frank realities of sex at age 4, *FINE*!

I really don't care what you choose for you own family, as long as you don't force *your* standards onto me. And this is exactly what this bill does! Sure, I can choose to use a non-G-rated ISP, but the cost of this legislation is paid for by my taxes, which means that I am being forced to fund someone else's standards for child-rearing that I may or may not agree with.

What I don't get is that Republicans are generally in support of the free market, and believe that government really doesn't need to intervene in situations where the solution can be provided privately. This is a perfect example. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering starting an ISP in Utah that advertises G-Rated content filters now! The demand is obviously there, so why hasn't anyone done this yet?!?!?

The real hypocrisy is that conservative-types (including myself) believe that Government should *not* be our "munificent provider" of stuff via largesse. Yet, the author of this bill, and it's supporters want to legislate into existence, essentially, a Government-subsidized "Internet Nanny."

Ugh. I'm disgusted.

Re:Unworkable

[Moonpie Madness]

I realize Scientology is generally pretty dumb, but this aspect is particularly absurd.

If you have to be "clear" to a certain level before you can know certain things, how the fuck can a living SP, the opposite of someone who is clear and leveled up, know anything that could be harmful? If the Scions were right, the SP would be dead from the knowledge, so it's absurd to give out this warning. It's just another pathetic and obvious attempt to control the gullible and sick as long as possible to get all them money they can.

Almost as pathetic is this ignorant attempt to censor the internet. Give the porn people their .xxx domain! Make life easy to everyone! But no, that can't happen, because, as the legislator says above, this is about "fighting pornography" and not about keeping it away from kids. Law abiding citizens want pornography. It's legit to want to keep kids away, but not legit to want to "fight" the entire enterprise of adult entertainment. Until men are honest about this issue, their government will continue to go down the wrong path. Parents should also realize that the best way to protect your kids from porn is to give porn a nice, legit domain. The solution is obvious.

Re:Unworkable

[Gerzel]

While I don't agree with this attempt at filtering or the idea of "fighting pornography." I also don't see the idea of a .xxx domain name to be a good idea.

Would pornographic sites be forced to move to the domain?
Would non-pornographic sites be forced to not use the domain?

If you want to implement a flag by which sites are able to label themselves as innapropriate for minors or some viewers then that is all well and good but xxx has too strong and specific a connotation to really be workable.

Re:Unworkable

[Dekortage]

I know the folks over at EngenderHealth, Population Council, and similar nonprofits who work in sexual and reproductive health topics... sometimes have trouble with overzealous anti-spam filters marking messages as porn just because they're talking about sex, genitalia, etc. Tough to get work done when your emails keep getting dumped in the spam bucket.

Re:Unworkable

[Jesus_666]

The European Union should adopt a pair of breasts as their new flag. Just so the US Americans can't avoid having depictions of breasts on full display in prime-time TV whenever something regarding the EU happens. Those 3% of the US Americans that survive the trauma might end up slightly less erotophobic.

Of course they still can't talk about sex because in order to lift the sex talk censorship one would have to talk about censorship, which is illegal. But they would be willing to theoretically being able to talk about it.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

And to demonstrate how there's a different side to everything; I was raised in the most left-wing state in the union (California) by two atheist-Democrat parents, saw plenty of porn growing up, and I've still never had sex at the age of 25.

Re:Unworkable

[sckeener]

It might be interesting to collect a list of examples of this sort of blocking

I bought a t-shirt years ago from PeaceFire.org It had a list of sites mistakely banned at one time or another...

the list was things like the republican & democrat websites..

the vatican

breast cancer survivors (as mentioned)

etc...

It was a cool t-shirt to wear...I loved all the people in Washington DC asking me about it when I wore it there.

Re:Unworkable

[KublaiKhan]

Well, yes, but you're posting as an AC on /., so that's really no surprise, now, is it? ;-p

Re:Unworkable

[anexkahn]

Parents should imply implement OpenDNS....they can block DNS Requests to Pr0n, violence, etc... There just needs to be more education and less legislation

Re:Unworkable

[edmicman]

How will you get STDs if no one has sex until they're married and monogamous?

Re:Unworkable

[KublaiKhan]

Because no matter how hard you try, humans will want to have sex--and merely telling them that it's 'wrong' to do so will never deter more than a few handfuls from doing so.

It's human nature.

Re:Unworkable

[HeronBlademaster]

On the whole I agree with you, but this:

block polygamy but allow-- oh wait. utah is curious. is just plain ridiculous. Polygamy is not approved of by the LDS Church, and in any case, less than 50% of Utah is LDS (iirc). Polygamy is prohibited by Utah law, and any found to be practicing it are prosecuted (think Warren Jeffs). That HBO series "Big Love" was a complete fabrication in every way - there's no way a polygamist family living in Sandy could get away with it without being noticed - I lived there, I know.

Re:Unworkable

[misterthirsty]

'Hooters cancer' funny? I know a couple owls that would disagree.

Re:Unworkable

[DrXym]

Considering a scientologist is lead to believe that certain knowledge they aren't ready for can kill them. I could totally see CoS getting on board with this and blocking xenu.net to 'protect their children'.

Scientology already encourages its members to install some kind of filtering proxy to do that very thing. Google for "ScenioSitter". After all, heaven forbid CoS members accidentally discover what crazy antics their religion has in store for them when they stump up the $$$ for the next level of training.

Re:Unworkable

[rahvin112]

No Scientoligist is going to get elected in the world capital of Mormons. Most Mormons would view Scientology as a cult, 90% wouldn't even get past the name. You'll see flying pigs and the end of the world before there is ever a Scientologist elected to the Utah State legislature.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

The slippery slope is neither a fallacy on its own, nor is it a proof on its own. However, if the various small steps can be linked causally together (or, as in this case, be demonstrated to have already happened), it can be used to demonstrate how to get from one point to another.

Re:Unworkable

[Sancho]

I'd really love the idea of a .xxx domain if sane people were deciding which sites go there. Unfortunately, it would just be used as a way to censor any depiction or apparent depiction of sexual acts. Does an R-rated movie trailer deserve to be put on that domain? What about sites with user-generated content that might include sexually explicit material?

What really needs to happen is for people in the US to stop being prudish. Unfortunately, it would probably take a miracle for that to happen in my lifetime.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea of making laws about porn (outside of preventing abhorrent abuses, like child porn and snuff films, for example) just bothers me.

I'm a conservative, and a Republican, but I just gotta say this is a perfect example of conservative, Republican hypocrisy. (There, I said it.)

[SNIP]
I really don't care what you choose for you own family, as long as you don't force *your* standards onto me.

Oddly though, the Republican party does this all the time. Please realize that the republican party consists largely of two groups.

There are those who are well off, and thus have little need for social programs like Social Security, worker's compensation, etc. These people obviously would not mind those types of programs discontinued, and taxes getting cut. They often claim the free market works, but it really does not matter to them if the free market does not do nearly as good a job as the government program. They may or may not actually expect the free market to work, but that really is not their concern. Further, they often have interests in expanding certain sections of government (such as adding regulations to an industry that has little impact to exisitng companies, but makes it much harder for new competitors to enter the market).

Then there is the religious right. These people often seem to feel that the it is the Government's job to enforce their moral values on others. A great example of this is the general opposition to gay marriage or anything that even resembles it. They generally even oppose Civil Union systems that add things like joint child custody, default inheritance in the absence of a will, and access to the partner's medical records, etc., even if it adds no special benefits (like the tax benefits). What valid reason is there for opposing a system like that? Well none, really, except that homosexual relationships are highly offensive to the morals held by some fundamentalist groups. These groups also tend to highly dislike the existence of pornography, and put a lot of pressure on the party to fight it.

There are other groups of republicans, including those who honestly believe the free market can do a better job with many things than the government can. I'm presuming that you fit into this group. Unfortunately, this group does not have nearly as much influence on party politics as the others do. It simply a fact that only the more extreme groups have much say in politics here in the United States. This is a real short-coming of our system.

Re:Unworkable

[milsoRgen]

Would pornographic sites be forced to move to the domain?
Would non-pornographic sites be forced to not use the domain? I think the .xxx domain is good in theory, but you get into that whole gray area of what would constitute pornography and who would decide. Things like art, erotica, non-nude (not to be confused with never nude), voyeurism, modeling, etc., etc.,. Would all be up in the air. It really comes down to parental involvement. The internet does not need to be, nor should it be, kid friendly.

Re:Unworkable

[Sancho]

I'm a conservative, and a Republican, but I just gotta say this is a perfect example of conservative, Republican hypocrisy. (There, I said it.) ...
I really don't care what you choose for you own family, as long as you don't force *your* standards onto me. Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't understand that you're actually a libertarian.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

... until the kids figure out they just have to unplug the thing? And if you're to have a software component to prevent that you might as well go full software.

Re:Unworkable

[RCanine]

What I don't get is that Republicans are generally in support of the free market, and believe that government really doesn't need to intervene in situations where the solution can be provided privately.

You're confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Since 2000 the former hasn't believed in much except for cutting taxes, promoting monopolies, scaring people witless and building fun things like fences and space missiles.

Re:Unworkable

[LunaticTippy]

You sound pretty knowledgeable about Mormons, but I have a big shock for you. Joseph Smith had 34 wives! Please try to keep that in mind whenever someone makes a joke about Mormons and polygamy.

It isn't as if the church has always been against polygamy, either. Things were conflicted after the late 1800s when it was officially discouraged, and even in 2008 there are about 50k Mormon polygamists living in and around Utah.

Play it down if you must, but you're being dishonest by claiming that any linkage between Utah and polygamy is ridiculous.

Re:Unworkable

[Ortega-Starfire]

So long as I am a cleric of the Tetragrammaton, I have no problem with this.

Re:Unworkable

[sltd]

Sure, I can choose to use a non-G-rated ISP, but the cost of this legislation is paid for by my taxes, which means that I am being forced to fund someone else's standards for child-rearing that I may or may not agree with.

A lot of people pay a lot of taxes for a lot of legislation that they don't necessarily use. Tax revenue from people who don't have children still goes to pay for public education. They take out a chunk of every pay check for Social Security, and who knows if it will still be around long enough for any of us to use it, ourselves. I don't see how this is a whole lot different.

Personally, I think it would be easier to move all of it to a .xxx domain, as was stated above. Concerned parents could easily put up a filter that doesn't allow access to those domains. But I can also see this leading some to a false sense of security.

I'm not sure that it should be at the ISP level. The way to do something like this would be like the Firefox adblock extension. It would have to be a great deal more complex than adblock, and all the back end is a lot different, but the end result is the same. You would be able to filter out information and images that you didn't want to see in the first place. I don't really see what the huge deal would be about that.

Re:Unworkable

[Kalriath]

The flag you refer to is PICS (in use by ICRA), and is already in place (though optional). To see how it works, pop open Internet Explorer (only for a minute, don't worry) and on the Content tab of the Internet Options dialog, and under "Content Advisor", click "Enable...".

Re:Unworkable

[JrnyFan]

The OP never said that there was no link! Re-read what they wrote, they simply said that it is against the law in UT, that less than 50% of the state is Mormon and that it is against the bylaws of the LDS Church. Where did they say there is no link to Utah and polygamy? And then you start spouting your rhetoric, claiming it fact, when you have a problem with what he said. Do you see the problem with your logic? Oh, and the 50k 'Mormon' polygamists you claim that live in and around UT aren't Mormon. They can try to call themselves 'Fundamentalist Mormons' or whatever they want but they are not members of the LDS Church. So before you start accusing someone of not having their facts straight, stop reading from the liberalist media and do some research on your own...who knows, you might actually learn something and not look quite as foolish to those that do know a thing or to about the subject.

Re:Unworkable

[adona1]

a scientologist is lead to believe that certain knowledge they aren't ready for can kill them

Ah, then Scientology is simply a real life RPG! They simply need to grind themselves up to the appropriate level.

Actually, thinking of Tom Cruise as just another LARPer actually makes him seem less weird ;)

Re:Unworkable

[LunaticTippy]

Wow, a sore point, huh? OK, down to business. The OP called a joke about utah being curious about polygamy "ridiculous." This joke is NOT ridiculous. It is based on historical FACT. LDS was founded by polygamists, was friendly to polygamists for quite a while, and has never been successful in stamping out the practice.

I'm well aware that current LDS policy is against polygamy. That doesn't change history, and it doesn't change reality. You won't find more polygamists anywhere else in the US, and that is solely due to the Mormon church.

I know a lot of people don't like it, but it is the truth. I should know, I grew up in rural Utah and did a dissertation on LDS history. Plus, I know the secret of the bees.

Re:Unworkable

[glitch23]

Haha... I am waiting for them to actually ban evolution, not the theory but the phenomenon. That law would have to be intelligently designed.

That rules out any Congressman from ever coming up with the law. But then again it is useless to ban something that can not be seen or proven to be occurring right now in the first place so our Congressman have an excuse to get out of this one.

Re:Unworkable

[HeronBlademaster]

I should congratulate you on your ability to be cryptic. The "secret of the bees"?

LDS was founded by polygamists, was friendly to polygamists for quite a while, and has never been successful in stamping out the practice. It is not the job of the LDS church to stamp out polygamy. It is the job of law enforcement. The LDS Church does not harbor polygamists, and any members found to be practicing polygamy are promptly excommunicated and turned over to law enforcement officials. The LDS Church has been fully successful in stamping out polygamy among its own members.

Re:Unworkable

[HeronBlademaster]

I'm aware of how many wives Joseph Smith had - but I would point out that there is no evidence that any of those relationships were sexual in nature (other than with Emma), something given further support by the lack of children by any of these other wives. His primary purpose appears to have been building eternal ties. More information can be found here.

As JrnyFan said, there are definitely not 50,000 Mormon polygamists living anywhere. There are groups of people who claim to be Mormon, or Fundamentalist Mormon, but they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What I meant was ridiculous was the insinuation that Mormons still practice polygamy. You didn't say that, but it could be (and was) inferred from your comment.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares - the Mormons are all fucking cult zombie retards, often pedophiles, murder kittens and puppies for fun, and wear holy symbols on their underwear to represent the fact that thay're all fucked in the head. Any joke about them is a good joke.

Re:Unworkable

[Moonpie Madness]

Of course an R rated trailer should go on the .xxx site! Anything you don't want a 6 year old kid to see! I think a lot of sites could implement iframes or popups that simply don't work unless the user grants access to .xxx. Thus, a .com site would still work fine.

I think the biggest problem with this idea is that "xxx" is associated with hardcore pornography VHS tapes from the 80s. Pretend it isn't. We're just talking about things we want to keep to the adults. And I don't care if the classification is a bit too broad, since adults can use it all anyway. As long as basic nude sculptures and anatomy stuff was left free for children, things would be ok.

Is this perfect? Of course not. But I think it's pretty damn good.

Re:Unworkable

[Tessen]

You don't even need to go that far. There are already programs that can do that. Building a midway appliance wouldn't help anything, because even a child can figure out how to plug/unplug stuff; getting around a program? Not quite as easy.

Let's look at the real problem here, though: the internet isn't like a book or magazine. If you give your child one of those, you can leaf through it first and parse for inappropriate content. (why you'd ever be handing a child a book that could possible contain inappropriate content is beyond me, but hey. It takes all kids.) And it isn't like a movie, where you can preview it first. There's new stuff on the internet, new ways to get to that stuff, and it's continually changing. What we do not need is for the ISPs, or a program, or a firewall appliance, to make sure that our children aren't going to inappropriate sites on the net. What we need is for parents to monitor their child's internet usage, by being present. There's no education involved. All you have to do is look at the screen and ask yourself, "Is my child looking at porn? y/n?"...if a parent can't even process that, I think at that point they're not fit for the job.

Of course I understand that this isn't always possible. Parents have to work longer jobs, more jobs, etc. these days, just to make ends meet, and so it can be hard to keep a constant eye on them, but that's a societal issue which isn't really the topic here. But if this ISP-side naughty-site block is any bit smart, they'll be sure to include something in their contract with customers that the service isn't a substitute for parental supervision...only in more legal jargon. And I'm sure they will. What they have to worry about more is that $10,000 fine for failing to block the material.

Re:Unworkable

[thegsusfreek]

What is your problem? You and the parent both! Get your facts right: Australia and the US are not banning porn. They are allowing people the right to choose to have porn blocked. There is a major difference. And I am all for having that choice.

Re:Unworkable

[thegsusfreek]

Not to mention that you are wanting to ban me from having the choice to keep my children from viewing garbage on the internet.

Re:Unworkable

[Adm.Wiggin]

MStar has been offering "G-Rated" internet to people for years. It's just a service you can choose to add to your account. On the new "Utopia", the ISPs are actually REQUIRED to give filtering as a free option. The keyword, of course, being "option".

Re:Unworkable

[davolfman]

You've never lived in Utah have you? In a mormon-dominated state a certification like this is going to be virtually a license to print money. Who do you think was keeping Clean Flix and Co running while they were in business?

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as basic nude sculptures and anatomy stuff was left free for children

Our Bodies, Ourselves has been banned from high schools. Our former attorney general concealed statues in the department of justice (which we had commissioned in the 1930s) because OMGBOOBIE! We are not talking about people who will stop at a rational point, even assuming you could somehow take the median of Utah and the San Fernando Valley. Oh, and then you somehow have to persuade the entire world to adopt the standard.

Re:Unworkable

[erotic_pie]

you have to realize though, kids are smart, and even if they aren't chances are they know someone who is, and they will be able to get around whatever software/hardware you have set up to filter the internet.

kids are generally more tech savvy then parents, instead of trying to block them from going to sites why not just set up some sort of monitoring software to see what sites they ARE going too, since it would be easier to hide and harder to get around. And then if they are going to something inappropriate you fill your role as a parent and punish them as needed

I read something a while ago that I think applies here "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

LDS doesn't hold the trademark to the word mormon anymore than the roman pope owns the christiantity brand.

Re:Unworkable

[TheP4st]

Don't be silly, there is a multitude of software solutions available for those that want to filter webcontent. Filtering of inapropriate content should be up to the individual user not to the ISP.

Re:Unworkable

[baboo_jackal]

No, I understand. I just vote Republican.

Re:Unworkable

[Yfrwlf]

What really needs to happen is religion needs to be seen for what it really is, a bunch of sheep illogically following an overlord because of their promises. See, this issue is coming from Utah. While I agree that the U.S. as a whole is fairly anti-sex in comparison, as Richard Dawkins would say, lets not ignore the elephant in the room.

Re:Unworkable

[Yfrwlf]

You can't keep all animals away from sex no matter how hard you try and no matter their age, and IMO there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that such a thing would be harmful to the younger ones like you claim. I honestly don't think you need to worry about six-year-olds getting STDs from each other.

Re:Unworkable

[thegsusfreek]

Software is hardly foolproof. Believe me, I've had both software and ISP filtering and ISP filtering is much harder to get around. Granted, it would be best if the ISP offered both options so the user could choose which service they wanted, but the user has a choice of ISP so there is no reason an ISP shouldn't be allowed to offer filtered service.

Re:Unworkable

[Anonymous Coward]

By missing the sarcasm?

Re:Unworkable

[petermgreen]

Firstly IIRC some "STDs" can be transmitted by other means as well, especially mother to child but also in other ways too, sex is just one of the ways they spread.

Secondly in most of the western world we have this thing known of as divorce.

Thirdly I find it highly unlikely anyway that people would avoid sex before marraige simply because none of the official channels were prepared to find details.

Re:Unworkable

[HeronBlademaster]

No, it does not; however using the term "Mormon" to refer to both polygamist sects and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is both misleading and incorrect. It serves only to insinuate that the LDS Church still practices polygamy (which it does not), or that it tolerates polygamy (which it does not), or that these polygamist sects are part of the LDS Church (which they are not). The word Mormon refers to members of the LDS Church, by popular usage.

You don't need to own a trademark on a word to have its popular definition refer to you.

Re:Unworkable

[Hubbell]

I'm 20, live with my girlfriend who is pregnant (18) at her parent's (trailer), am out on comp from my job as a carpenter, and I'm a republican. Social Security is a fucking scam. It would work if the government could keep it's hands out, but it can't. Even then it shouldn't be in existence because it's just another example of the government saying "I know a better way to use your money, give it to me." Let the people decide if they wanna save it for their old age (and in the process make more money off it than they would through paying into social security) or spend it if that's what they wish. The government should not be in the business of taking care of people and protecting them from making stupid decisions with their lives that do not affect/infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

Re:Unworkable

[Monsuco]

It starts with naked people, who are incredibly dangerous and an affront to any morally upstanding U.S. citizen such as myself.

Before you know it, I will legally be required to not reply to slashdot while nude.

Re:Unworkable

[Random832]

That law would have to be intelligently designed. That rules out any Congressman from ever coming up with the law. So? Writing laws isn't their job.

Re:Unworkable

[LunaticTippy]

I find the whole attitude bizarre. You can't found a church on polygamy, change the church's stance, and then disown any tie to the practice. It's dishonest. It's fine to say we no longer support the practice, but you have to accept responsibility for those 50k self-proclaimed Mormons who would have been considered Mormons by the founders of the religion.

I've come across so many people who act as if LDS never approved of the practice and are indignant whenever somebody cracks a joke about polygamy when Utah or Mormonism comes up.

You know, I have come across this with other religions as well. There are countless times I've heard "Well, so-and-so isn't a real Christian" which is even more strange than LDS disowning people who follow Joseph Smith's teachings. At least there is one central authority with LDS, but with Christians there are countless wacky sects who believe all kinds of weird stuff. It seems to me that you can believe pretty much anything and be a real Christian.

Anyway, if you want to call those 50k people not real Mormons, what do you call Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al? Were they not real Mormons? The implications of that are dire!

Re:Unworkable

[HeronBlademaster]

which is even more strange than LDS disowning people who follow Joseph Smith's teachings. You're forgetting one very important thing that Joseph Smith taught that these people are not following - that God reveals his will through modern prophets. In other words, if God reveals through a prophet that the practice of polygamy is to stop, then the members of the Church had better obey - and in the case of those who still practice polygamy, they do not obey that revelation, and therefore they are not following what Joseph Smith taught.

Joseph Smith, were he alive today, would not consider these polygamists Mormons - for the very reason that they ignore the revelations received by modern prophets. You cannot profess to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet but in the same breath not believe that his successors were and are prophets. This is not a church where you can choose to believe some doctrines but not others - either you believe it all or you may as well believe none of it.

what do you call Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al? Were they not real Mormons? Yes, they were - but they were following the commandments at the time. I'll give you a short history lesson:

Wilford Woodruff was the prophet who announced the end of the practice of polygamy. This decision was not reached lightly. If it had been purely a political move, it would have been done years earlier - church leaders were being imprisoned, many were in hiding, the government had disbanded the church as an legally legitimate religion, the church was threatened with confiscation of church property, etc. President Woodruff was willing to let the church lose everything rather than disobey the commandments of God, by his own admission.

Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants is where you'll find the complete declaration and the comments by President Woodruff at the time this was announced. I'll quote two relevant bits here:

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed.

I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write... So the choices were clear: abandon the practice by force, losing the leadership of the church to prison and the property of the church to the government in the process, or abandon the practice and be able to continue the work God has for man to do. President Woodruff said he would not have ended the practice of polygamy without a direct command from God - and he did not until he received it.

If you don't believe in revelation, fine, but you can't tell me I should follow one prophet and ignore another. Man may not not change God's commandments, but God can, if He deems it necessary to preserve His church.

God can give commandments specific to a people's circumstances. If you don't believe God can do so (but believe in God) then your god is no god. If you don't believe in God, then you don't care anyway :P

I get the feeling I missed something in my editing, however my battery is about to die so I must submit.

Re:Unworkable

[zephos]

I've always thought the reverse was the better choice.

You have any site submit its content for review for a .kids domain. Any site w/ content not designed for children under 12 years old faces huge penalties depending on the content.

I think that is probably the best way to protect little ones on the web.

Re:Unworkable

[LunaticTippy]

You bring up an excellent point, thank you. That is something I like about LDS, the ability to change with the times. I don't know how biblical fundamentalists can live with all the subjugation of women, slavery, etc. in the eternal unchanging bible.

I bet that's why people joke about Mormons and polygamy now that you bring it up. Most non-Mormons don't know much about the flexibility built in, in fact required by, LDS teachings.

Re:Unworkable

[Moonpie Madness]

AHHA, Man!

I read that book in highschool. What a coincidence. I think that's certainly appropriate in high school. Sad that anyone would ever care enough to ban it.

Now, I don't think we're on the same page re: the .xxx thing. OF course the parts of the middle east that block so many things would not cooperate, but who cares? They have to figure that out on their own. You're worried about getting the world to agree, but I'm looking for a way to easily customize what I let my kids see, that will also satisfy those who want to see nothing.

And yeah, people will go too far, but that's ok. There's nothing saying you can't grant permission for certain sources for your kids. I could have an exceptions like and grant scholastic.xxx, Musuem.xxx, etc etc, while others block all nudity. There's no reason why parents shouldn't be permitted to permit some and not others... there could even be a way to login to the middle school and choose.

The crazy people you are talking about are already having an impact. In clumsy destructive ways. Let them block everything nude if they really really want to do that, so long as I am given the obvious tools to raise my kids. It doesn't matter that you're right. They are still going to mucke verything up if we don't find a way to make everyone get what they want, and I think that's possible.

Re:Unworkable

[baboo_jackal]

Thanks for rehashing partisan stereotypes for me - so there are the "Greedy Republicans," and then there are the "Republicans that Hate Gays and Love Jesus," and then there is the powerless minority of "Ignorant Republicans," who actually believe that the market is superior to socialism?

I'm assuming that you also divide the Democrats into the "Democrats who Hate All of Humanity" (environmentalists), "Greedy Democrats" (socialists), "Idiot Democrats" (Obama supporters).

Look, the real problem is that we've all been indoctrinated to believe that those who don't support My Political Party are dumb, evil, or both. That's just not true. We all generally want to maximize freedom and quality of life, and minimize human suffering. We just have different ideas of *how* to do that. It's not that "The Other Side" doesn't *want* to do those things - it's just that they don't want to do them in the way "Our Side" thinks they should be done, so we tell ourselves that they don't want those things

I mean, what kind of insane logic is that? "If you disagree with my proposed method for accomplishing X, I conclude that you *don't* want to accomplish X." WTF!?!?

*Both* sides are guilty of this, and it's a result of the balkanization of American politics: Republicans are greedy and uncaring because they believe that the best way to provide maximal happiness is to allow people, as much as possible, to do what they will, and potentially fail. Democrats are hippie-commie-simpletons because they believe that the best way to provide maximal happiness is to provide a helping hand to those who need it.

Everyone living in a first-world nation has the luxury of experiencing altruism - we all want the same things, and we disagree only on the means by which we ought to provide those things. Yet, somehow each side's talking heads assert that the other doesn't *want* those things... It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Unworkable

[glitch23]

That rules out any Congressman from ever coming up with the law.

So? Writing laws isn't their job.

Really now? That's news to me. If they don't do that then what is their job? I guess they aren't the ones who came up with the DMCA or any other bill that has been signed into law by the President? Congress (legislative) makes the laws. They pass the bills so the President (executive) signs them into law. The Supreme Court (judicial) then enforces those laws.

From this site:

The Legislative part of our government is called Congress. Congress makes our laws. Congress is divided into 2 parts. One part is called the Senate. There are 100 Senators--2 from each of our states. Another part is called the House of Representatives. Representatives meet together to discuss ideas and decide if these ideas (bills) should become laws. There are 435 Representatives. The number of representatives each state gets is determined by its population. Some states have just 2 representatives. Others have as many as 40. Both senators and representatives are elected by the eligible voters in their states.

Re:Unworkable

[taylortbb]

I think what the GP was getting at was that most laws are written by congressional aides. It's surprising how little those elected to congress do, or even know about what they're voting on. Most of them don't read half the bills.

Re:Unworkable

[ultranova]

OF course the parts of the middle east that block so many things would not cooperate, but who cares?

How are muslims having their weird hangups any different than Americans having their weird hangups ? Why should anyone care about the latter but not the former ?

You're worried about getting the world to agree, but I'm looking for a way to easily customize what I let my kids see, that will also satisfy those who want to see nothing.

Fuck your kids.

Now should Slashdot go to the XXX domain ?

Besides, the domain name approach does not let one to customize what their kids get to see. In fact it is a hindrance to that goal. Suppose I'm OK with letting my kids see nudity, but not violence ? Do we also make a .gore top-level domain ? And what if there is a homemade violent movie with sex scenes; which domain should its homepage go; in other words, which one takes priority ?

No, the real solution is to have each page or domain contain semantic information about all the topics contained within. Well, actually, the real solution is to stop being so ridiculously hysteric about kids seeing something disagreeable to the parent; they aren't going to die from it. That, however, isn't going to happen, and the accurate content description approach has the added advantage of making searching easier, so go for it.

The crazy people you are talking about are already having an impact. In clumsy destructive ways. Let them block everything nude if they really really want to do that, so long as I am given the obvious tools to raise my kids. It doesn't matter that you're right. They are still going to mucke verything up if we don't find a way to make everyone get what they want, and I think that's possible.

It isn't possible, actually. The pro-censorship people don't want to merely avoid seeing anything they disagree with, they want to keep anyone else from seeing it too. This is absolutely incompatible with my desire to see something they disagree with. There is no way I can simultaneously both be free from their control and under it.

It would take absolute omnipotence - being able to circumvent the laws of logic - to give everyone what they want, since those goals conflict logically. It is unclear whether even God's power would be sufficient for that; for mere mortals, it is certainly impossible.

Re:Unworkable

[ultranova]

As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering starting an ISP in Utah that advertises G-Rated content filters now! The demand is obviously there, so why hasn't anyone done this yet?!?!?

Because it is impossible to guarantee them 100% effective. Even if you block everything except your hand-picked whitelist, you still can't be 100% sure that no hacker has cracked them and posted Goatse and Harlequin Baby there. Nor can you be certain that the webmaster hasn't let the domain subscription lapse, at which point it can and propably will be seized by advertizing spam farmer scum, who might well decide to post pornographic advertizements there. Finally, this is all assuming that you never make errors in classification of content, from the point of view of the receiver of tis service.

If you advertize G-Rated content filter, and they let through X-rated content even by accident, you'll get a lawsuit, and rightly so - after all, you failed to live up to your end of the bargain. And no, "best effort" is not sufficient; a leaky filter is useless, and could and propably should be considered fraud, since you advertized something you either knew or should had known was impossible to deliver.

So that's why no one has done this yet: it is impossible, and the potential gains are nowhere near the cost of effort required to even try.

Re:Unworkable

[Moonpie Madness]

Jeez, what a dumb post. Even had the Fisk thing going on in place of your own argumentation structure. That's why it's kinda hard to see what thesis you're supporting.

First, there's a huge difference between the hundreds of millions of Islamic radicals and American zealots. They both go too far, but there's very significant and obvious difference. One will compromise a lot more easily, and the other I'm not going to worry too much about. But this is a quibble.

The big point is: it really wouldn't take omnipotence to give everyone what they want. It takes customizability. Like a fuckin' filter. If someone really cannot bear to let their child see slashdot, that's their right even if I think that's stupid. My kids understand what GNAA and goatse are, and why it's just background noise. But I'm not about to argue that we cannot permit keeping that stuff away from kids if parents so desire. It seems as though you are making that claim.

I advise grouping all adult video and picture stuff together, maybe other content too, but let's leave it abstract. The domain has been called .xxx, but it's not to be compared with NC-17 or XXX adult films or hardcore porn. Let's just pretend it were a different domain, ok? It's .QCC now. There's going to be a certain amount of over or under inclusiveness, and obviously it would be wiser to be over inclusive in putting all sorts of content in the .QCC domain that aren't pornographic, but merely suggestive or objectionable. Even Our Bodies, Ourselves (or whatever book was mentioned above). Using iframes and popups, this would have an effect on a child's web experience similar to using adblock. In fact, it would be exactly the same. Parents could have a password protected filter, and upload sites that are ok. They could even get lists of sites that schools, churches, the ACLU, you, me, whoever advise are the right balance of free speech and learning to adult content.

It's a great idea. You just load the filter you agree with. The religious right in America would probably block a lot of things I don't, though I imagine they would permit a lot of the things slashdotters are pretending would be banned.

The procensorship people might have some motivation to completely destroy all things they disagree with, but I think you're full of shit on that point. Tin foil hat or not, this is a large coalition of different people with wildly divergent opinions on what needs to be blocked. Some blacks don't want Huck Finn in libraries because it makes slavery look less than horrible in their opinion, and uses the N word a lot. The Baptists probably are mad at sex. Tons and tons and tons and tons of the voters and others being convinced are hearing arguments specifically based on THEIR OWN children.

So, it can only be concluded that you are totally wrong, and if normal folks knew their own kids were not able to see Hentai or whatever, an enormous amount of the persuasive force of the tiny number of true die hard book burners would diminish greatly.

Is that so hard to understand? Further, my censorship system is constitutional, since it only categorizes things in a group to be filters by parents, the government is not actually discriminating at all. I think many censors, if they learned there was an easy way to do this stuff, would accept this as a great compromise. These people are not utterly inhuman. They just have obsolete ideas about sex. They can be reasoned with.

And imagine the benefit to the kids of those crazy parents! Instead of having no internet whatsoever, they have access to a lot of different ideas. You have invented a premise: that the censors are uniformly insistent on destroying anyone's access to porn and cannot accept a compromise to their solution of destroying all porn, but that's stupid. They have no way of destroying all porn even if they want, and many folks are just leaning on the censorship side, not nearly as zealous as you paint them to be

Re:Unworkable

[Random832]

Well - congressional aides for some of them, lobbyists for others - but congress's job is to debate on the proposed laws and pass them - writing is for others. (historically, not all congressmen were even literate - that's why there are IIRC three prescribed stages for the proposed bill to be read out loud)

Re:Unworkable

[baboo_jackal]

If you advertize G-Rated content filter, and they let through X-rated content even by accident, you'll get a lawsuit, and rightly so - after all, you failed to live up to your end of the bargain. [snip /] So that's why no one has done this yet: it is impossible, and the potential gains are nowhere near the cost of effort required to even try.
Argh. You're right about that. To truly offer that as a service of your ISP would require something that's hard, if not impossible, to create, at *least* an expensive bitch to maintain, and, like you said, you couldn't guarantee that it would work 100% of the time.

Also, your point exposes the utter absurdity of the legislation in question quite clearly, in a way I didn't even consider.

Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what a PARENT should be doing. PARENTS should be telling their children what they can and can not see. Not the government, not some company, not anyone else. It's the parents job to raise their children, teach them what's right and wrong, and to allow the to see what they can and can't see. Nobody elses.

Re:Filtering

[Wandering Wombat]

The PARENTS are busy looking at PORN, though... they need someone to handle the easy job of raising their children right, since, looking at the world around me, they are not qualified to do it.

Re:Filtering

[xero314]

This is only a tool available to parents to do just what you are suggesting. There is nothing saying you have to have a child friendly ISP, but that you can. I agree that parents should probably know what there kids are doing, but I can't see anything wrong with them having an option available that more matches their ideals.

Re:Filtering

[_Sprocket_]

This is what a PARENT should be doing.
PARENTS should be telling their children what they can and can not see. Not the government, not some company, not anyone else. It's the parents job to raise their children, teach them what's right and wrong, and to allow the to see what they can and can't see. Nobody elses. While I agree with what you're saying, the sentiment misses a really important point. That is, what these folks are proposing will not work as advertised.

The counter-argument to your point would be that the ISPs are providing a service that parents volunteer to select in the name of raising their children responsibly. The government is simply providing some expertise in flagging what ISPs are providing that service so parents can choose accordingly. But again - the problem is that it won't work as advertised.

The underlying issue is that filtering is an extremely difficult problem. The mechanics of the Internet offer little with which to base filtering. So what we end up with is a large portion of the undesired content filtered with an even larger unknown amount of content just waiting to be discovered. The flip side is overly aggressive filtering techniques that end up filtering out content that is perfectly fine (and that's not even counting filter technology providers who mis-categorize content based on some political or personal bias). Parents who put their faith and "good parenting" stock in these schemes will ultimately find that the system has failed them.

And that's the big problem. The government may be meaning well, but it will ultimately be wasting tax payer's money on a program that does not deliver what it promises. And parents who have every intention of being responsible parents may find themselves buying in to a system that has betrayed that responsibility.

Re:Filtering

[DrLang21]

Then why not make the parents aquire their own software for this if they want it? It's not as though the tools for doing this don't already exist. This is not something that everyone should be burdened with.

Re:Filtering

[jarom]

It IS the parents who are doing the job when they chose an ISP that will help them filter the content they don't want from entering their home. I don't see how the company or the government is forcing this on anyone. If you don't want an ISP that filters, choose a different ISP, ie. one that doesn't have a "G" rating per this bill (assuming it passes). If parents want an ISP that filters, let them have one. Just because a company provides a service doesn't mean that everyone needs to use that service. Sure, this could be done by installing a filtering program on the client computer, but that's not foolproof either. Sure, ISP filtering isn't foolproof, but if it isn't working enough to the customer's satisfaction, then they aren't obligated to continue using the service, and they aren't limited to only use the ISP filtering.

This is what capitalism is all about. The ISP is providing a service that is of value to the customer, who in turn gives them money, which is of value to the ISP. As long as there isn't coercion or deception, it sounds like a win-win to me. If the service is not of value to you, don't buy the service. Just don't complain and say that it isn't of value to anyone.

Re:Filtering

[Changa_MC]

Why must we fix this at the ISP level, when it's already solved at the DNS level for free? http://www.scrubit.com/

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you think that all parents should be forced to have thousands of Porno videos in their house and just constantly watch their children to make sure that they don't watch them? How about guns? Should all children be forced to have guns and it's up to their parents to make sure they don't use them.
Why in the world shouldn't parents be allowed to have their children access an internet that won't make objectionable material easily obtainable?

Re:Filtering

[moderatorrater]

This is not something that everyone should be burdened with. And they're not. The state is providing a service that over 50% of its residents desire or at least approve of. If you don't want to get filtered internet access, then use an ISP that isn't on the list. It's that easy.

why not make the parents aquire their own software for this if they want it? Because then all the kid has to do is acquire a livecd and they're on the unfiltered internet. If you really want to filter things, you have to do it upstream where the kid doesn't have access to it. There have been ISPs providing filtered internet in Utah for over a decade, this is just the state's attempt to make sure that when an ISP says that they're child safe that it's true.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC due to modding.
You're correct that creating an ISP to fill a specific market niche is capitalism. Creating a law that creates a new market is not. And this is what this law is doing: it creates the new market of G-rated ISPs, and market entry is determined by whether a company abides by completely arbitrary rules that have little relation to the purpose of the market.

At best, the law is completely useless, as it merely duplicates the work of a free market. At worst... ugh, I don't even want to think about what abomination could come from this. Can you imagine having to get an X-rated ISP to do anatomical studies, and to have your name made public "because only child molesters use an x-rated ISP"?

That's why I'm against this law - it provides zero benefit, and the potential for negative impact is enormous.

Re:Filtering

[bluefoxlucid]

I can circumvent anything you try to do to stop me. You're talking about a problem you can't possibly solve!

Re:Filtering

[UncleTogie]

Why in the world shouldn't parents be allowed to have their children access an internet that won't make objectionable material easily obtainable?

Because that kinder, gentler Internet doesn't exist.

I saw nudity on German TV when we were stationed over there. Our neighbors kids would play in their front yard....in the buff. My mind never exploded.

It's a tit, Ms. Soccer Mom. It's not the big deal you think it is.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. If I want to see all the "Good" stuff, I won't use this service. I still have the choice not to use it...just as parents have the choice to use it. If you asked me, this is a great idea from the standpoint of a business. I'll bet it's hard to filter out pornographic stuff if you're not a geek. To the dude who wants to know why anyone would want to filter out pornography at all...you need to get real. If you can't possibly imagine why a parent wouldn't want their young children to see hardcore porn, you're not worth talking to.

Re:Filtering

[penguin_dance]

MAN...I wish I had some mod points left, I'd mod you up.

Mention ANYTHING about ANYONE NOT wanting to be subjected to porn or their children exposed to it and Slashdotters get their panties in a wad. You'd think they were being forcibly dragged down to the Jordan to get baptized!

1. It's NOT a mandate, it's a choice (I find it interesting that people who would argue for choices in other venues, don't want people to have one in this.)

2. It's NOT about blocking Michelangelo's David or Venus De Milo. Don't be stupid. It's about just mistyping a URL and suddenly having dozens of graphic and animated popups that won't close, not to mention spyware loaded in the cache so that the next time you start up your computer your new "favorite" site pops up too. Or trying to search on a word that comes up as a double-entandre and have all kinds of undesirable suggestions mixed in.

3. It's not workable. Well if it isn't, what do you care? It would be a lot easier if porn sites were restricted to using a specific set of domains, but gee--that would make it easy for people to block them. And just like with cigarettes, while they say the don't want under age viewers they make it damn easy for the kiddies to be confronted with all sorts of images. And like with cigarettes, the experimental kids of today are tomorrow's customers!

4. Yes we can all cite examples of otherwise acceptable forums being closed, like on Yahoo! (Although I wonder how many aren't just urban legends.) But that was not a filter, that was the idiots at Yahoo! who finally had to close down their news story commentary because they couldn't keep up with the racial and other slurs by the trolls. I find it interesting that Google and Yahoo! are fighting this. I presume it's because they're afraid they'll be blocked. (And Google itself has a pretty good filtering system that blocks violent or sexual items.)

I don't care if you want to look at porn. Look at all the porn you want. But let others decide how they want to view the web--it's not affecting you.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're not. The state is providing a service that over 50% of its residents desire or at least approve of.

You assume much about the connection between legislative action and voters. Just because a slim majority of voters prefer one candidate to another does not mean that any of them necessarily approve of one particular position that candidate holds.

Furthermore, even if 50%+1 of the voters in a jurisdiction want something, that doesn't make it right. Certain things should need more than a majority, and censorship qualifies.

And keep in mind that a government does not need to ban things to censor them. While in general I approve of rating systems as an alternative to censorship (since people can choose whether they care about the ratings), no good reason exists for a government to provide such a rating system. Once a government rating system exists, the government *will* start passing laws based on the rating system, such as requiring "G-rated" ISPs in certain contexts.

Re:Filtering

[Jesus_666]

Admittedly, I didn't read TFA, but this would make or a great opt-in service (and not general ISP behavior like the summary suggests). You order internet service, then you call your ISP and request one or more of several censorship filters. By default all filters are off. ISP can publicly advertise their filtering offers.

I think that way everyone gets what they want, unlike with mandatory filtering (people who don't want filtering have to choose a different ISP or live with half an internet) or no filtering at all (people who want filtering have to set it up themselves).

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

The rating appears to be an incentive for a provider to impose censorship upon all customers, rather than offering each customer the choice. If it becomes popular enough it could threaten the availability of uncensored connections even for adults who aren't saddled with prudish partners or neurotic children.

Re:Filtering

[glitch23]

This is what a PARENT should be doing. PARENTS should be telling their children what they can and can not see. Not the government, not some company, not anyone else. It's the parents job to raise their children, teach them what's right and wrong, and to allow the to see what they can and can't see. Nobody elses.

True, but in many ways the government is already taking away responsibilities of parents and bestowing them upon themselves and parents have yet to be able to do anything about it. For example, thousand of local school districts believe in teaching sex education at school despite whether parents believe their child is ready or whether they want their child to know the information. This isn't an issue of parents not wanting the responsibility but more about how the government wants to control what children know. Obviously some parents are better than others but the majority of parents do care about their child and are responsible parents and don't need the government's help.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what capitalism is all about.

Capitalism is about passing laws that provide incentives for the market to provide services it otherwise wouldn't?

News to me...

Re:Filtering

[DrLang21]

I agree that as a service it's a great idea. The concern I would have here is why is the government getting involved? The cost of regulation and enforcement for a government certification is not cheap. It would be better to simply let the customers of Utah tell their ISPs what they want. Sooner or later, an ISP will see the business opportunity and run with it.

Re:Filtering

[Jesus_666]

In Germany, they'd probably just get Stiftung Warentest to compare those offers or include them as a testing criterium in their next ISP comparison. Stiftung Warentest is THE product tester in Germany. As far as public perception of product qulity goes, their word is law and good grades (and especially being the winner of a comparison) are prominently featured in ads. So if StiWa compares hypothetical censorship filters in German ISPs and finds that 1&1 is much better than the other ISPs at filtering even relatively obscure adult sites while leaving even relatively obscure child-safe sites alone, concerned parents will be sure that 1&1 has the best such offer.


Of course the USA don't have an equivalent and it takes decades to build up a reputation as good as that of StiWa. However, even a state-issued seal of approval could be done without too much hassle. I'm thinking of unit tests here; build a portfolio of sites that match filter criteria you want to give out seals for, purchase a connection and a filter from one of the ISPs (ideally as a regular citizen without telling them of the test) and automatically connect to the sites in question.

If you shift around the test suite after you release the test results you can avoid having them adapt to it. Re-issue the seals every three months and work with a large pregenerated pool of sites from which the test suite is randomly generated (of course checkd for being actually live before tunning the test) and you can test with relatively little expensive work involved. Once the infrastructure is up it should'nt be too expensive to maintain.

You can cut down on red tape by not giving out seals of approval but rather just comparing the ISPs' offers and generating a ranking without any formal definition of "good enough filtering". That is essentially what StiWa does.

Re:Filtering

[Dirk the Daring]

What happens when Comcast, the only broadband ISP available in some areas, decides that it will be a "G" rated company? And what if the only broadband ISP, which is "G" rated, decides that something you like is something that needs to be blocked? Remember that when someone else makes the decision of what is right and wrong for you to view, it is very possible they will decide that something you want to view isn't appropriate (examples: guns, anime, D&D, republican/democrat sites, etc.)

Re:Filtering

[jarom]

Then it would seem that Comcast would loose a lot of customers. I would think that to maximize customer satisfaction, they would offer both G rated and non-filtered internet. That seems like a good solution to me.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that offering the choice to each customer is the Right Thing, but there's nothing in the bill that allows it. Either you censor the connection of every customer or you don't get the rating.

Re:Filtering

[zymurgyboy]

If you don't want to get filtered internet access, then use an ISP that isn't on the list. It's that easy.

It's that easy if you have more than one option. And dialup to AOL doesn't count.

For that matter, if someone's kid is clever enough to pop in a live cd to get around a locally installed software filter, they're probably smart enough to use an AOL CD to dial their way around Mom and Dad's chosen ISP as well.

Here's an idea.... Maybe parents in favor of this rating system could actually have a conversation with their children about pornography, why they think it's wrong or bad, some of the consequences of viewing it, the consequences of making it, etc. Perhaps then, someday, when they encounter something that doesn't fit their worldview they might actually have some meaningful basis for rejecting the content themselves. Or at least they'll have a little, growing nugget of guilt that grows just a little bit every time they make a decision that runs contrary to their parents' wishes.

Re:Filtering

[Dirk the Daring]

Then it would seem that Comcast would loose a lot of customers. I would think that to maximize customer satisfaction, they would offer both G rated and non-filtered internet. That seems like a good solution to me. In many places, there is only one option-- you either take them or go back to dialup.

I doubt Comcast/whoever would lose many customers in these markets, so they would be free to simply filter everyone without being affected financially. And again, there would be nothing that would prevent an ISP from including anything they wanted under the "Not G rated" label. I know it's an extreme example, but I'm sure some campaigns would love to have their opponent's web site simply not exist...

Fighting pornography?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that where naked women hit each other with fish and such?

Yum.

Re:Fighting pornography?

[Shnyzx]

No they slap each other with dirty shaven pussy cats obviously!

This means war!

[sakdoctor]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"?

Re:This means war!

[Tmack]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"? Goatse?

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

because *THIS BOOK!* says it's evil and that's good enough for us!

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

That which does not kill us makes us stronger! That's why I have goatse as my desktop background.
It also protects my computer from unauthorized use!

Re:This means war!

[Zeinfeld]

What he said is 'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'

I don't see how its going to be any easier to find fighting pornography or sites dedicated to the provision thereof. Thats what Google is for, the world is you oyster with Google, Jello and copious quantities of lube.

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nudity bad, shooting people good - Duh!

Re:This means war!

[geminidomino]

That's why I have goatse as my desktop background.
It also protects my computer from any use! Fixed...

Gotta go drain-o my brain now...

Re:This means war!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

1. 2girls1cup
2. goatse
3. tubgirl

Re:This means war!

[sm62704]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"?

Well gee, you guys jump me for writing journals about drunken whores so I do one about attempted murder and how do you act? Now you're against fighting! Do I have to do one about two naked hookers catfighting? Or would you rather have me write about a couple of old ladies drinking tea? That would be a great read now wouldn't it?

Well what's on the telly then?
Looks like a penguin to me.

Damn, you CAN'T please everybody! Or, it seems, anybody. At least I can't.

Er, speaking of my often NSFW journals (particularly the one titled "NSFW") does this mean you won't be reading slashdot in Utah any more? Do they even have nerds in Utah?

Has anybody RTFM? How do they propose to tell one picture from another? If their algorythms are that advanced, how can they tell a breast in playboy from a breast in an anti-cancer site? Is Michaelangelo's David and its gay little pecker to be censored? How about Picasso's Vagina series? Sorry, google's failed me there as "moderate safe search" is on.

Re:This means war!

[Tmack]

To reply to myself... seriously though, "fighting" pr0n is about like the war on drugs. Its a way for politicians to look good in the face of supporters and contributors that dump $$ to their campaigns and give them the votes that keep them in business, while actually doing little towards what it intends to accomplish. Its the "thinkofthechildrens!!!" effect. Because on average most parents these days seem to expect everyone else to protect their kids and make the whole world G rated and safe so they dont have to do anything themselves, and will file lawsuits and cause problems the instant its not. Most people dont have the understanding of how to protect their kids from online pr0n (if they even try), so they expect someone else to do it for them. Its similar reasons that caused such a huge uproar over a nipple being shown on tv, neglecting the fact that most kids suck on one for the first few years of their lives, and for more similar reasons (ultraconservativereligiouscontrolfreaks) that you wont hear swearwords on TV or radio. Its not like parents have a way to filter out such content on there own right??? Ohyeh, V-chip (another government mandated protection bit), and now hardware in dvd players that can actively filter only the "objectionable" content (walk by the dvd players in Target, most have one on a motion activated display setup thing), but we still must prevent obscene material from ever hitting our eternally virgin eyes and ears since the act that makes babies is dirty and should never happen or even be known about!

</rant>

tm

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pornography needs to be fought because it's one of the things that someone thinks is harmful to children, like www.mcdonalds.com.

Re:This means war!

[moosesocks]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"? Charity.

Re:This means war!

[Nimey]

players.on.nimp.org

Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porno!
Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porno!

Re:This means war!

[netsavior]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"?

because religion is a bigger business, and they are in direct competition.

Re:This means war!

[Jello B.]

Jello and copious quantities of lube

That's what they used to call me in high school.

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pornography "like it rough".

Re:This means war!

[STrinity]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"?

Do you want your daughter finding out that the secret to popularity with boys is to insert cucumbers and turnips into her anus?

Re:This means war!

[syousef]

I thought "fighting pornography" was a new genre? Women in nothing but army boots, holding machine guns, and getting frisky with senior officers maybe?

This was a great joke I thought, till reminded myself of Gitmo. Now I just feel ill.

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha... That is so wrong, regardless of how old a daughter you're talking about

Re:This means war!

[Killall -9 Bash]

do not click that link. GNAA needs to stick to harassing Narutards.

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Escalation is a proven effect. Yor try something, then you get tried of it and go for something a little more. You dont turn into a rapist over night, you do it by obsessing about sex. I dont have any hard evidence, but I would wager a good deal that virtually every single sex offender started by 1) being abused themselves or 2) exposer to "mature" content at a very young age

Take a look back at the past few decades and you can see society is starting to tolerate a lot more than it used to. Then look at divorce/crime/suicide/depression numbers and they are all going up. Ironic that as things that people do to be "happy", "independent", and "carefree" are going up, so are all the indications that society is going down the drain.

Re:This means war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its great how those that support all the filth in the world claim that its natural and their right, while ignoring other peoples right not to have to see it. A vocal minority thus wins over the majority and slowly the standards of morality fall.

Have you ever lived in a place where porn and sex was as common as dirt? Most of Europe is that way. You can get playboy at the grocery store and there is nothing censored on the cover. Walking down the street you can see a lot more then you want to accidently. Its everywhere. I lived there for a while, and lemme tell ya something. It dosnt make them happy. They were actually quite miserable, and their obession with a distorted view of sex was a major part of that. The other major part of the problem was their obsession with alcohol. All goes to show that vice does not really make you happy.

Re:This means war!

[UnknownSoldier]

Yup, totally spot on.

Society ignores the much larger problem (violent images/movies) and focuses on something totally natural (nakedness). Leave it to politicians to treat the symptom, and not the cause.

Re:This means war!

[PunkOfLinux]

Its great how those that support all the filth in the world claim that its natural and their right, while ignoring other peoples right not to have to see it. A vocal minority thus wins over the majority and slowly the standards of morality fall.

A few problems:
1) Who decides 'morality'? Isn't morality completely subjective?
2) I LOVE your attack on people who don't agree with you! You say that we ignore your right to not have to see it? Ha. You're funny. Seriously. It's more along the lines of you ignoring an adult's right to decide things themselves.

How about an "adult-friendly" rating ...

[trolltalk.com]

... so all those politicians, holy rollers, and "protect the children" types can more easily find their daily dose of pr0n ...

Re:How about an "adult-friendly" rating ...

[GeckoAddict]

If you need an adult friendly rating to find pr0n on the internet, you have other issues to deal with.

Hurah for Utah!

[Cathoderoytube]

I for one am quite pleased to see Utah fighting outsourcing like this. We no longer need to go to China to get this sort of thing.

Except for that nagging little fact that

[falcon5768]

Porn, except for some extreme examples is completely and totally legal in the US. This is just like fighting smoking in adults... you might not like it, but unless you make it illegal you have no fucking argument and need to live with it and STFU.

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[kellyb9]

Actually - I'm not really sure what arguement you are trying to make, but you may have just proven the exact opposite point. Pornography IS illegal for children under 18 and 21 in some states. So - in other words, it's actually MORE like fighting smoking in children. I've never seen anyone cry censorship over that.

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They only want to certify ISPs that (claim to) block porn. Not force* everyone to use them.

*Of course, all (both of the) broadband ISPs will either be certified or not. I imagine, in Utah, it will be worth the business to become certified. So I suppose you can always get some awesome dial-up porno.

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...that makes no sense. It's not illegal to fight against something legal.

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[Changa_MC]

Ah yes, because filtering all porn from reaching Utah to "protect the children" has anything to do with children, at all.

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[Firehed]

And in this case, the parent/router/nanny software can act as the store clerk that checks for ID. It's impossible (logistically or otherwise) to do it at the ISP level, or else you cut off legitimate access. To throw in yet another bad analogy as any thread like this is chock full of, this would be more along the lines of expecting truckers that are transporting cigarettes to make sure no kids buy them - without blocking legitimate access, it simply cannot be done.

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that my right to not smoke and live a healthy lifestyle is infringed on by others' secondhand smoke? My will to live trumps others' will to die, from a purely economic standpoint as a living person will contribute taxes whereas a dead person will (unless cremated), hog up the living's space.

New Zealand has an interesting approach to this

[The Ancients]

Here in New Zealand, the government provided funds for Watchdog to develop a filtering system suitable for schools. Part of the deal was that any other ISP had access to the system and could supply their own customers with internet access filtered by the system.

Whilst not perfect, it did provide schools etc with a default option and a starting point for internet access.

Re:New Zealand has an interesting approach to this

[mpe]

Here in New Zealand, the government provided funds for Watchdog to develop a filtering system suitable for schools. Part of the deal was that any other ISP had access to the system and could supply their own customers with internet access filtered by the system.

Thing is that if the resulting filtering system is actually suitable for schools it will not be suitable for anyone else.

Surely...

[Channard]

.. there are several sites dedicated to Fighting Pornography. I guess Senator Morley hasn't been googling very hard.

Re:Surely...

[closetpsycho]

I'm sure he has been googling. He just happened to get... "sidetracked" by some of the results.

Ironically...

[Trailer Trash]

'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'

It's also a positive thing for those of us looking to avoid ass-clowns and the companies that they run.

!Censorship

[kellyb9]

I wouldn't really classify this as censorship personally. I think it's a parents right to filter whatever content they want from their children. You can't really say that it's censorship if you opt-in for it. Under this line of thinking, the do not call list is censorship because you are filtering phone networks for content you don't want. In the end, however, if they were good at parenting they wouldn't really need to do this. It's just another case of children being raised by the next form of entertainment that comes their way - it used to be the tv.

Re:!Censorship

[phoenix.bam!]

There is absolutely no need for the government to become involved in this. If a company wants to offer a filtered package, that is something they can advertise. The government has no business rating ISPs based on its arbitrary standards.

Re:!Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

But in most areas, there really isn't more than one option for an ISP. So what happens if they say "If you don't like it, go to another ISP that's not G-Rated" and there aren't any? That's effectively censorship.

Re:!Censorship

[BobMcD]

While that may be true in the strictest sense of what 'government' is, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that this doesn't provide a desired service to the taxpaying constituents. If you look at what our 'government' actually does provide, this sort of opt-in service falls right in line.

What's a better use of tax dollars: fighting yet another pointless war overseas or providing something actually of (at least limited) use on the home front?

It may be a limited example, but I'm certain you have already put together a similar one in your own mind...

Re:!Censorship

[Amouth]

it is alittle diffrent then the do not call list..

when someone calls your house it is something that is unexpected to you . they are the same as someone randomly walking up to you and start talking about something.

when you are on they net and going to websites - even clicking on links you are asking for something - you are the person walking up to another and start the conversation.

the diffrence is with web sites - as being a public website it is understood the site wants to be talked to so it is ok for you to go and talk do it. but with telemarketers they are blind calling not knowing if the person wants to be talked to or not.

when you opt in to the do not call list you are saying "i don't want to be talked to" on a web server you put a password auth on the content and the web server is saying "i don't want to be talked to"

by filtering what sites people can and can't go do they arn't saying "i don't want to be talked to" - instead you have a third party coming over as you are walking over to the webserver and saying "sorry but i say it doesn't matter what you or the webserver think but you can't talk to each other"

filtering web connections is censorship - the do not call list is a premtive conversation stating intent from one party to another.

!=

Re:!Censorship

[kellyb9]

Agreed. The government has their hands in a lot of things it probably shouldn't. The FCC currently regulates a lot of the content that gets put out on radio or television. Not a very popular idea, but it's probably only a matter of time...

But don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that they actually do this - I'm saying it's not censorship either way. As an aside, I think it might actually make good business sense for an ISP to provide this kind of service. They would be much more efficient then any filtering package.

Re:!Censorship

[kellyb9]

You're missing the point. It's not about when YOU click on the link. It's about when children click on the link.

Re:!Censorship

[shentino]

Effectively, yes, but in this case the free market effects it.

If every ISP jumps on the G-rated bandwagon as a parent-friendly market maneuver, that's purely capitalism at its raw, uncut self. It would be just like everyone boycotting the NRA because of its liberal views.

The distinction that prevents this from being censorship is that compliance is purely voluntary.

It's like this:

If I sell earplugs so nobody has to listen to you, I'm not engaged in censorship.

If I start duct taping your mouth shut so you can't speak, THAT's censorship.

Re:!Censorship

[kellyb9]

Four letters - RTFA

Re:!Censorship

[xero314]

And how does a certification process causes this to happen any more than without it? Anyplace where there is only a single option there is possibility that the one option abuses that power. Interestingly enough if the single ISP did become "child friendly" then it would open the possibility for a second ISP to start up. Mind you that is only if having an adult friendly ISP is profitable (I would assume so).

Re:!Censorship

[kartan]

The last thing the government needs to be doing is making it easier for parents to be bad parents. Similarly, they should allow adult programming at all times of the day, but only on adult channels. This would make it painfully obvious to all but the most dense parents that neither TV nor the Internet are acceptable substitutes for active parenting.

Re:!Censorship

[gregRowe]

I wouldn't really classify this as censorship personally. I think it's a parents right to filter whatever content they want from their children. I would like to filter all websites that contain references to Elmo. Please pass legislation that ISPs can be branded Elmo free.

Re:!Censorship

[Changa_MC]

Why must the government regulate content availability, rather than content filtering availability? That is, everyone gets the same internet, but ISPs get a gold star for offering a filtering service. They could offer separate DNS servers that filter out pornography, ala http://www.scrubit.com/ without taking away the freedoms of adults.

Re:!Censorship

[jarom]

The government has no business rating ISPs based on its arbitrary standards.

Then by the same standard, the government should stop rating movies, television shows, games, etc. Maybe the government should step out of this completely and let the market handle it, but given the choice I would rather know the content of what I am buying than not know.

Re:!Censorship

[BobMcD]

In truth, both are required. Does this exclude one or the other, however? A 'gold star' site represents a client-level opt-in option and the DNS server concept is more on the network side of the house.

For example, with the 'gold stars', dad can use Firefox, while little Jimmy is only allowed to use 'Gold Star Browser, Kid Safe Edition'. In a DNS-driven scenario, different network configurations are required. My example above is a little less 'intense', while admittedly not as effective.

But, at a minimum dad is now allowed to say "Jimmy, if I catch you with anything but your own browser open, you're grounded from the computer." And isn't that what we want, more parental control and less nanny-state? This sort of splits the difference.

Re:!Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm against censorship in all forms. This however is opt in and it very arguably is in the best interests of the public to have a fixed minimum and consistent standard for this kind of thing (regardless of the efficacy of its implementation). Think of it like this, The Better Business Bureau in most states also provides a valuable service.

This is exactly the kind of program that anti censorship folks should want. This gives people the option of doing this for themselves rather than mandating something for everyone. Utah has a long history of heavy handed "blue" politics, and often forces their religious values on people who neither want nor need them. From the summary this is the opposite of that.

Re:!Censorship

[Dhalka226]

The government does not rate any of the things you mentioned. There MAY (I'm not sure) be a mandate THAT they be rated, but they are rated by independent groups specifically to avoid Congressional involvement in the process.

The closest they come is, these days, some states are factoring these ratings into their laws. IE, "selling an 'M'-rated game to a minor results in the store being fined."

Re:!Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is when an ISP starts offering only the "filtered" package, and that ISP is the only game in town.

Re:!Censorship

[Amouth]

my whole point was to show how internet filtering is censorship where the do not call list isn't censorship - it doesn't matter if it is me or my children that click on the link or answer the phone - one is censorship and the other isn't

Re:!Censorship

[kellyb9]

My point is - you can't apply or subscribe to be censored, it is something that is thrust upon you by a more powerful entity.

Re:!Censorship

[OverGrownAsian]

The Government rates food establishments, if you live in LA county walk into any resturaunt and tell me that you don't feel better when you see an A on the wall. And I see the arguement.... well if you eat bad food you can get sick. Well if you watch sick crap online you can get sick too. They aren't freaking forcing anyone to to subscribe to a G rated ISP they are just rating them (I know some of my favorite places to eat don't have an A on the wall, and I might pay for it someday, but at least I'm informed), I don't see anyone complaining about rating systems on movies...

Re:!Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you watch sick crap online you can get sick too.

I liked Snow Crash too, but remember that it's fictional.

They aren't freaking forcing anyone to to subscribe to a G rated ISP they are just rating them

Only ISPs which censor all customers will be rated. If both ISPs in your region want the rating, you will not be able to get an uncensored connection, because the government created a powerful incentive not to offer you one. From reading the background of the author I'm sure that's deliberate, since accepting both kinds of customers would so obviously be better for ISPs.

I don't see anyone complaining about rating systems on movies...

Have you been looking? There have been many complaints about the quaint and arbitrary ways movies have to be bowdlerized down to "R", beyond which a widespread theatrical release isn't feasible. Then there's the gratuitous T&A added to other milder films solely to avoid "G"...

tag war

[mapkinase]

That is not "censorship". I strongly advise all trigger-taggy-happy types to go and check what censorship means.

Re:tag war

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not "censorship".

It is once Child "Protection" Services start kidnapping children because they have an X-rated ISP in their house and therefore their parents are a danger to them.

Why give the government the power to blow tax money on officially labeling things if they're not going to use the labels?

Re:tag war

[John3]

That is not "censorship". I strongly advise all trigger-taggy-happy types to go and check what censorship means. Censorship is the suppression or deletion of material, which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.

Re:tag war

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I think what the GP meant was this is not GOVERNMENT censorship, which is what a lot of people are misinterpreting.

Re:tag war

[mapkinase]

That seems to be proving my point.

Re:tag war

[dbIII]

It's not censorship instead it is misleading advertising or perhaps fraud. They are proposing a certification that says that all material that gets past the filter is rated G when that is not possible without observers examining all content. I think it will just be used as a hammer to batter small ISPs until they can no longer operate or a convenient way to have a "think of the children" scandal on demand.

Unintended effects

[Ilan Volow]

If you ban porn, kids in Utah will just find a way to whack off to Veggie Tales.

Re:Unintended effects

[NekoIncardine]

There are many Bible-thumpers who would love the idea of jerking off to "Christian Moral Values" works. You think I'm making this up, of course. You haven't seen how screwed up some hardcore Christians can get.

Re:Unintended effects

[doubletrigger]

so true. JC Penney's catalogs and National Geographic worked just fine for me when i was 12 years old.

This works so well too...

[downix]

I mean, nobody can possibly use anonymizing services, proxy servers, filters, or encryption to circumvent such things. And even if they could, such systems are completely unheard of outside of a small club.

Oh, you want to know the clubs name? Why, it's name is EVERYBODY! We meet at the bar!

filter does not imply child friendly

[fermion]

This is going to do nothing but cause a false sense of security, will not block the soft stuff that most kids are perfectly happy with anyway, and will block legitimate sites. I often use an ISP connection that is highly filtered to weed out content not appropriate for kids. I sometimes even go further on put on google full safe search. The stuff that is supposed to filtered is still there, and often shows up on otherwise innocuous searches. OTOH, I have been blocked from perfectly reasonable content, for reasons I cannot fantom. I have had similar results on filtered pubic access connections.

The reality is that not everything can be filtered. Combine that with the fact that nearly every kid over the age of 10 have access to proxy server, and the whole notion of a g-rated filtered pipe becomes quite humorous. The only way to remotely sell a legitimate rated service is to white list acceptable sites. It si time consuming, but effective. There are still tricks to get around it, but the bar is significantly raised.

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[valintin]

It will do more that that. It will expose your children to concentrated toxic advertising focused on selling to minors only.

And by separating the children to a web of their own your are exposing them to everyone as children. On the web you can't tell who's a dog, but on the G-Web you know where you can find the kids.

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[Vellmont]

The stuff that is supposed to filtered is still there, and often shows up on otherwise innocuous searches.

I hear people talk about this "I was just searching for something innocuous" all the time, but have yet to experience it, after 10+ years of doing search engine searches.

What the hell are you people searching for?

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you've naivete convinced me to post anonymously for the first time ever! Here are two terms with serious double-entendres: red wings and snowballs. I'm sure other ACs can provide additional examples.

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[Vellmont]

Here are two terms with serious double-entendres: red wings and snowballs.

Your inability to actually DO the search on either of those terms doesn't really surprise me, however. Neither of those searches turned up anything even near pornographic on at least the first 4 pages.

Why you actually have to remain "anonymous" for knowing some dumb sex or porn term is beyond me.

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

>I have been blocked from perfectly reasonable content,
>for reasons I cannot fantom. I have had similar results
>on filtered pubic access connections.

That's a very technical way of putting it, but I see what you mean. Good lovin's hard to find.

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn off the safe-search filter for images and try searching for snowball. You should be able to find something vaguely pornographic in short order.

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[smellsofbikes]

You complain about finding porn where you're not expecting it, then you type:
>I have had similar results on filtered pubic access connections.

I think I've found your problem...

Re:filter does not imply child friendly

[Vellmont]

Turn off the safe-search filter for images and try searching for snowball. You should be able to find something vaguely pornographic in short order.

I did (I always have safesearch off because I think it's dumb). There weren't any.

So long as they ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... leave the hookers (but they can have the meth labs) around 1700 South State St. in SLC alone I guess I could live with it.

Excellent idea!

[brennanw]

We can give a bunch of ISP's g-ratings, then we can consolidate all of them and refer to it as the g-spot.

...and then wait to see how long it takes for them to notice.

Re:Excellent idea!

[techpawn]

then we can consolidate all of them and refer to it as the g-spot....and then wait to see how long it takes for them to notice.

If you call it the g-spot none of them would find it let alone notice it

Re:Excellent idea!

[NewsLeech]

no one ever notices the g-spot.

Re:Excellent idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

and then wait to see how long it takes for them to notice.

Well, if it's anything like a real g-spot, you might want to hire some pyrotechnics and a marching band or two.

please tag this article 'nannystate'

[Anonymous Coward]

nannystate

AOL?

[skelly33]

I never got onto the whole AOL thing when it first came out because it had a lot of proprietary crap that broke from established standards, so I don't have any direct experience with their original interface. But I seem to remember something about a child safe online environment being one of their schticks originally, was it not? If so, does that still hold true today?

Re:AOL?

[dafrazzman]

It sure isn't true anymore. I see an article about a porn star on the front page almost weekly. This hypocrisy is the main reason I hate AOL.

Multiple issues at issue

[smooth wombat]

From the blurb, it is first said that the bill would designate ISPs who block a range of prohibited materials as child friendly. Then the quote specifically says about blocking pornography. So which is it? Is Utah going to be a nanny state and tell its citizens what is and is not prohibited or is it going after just pornography?

What is considered "a range of prohibited materials"? Pornography in all its forms or just porn between two men (but not two women*)? What about transvestite or shemale sex? Does that range include sites on abortion or anti-religious views, including shots at LDS? What about sites calling for the impeachment of George Bush? Who decides and on what basis is it determined that a site should be blocked?

I guess the good folks of Utah have no problem being considered the same as China, North Korea, Myanmar and a whole host of other countries who prohibit their citizens from seeing certain material because it is deemed offensive or against public morals.

*Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[drspliff]

It'd have absolutely nothing to do with the male-majority of law makers being homophobic, while still maintaining fantasies of a ménage à trois with their wife and mistress?

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[R2.0]

"*Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?"

Simple arithmetic, my friend.

Naked Woman: +1
Naked Man: -1
Sex Act: +1

So...

Man+woman+sex=+1-1+1=+1

Man+man+sex=-1-1+1=-1

Woman+woman+sex=+1+1+1=3

As is plainly demonstrated, visual representations of lesbians having sex are 3 times as good as those representing heterosexual couples, whereas visual representations of gays having sex are the opposite of good, which is to say, bad.

For the student: Assign numerical values to various sex acts and intermediate/alternate genders/species and present all permutations for any 4 factors.

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Because lesbians are hot. Duh.

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[sobachatina]

"I guess the good folks of Utah have no problem being considered the same as China, North Korea, Myanmar and a whole host of other countries who prohibit their citizens from seeing certain material because it is deemed offensive or against public morals."

Keep in mind that no one is discussing prohibiting citizens from doing anything. Many parents in general, and a lot of people in Utah in particular, have a strong interest in regulating the media their own children are exposed to. It's called being a good parent. This program is simply an attempt to make this task easier for the parents.

There is no censorship or oppression here and definitely nothing sensational.

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[Lendrick]

*Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?

God thinks man-on-man sex is gross, but woman-on-woman sex is hot. This is why God punishes gay men with a much higher HIV rate than heterosexuals, and gay women have a lower HIV rate than heterosexuals. Duh.

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[u-235-sentinel]

From the blurb, it is first said that the bill would designate ISPs who block a range of prohibited materials as child friendly. Then the quote specifically says about blocking pornography. So which is it? Is Utah going to be a nanny state and tell its citizens what is and is not prohibited or is it going after just pornography?

Actually you have to understand the politicians here in Utah. I've been fighting with several of them over Utopianet and it's future. Some of the proposed bills were simply outrageous! All sorts of strange restrictions which ONLY affect Utopia and not other's like Concast.

What does that have to do with this Bill?

Well again, the politicians 'think' they are doing something good for the people without realizing it will have unintended consequences. This the Patriot Act. It's 'father' (Senator Orrin Hatch) said it would "never be used against Americans". Well guess what ... he was very wrong.

I see the same thing here. Yeah, we need to protect our kids from this crap. It's called parenting.

I wonder if we forgot that part of the equation :D

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[EdIII]

You FORGOT about the multipliers. If you are going to give examples about Math, let's not do it half-assed okay?

Naked Woman = +1
Naked Man = -1
Sex Act = +1
Sex Act with multiple people = *(N-1) , N being the number of people involved.

So......

Man+Woman+Sex = 1 + (-1) + 1 = 1
Man+Man+Sex = (-1) + (-1) + 1 = -1
Woman+Woman+Sex = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

Going further

Woman+Woman+Woman+Sex = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) * 2 = 8
Man+Woman+Woman+Sex = (1 + (-1) + 1 + 1 + 1) * 2 = 6
Man+Man+Man+Sex = ((-1) + (-1) + (-1) + 1) * 2 = -4

Woman+Woman+Woman+Woman+Sex = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1) * 3 = 15
Woman+Woman+Woman+Man+Sex = (1 + 1 + 1 + (-1) + 1) * 3 = 9
Man+Man+Man+Man+Sex= ((-1) + (-1) + (-1) + (-1) + 1) * 3 = -9

Now the math makes a little more sense with the multipliers don't you think?

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[R2.0]

A simple multiplier is far too crude. The proper mathematical representation is (N-1)!. This represents the sex act with all different partners, not double counting. This does not factor in sex by oneself, which would change it to (N)!, or variations in position, which would be N*(N-1)!. However, these are advanced topics in Theory and Practice of Sexual Coupling, and given the experience level of the majority of Slashdot readers, may be too advanced.

Re:Multiple issues at issue

[amplt1337]

Good catch on the bait-and-switch from "child-inappropriate content" to "all that pr0n." However...

Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?

Because girl-on-girl porn is usually marketed to straight male audiences, while boy-on-boy porn is usually marketed to gay male audiences. It's "gay" because of the viewership, not the participants (who may or may not actually have any interest in the gender they're being filmed with).

For your other question, while some people do get up in arms about gay women, most of the time they're under the radar, because hey, we have more women than men anyway, and upper-class white lesbians with a golden retriever are totally nonthreatening, since they won't take away your son's manhood. But the thought that he might be a catcher someday, oh, ::shudders::!! There is still plenty of reaction to any woman who seems a little too "dykey" (pardon the term), it's just on a case-by-case basis, and seems to relate more to society's disapproval of anybody outside the mainstream generally.

Also, "Shannon and Eve" doesn't rhyme.

No requirement for ISPs

[esocid]

From reading the bill it doesn't say anywhere that it is a requirement of ISPs to become a Community Conscious Internet Provider so what is the point? The ability to market to the Utah Mormon population or parents who want the facade of protection under the guise of censorship? It will fine those CCIPs that violate their censorship but nothing about those who aren't involved. I don't see this happening, but I'm sure wilder things have happened in Utah that I'm not aware of.

Re:No requirement for ISPs

[sobachatina]

There are a lot of adjectives that could be accurately applied to Utah but "wild" isn't one of them.

"The ability to market to the Utah Mormon population or parents who want the facade of protection under the guise of censorship?"

Yes, actually, that probably is the point. A lot of the voting population in Utah is parents who would like the ability to tell what web sites they don't want their kids accessing without becoming experts on the internet.

Technically I don't think the solution would be adequate but I don't fault them for trying.

Re:No requirement for ISPs

[moderatorrater]

It's a regulation on what is and is not considered a child-safe ISP. There are a few providers in Utah that will use a white-list filter on the connection. This gives the parents some peace of mind while putting the filter in a place where the kids can't mess with it. Since the parents are typically less internet savvy than their kids, this is a good thing for those parents that don't want their children looking at pornography.

Now, please explain to me how this is censorship. They're not limiting it across the board like China or other countries are, they're just certifying certain ISPs as being legitimately child-safe. If you want a connection that allows porn through, just choose a non-filtered provider.

Yeah, right

[Black Parrot]

How are you going to ensure that everything on your net is "G" rated? Do these people have any idea how much labor would be involved in the constant policing?

Re:Yeah, right

[snl2587]

To the first question: you can't.

To the second question: no.

But it sure looks great on paper to the general public!

Quote from the article...

[coolmoose25]

Candice Daly, representing the American Electronics Association testified that companies she represents, including Google and Yahoo, were opposed to the legislation. "They're very concerned about this particular piece of legislation," Daly said. "They don't see themselves as signing up for this seal."

Already typical slashdotters are crying censorship. Basically, Yahoo and Google can't possibly earn this type of seal, so they are opposed to it. But let's face it... it is voluntary for an ISP to sign up for the program, they only get fined if they sign up and don't deliver, and no one is forcing anyone to get this seal of approval. Meanwhile, for those people who don't want porn to come down their internet pipe, this is a valuable seal of approval, as they don't have to install net nannies and the like to keep their children from porn. So where exactly is the censorship when the program is optional, and those consumers signing up will obviously have a choice - ISPs that have the seal and ISPs that don't...

Ralph Yarro / CP80 are at it again.

[2or3]

The text of this bill comes almost verbatim from the "1st State Initiative" documents posted at http://www.cp80.com/resources/listall.
This is the latest in a series who's last gem was would have essentially shut down free-wifi in Utah.
Apparently it's easier to get a Utah legislator to rubber-stamp your bill than I'd expect.

double plus good!

[mbaGeek]

porn is never the issue "free speech" is the issue

and of course there is no "right" to not be offended ;-)

Not Censorship

[xero314]

What's the big issue? Why is this tagged censorship?

Not sure why everyone gets up in arms because a state wants to offer services to certify certain processes so that the public can know what they are dealing with. No one is saying an ISP has to be kid friendly, just saying that if they are they you can be well informed of this in a unified fashion.

Believe it or not it's probably OK to keep your kids away from porn, violence, guns, hot stoves, etc. As an adult you are still free to view all the porn, watch all the violence, own most of the guns, and touch and hot stoves your would like, no one is suggesting stopping you.

Re:Not Censorship

[MightyMartian]

Why do we need the state to police our kids in our homes? I thought it was a parent's job to raise their children, and a pack of politicians (many of which possess sufficiently questionable morals).

Re:Not Censorship

[xero314]

Until the state starts installing filtered internet access into your home it's still ultimately in the hands of the parents (or the market if it is determined adult content ISPs are not profitable). No one is saying that you have to have a filtered ISP, if they did then we would be talking censorship. In this case people are being given an option with an organization, which happens to be the government, offering a seal of approval that the content meets certain criteria.

Parents

[ruinevil]

I thought Mormons were all about family values. If the parents teach the kids good values, and set the computer in the family room, and watch the kids on the computer, they shouldn't need filter, which is something that doesn't work anyways, as the Australians now realized 47 million aussie dollars later. If you don't teach kids how to filter garbage, they will be doomed believe it once they leave the walls of your home.

Re:Parents

[Entropius]

If you don't teach kids how to filter garbage, they will be doomed to believe it once they leave the walls of your home.

Which, of course, is exactly what keeps Mormonism alive.

Re:Parents

[mjwx]

Australians now realised 47 million Aussie dollars later.

47 Million Aussie Dollars, for our American friends equates to about 345 billion US Peso's at the current exchange rate (in actual fact it's about 44m USD, which should be disturbing enough given that 4 short years ago the AUD was struggling to keep above .50 USD). The really sad part is that 1. the filtering is completely ineffective and 2. the govt is still spending money on it.

When will they learn.

Wait for the day when Microsoft update get blocked

[Joe The Dragon]

If some like this where to used and it end blocking windows / Microsoft update and then your systems got hacked who would be at fault?

I can see it now a daycare, school , camp, and other places has the isp block sites then a false positive or a dumb bot that just auto lists stuff with little to no over site makes windows update / Microsoft get blocked as well as it's ip and then a hacker get in from the out side uses a hole in windows to get info one the kids, staff and others.

And this may end up costing less then install software on 5+ systems.

Welfare for the Intollerant

[FatSean]

I guarantee you that this law will lead to more taxes being spent to shore up under-performing ISPs who claim this designation but cannot deliver. Why? Because it's fine to tax people to limit their freedoms because it is for the children. It's fine to throw money at corporations in the name of protection from scary things. Utah is already in the red when it comes to Federal taxes paid vs. Federal funding received...

Proposed branding

[DoofusOfDeath]

Do you think we can get those politicians to advocate their state as "The G-Spot of Online Safety"?

Perhaps Santorum would make the pitch?

Filter this site

[morcheeba]

I found a website they need to censor. It has gross pictures, pictures of dead people, and a giant phallus! There are even naked breasts. Would someone think of the children?!

Re:Filter this site

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I'd like to see the people that run utah.gov trying to figure out why the breastfeeding page got a sudden burst of popularity.

'Site'?

[Toba82]

A site? An ISP is not a site. What a moron.

"Accidentally" landing at a porn site these days?

[TheDarkener]

I don't know about you, but it's been a LONG time since I got any porno pop-ups or redirections during regular web usage. Years, in fact. I think the thing is, people who WANT to find porn, WILL find porn. Those who aren't interested in searching for/looking at porn, really won't.

The only exception I can think of is spam, which is completely different than what they're trying to do here anyway.

Responsibility lies with YOU, not with those who wish to host a porn site, for legitimate reasons.

Why not?

[a_nonamiss]

Let them do it. I don't see why Google and Yahoo care, they're not ISP's. Let the ISP's try to create some system that won't work, then they'll be sued out of existence when they are held liable. I don't see how this is bad for anyone except for the people who choose to pay for this service. People who live in Utah and have a brain will be completely unaffected.

Re:Why not?

[querist]

Google (and perhaps Yahoo!, but I rarely use Yahoo!) would be one of the sites blocked by those ISPs.

Have you searched Google Images? All you need to do is turn "Safe Search" off and nearly any search string will bring up images that would fall under the proposed ban. Since Google serves up those images, they are a "site" that offers "objectional material" and would, therefore, be blocked by the participating ISPs.

To me, at least, it makes sense why the search engines would object.

Re:Why not?

[a_nonamiss]

I still don't really see a problem. First off, half the customers will cancel as soon as they find out they can't get Google and Yahoo. If Google really wants to go after that business, they could come up with a "safe" page, maybe by an alternate URL or maybe a filter by IP address block, that doesn't offer the option to turn off SafeSearch. Either solution would take about 15 minutes to implement because the framework is already there. Both would be equally ineffective against teenage boys looking for pr0n. Honestly, I think the idea is stupid, but let the market sort that out. The key difference here is that Utah is not mandating anything. ISP's aren't required to censor anything. Just offering ISP's the parameters by which to achieve a state-sponsored "G" rating. If I lived in Utah, I'd just avoid any ISP claiming to have the rating because 95% of the Internet would be unavailable to me.

Re:/Really??

[zakezuke]

This is coming from the same state that houses polygamists and mormons? FYI: Polygamy is illegal in Utah. It's not practiced by the LDS church. It is practiced by a few who are in Utah.

Whether the state government tolerates polygamy is another question.

Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[Haeleth]

Why the hell does this need legislation? If Utah's parents want to use ISPs that block certain kinds of material, then they can surely just choose to use ISPs that block those kinds of material, regardless of whether there's a law like this in place or not. We live in a capitalist society - if there's demand for that kind of blocking, then the market will provide it, without any need for the government to stick its nose in.

And of course the market will provide a better solution, because different ISPs can try different kinds of blocking, and give their customers more choice and more control, and see what there's actually a market for, instead of trying to force a single government-mandated standard on everyone.

This kind of issue is a situation where there is no need, and no place, for a one-size-fits-all government-coercion approach; this is about personal choice and personal morality, not the provision of essential services. On many issues (notably healthcare) I come down on the side of government involvement, but this is just ridiculous.

Re:Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[prestomation]

I completely agree. My parents used an ISP during my elementary school days that filtered content. It worked really well, actually.

If parents want to subscribe to a filtering solution, go right ahead, but the goverment doesn't have to spend my money to do it.

Re:Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[stuporglue]

It's already available (but not required) http://mstar.net/offerings/filtering.php . I don't personally know anyone who uses it, but it's an option.

On the upside, Provo, Orem and other cities DO have fiber to the home! 15Mbps for $40/month./p>

Re:Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the people of Utah WANT this legislation? Why can't they have it? It's not ALL that different from warning labels and such, is it? (No, I'm not suggesting it is a perfect analogy.)

Sure, the free market can take care of this, but it can take care of a LOT of things the government does. Why start with this one?

Re:Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[DrShasta]

There *is* a market for it, but there is no legislative body to administer the ratings yet. There needs to be a standard.

Imagine how confusing it would be to have movies rated by individual companies all competing. The ratings would be all over the board, with some companies giving "Beerfest" a PG-13 rating since they don't think boobs are that bad and others giving it an R rating since they subjectively think the boob content of that movie was a little too much. Movie ratings are for parents and no one else. The parents need to know -- without having to do a ton of research -- what kind of a movie their 11 year old is asking to see. All the parents are asking for right now is a way to determine which ISPs are going to make the internet as safe for their kids as G rated movies are. All we need is a standard. That's what the government is suggesting they do here. Create a standard. The private companies are still the ones that have to do the regulation (if they wish to).

You can argue that it won't work (and it won't, since it can't keep up with all the content on the internet), but I don't see how a free market would work here. That argument doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[Doc Daneeka]

Filtering offered as an optional service by an ISP would be just fine. The problem comes into play when all available options from an ISP with a monopoly in your area include filtering. An alternate problem would occur when your local monopoly offers filtered internet but at reduced prices. Sure, at first you can choose to pay regular prices, but what happens when the price of unfiltered internet increases arbitrarily while filtered internet prices stay relatively even?

What do you do if all ISP companies in your area begin to only off filtered internet? How can you vote with your wallet when the cost of entry into the marketplace high enough to keep independent companies out? The problem isn't a companies right to do whatever it wants, the problem is when there are no realistic alternatives to that company. You may disagree with this logic but it was kind of hard for African Americans to engage in commerce for a while in this country because a bunch of people decided to use their economic right to deny service to those they didn't like for vain reasons.

Sure, in a system where all else is equal, we could implement a filtering system so that consumers could choose what kind of internet experience they wanted. The problem comes in when humans get thrown into the mix. It's just easier to not go down that road and let people filter their internet drop on their own time.

Re:Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[Anonymous Coward]

The gov would be legitimately involved, since this is about labelling a service, and thus it is reasonable to have an official standard for a "G-rated" service.

This is teh froasty piass

[Anonymous Coward]

Check it outa mon!

http://www.slashdottestforretardeddomainsquatting.com/

Not a big deal

[Ogive17]

As long as the ISP lets consumers know "we filter out porn" I don't see this as a big issue. The big ISPs aren't going to touch this... so I don't think overall competition will suffer much. What you'll end up getting is a few smaller ISPs working together to make it happen and they'll probably get the contract with the schools.

Any ISP that does go for the "G-Rating" would probably lose more subscribers than they would gain. Unless the gov't also plans on subsidising it, I don't see it as a good business move.

And I don't see how people are claiming censorship when it's out in the open and a choice to go with it or not. It is what it is, filtered content... that you have to sign up for.

I for one welcome our pending G-rated overlords...

[davidsyes]

Whazzup, -G?

My Money

[oceanjohn]

This is a waste of my money, (tax dollars I pay to the State of UT), is what this is. And in a republican state that thinks they want less government. Sadly very hypocritical.

Re:/Really??

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight!

You don't need to be a bigamist to have one wife too many.

Re:Boronx

[Bassman59]

Is this the same Utah that voted twice overwhelmingly for the endless war and torture candidate?

The above statement isn't trolling ... it's just stating the obvious. Sure, torture and war are perfectly acceptable, but sex? That's bad!

Except if your name is Warren Jeffs and then it's OK to have sex with underage girls.

What do the rest get, a F-rating?

[SmallFurryCreature]

F for Freedom!

Oh and what happened to small goverment? Isn't the goverment giving ratings to ISP another enlargment of the goverment? A rating system for ISP's operated out of taxes? Come on right wing nutcases, don't let us down, STRIKE THIS BIG GOVERMENT PROPOSAL DOWN! Your taxes are at stake!

I reckon that right wingers may care little about freedom, but we can get them excited at the prospect of having to pay more taxes.

Good for them

[pseudorand]

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that sounds like a pretty good use of government: providing independent ratings of things to help consumers make choices that suit them. It's just like the USDA rating meat and eggs. If you know the USDA is full of crap, you can always ignore the rating and buy what you like. You can also pay more for fatty, flavorless USDA "prime" if you like that sort of thing. As long as the Government isn't restricting, taxing, or fining ISP's who don't make the grade, I'm all for it.

I used to live in Cedar

[wiredog]

I suspect the city fathers have no idea the water map looks that dicklike. Another Utah Breast Picture.

Very easy

[wiredog]

From today's Salt Lake Tribune

but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't stop the signal Mal.

Can we give Utah

[ColdWetDog]

Back to whomever we stole it from?

Let them deal with it.

Utahans ... take back your state

[sloth jr]

Legislation such as this just emphasizes the utter weirdness that is Utah.
Utahans - do something useful with your time.

Define porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid (in Utah!) I used to hide the Victoria's Secret catalogs under my mattress. Wonder if this will filter out online clothing stores...

The Only Way

[maz2331]

The only way to make a "kid friendly web" is to disconnect it from the public Internet entirely and build a parallel system that is manually built site-by-site and page-by-page. It could use all the same tech, but can have no connection whatsoever to the public net.

It's impossible to have a free-speech net along with "child friendly" in the same setup. It has to be parallel and completely separate, or it won't ever work well enough.

Yeah I really understand the intarweb

[JustNiz]

>> Rep. Michael Morley says, 'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'"

This guy is clueless. He can't tell the difference between a site and an ISP, and clearly believes porn is unavoidable on the internet.

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

[SwordsmanLuke]

This won't really have any effect. The government isn't going to *mandate* filtering, only provide some sort of "stamp-of-approval" to services that do. Since (one presumes) there is a market for such filtered services, the companies that provide them are *already* advertising them. All this does is provides a chance for the local politicos to look pro-family (a major voter priority here in Happy Valley ^W^W Utah) while not *actually* having to change anything.

Neat trick.

How about a CD instead...?

[Bobb Sledd]

Hey, I've got a new idea:

How about for everyone who wants to be censored, Utah sends them a special "Internet On A CD" CD. That way when you get asked, "Do you have the Internet on this computer?" you can show them your CD. You don't even have to have a modem or anything to "get connected!"

So what's on the CD? All kinds of Internet stuff!

First, it would have its own personal web server serving up searches from google. Except, every time you search for something, it lists a bunch of web sites that when you click on them, says "404 not found." Or if you have FireFox, it will just wait and wait and wait and wait, but it will indicate it is waiting for "googlesyndication.com" at the bottom. You can also click on the cached version, but it will just say that "visiting this site might harm your computer." Except two sites: icanhascheezburger.com and youtube. But only a few small videos from youtube (has to fit on the CD). Everytime you do a search in youtube, it will just list all of the videos (even if they have nothing to do with your search). (Just like it is now!)

For the file sharers, it comes with a version of KaZaa. You can search for ANYTHING and it will be found. Everything you want! Music, software, pr0n even. And you don't even have to share anything. When you click to download it though, it will just slowly go a few bytes at a time... never really reaching 100%. Maybe it will crap out at 13%... maybe 99%. Who knows! (Going for reality here.)

Maybe you want to chat? So it comes with a version of mIRC... you join the IRC server, and you look for a channel... there's a channel for EVERYTHING! So you join the channel and there is a conversation going on. Maybe it's even interesting. So you want to join in and message something... but you're completely ignored. Maybe they kick you (for no reason). Isn't this how IRC really is?

What about FTP? Yeah! It comes with both a server *and* a client! And when you connect to this server, you'll find every file you've ever wanted in the past (because it will be your harddrive you're looking at).

Oh I almost forgot about email. Well, mostly you will just get simulated spam. But if you want to send email to someone you know, you can... but (since it doesn't *actually* send anything at all), it will just seem like your message got caught in their spam filter. You know, basically simulating how it all works now.

Utah could even send out updated versions every month with different youtube videos, web sites you can access, different chat people/conversations, and new files to (not) download from your KaZaa.

What do you think?

Re:Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat

[Changa_MC]

The trick is, by solving the problem at the wrong level, they can force that "solution" onto everyone. Thereby blocking all porn completely. If the only high-speed ISP around is porn filtered, then you can give up porn, or switch to dial-up! The solution should be handled via local software, but since no-one wants to bother with that, lets bump it up to the DNS level, not the ISP! I'm shilling today: http://www.scrubit.com/

I wonder...

[Peet42]

...what "G-Rating" they will give to ISPs who filter out Creationist materials...?

Find porn on P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

Find porn on peer to peer. Go to The Pirate Bay or something; you will have to have kids completely shut out from anything on the 'net that lets them download a WinMX or Gnutella client.

Kids interested in porn == 12 or 13 and up, because that's when boys hit puberty and girls do not care about porn (yeah right). At that point they're fairly capable of figuring out the LimeWire they got from their friend can get naked pictures and (holyshit) movies too!

There's already a requirement for ISPs

[dreemernj]

ISPs in Utah already must filter content to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors if the customer requests it. They limit this by saying they are successfully filtering the content if they use a generally accepted and commercially reasonable method of filtering.

But, I'm not sure if there is anything already on the books that says ISPs must actively prevent their customers from publishing prohibited communications. This is something that's part of this new bill that explicitly says the G-rated ISP would have to do this.

What the fuck are they? "Utahians?" "Utahans?"

[Didion Sprague]

I think Utah folks (and everybody else, for that matter) should consider the up-side to pornography. Most geeks (and non-geeks) have strengthened their dominant arms/fingers/hands considerably since the advent of insta-porn. Increased strength means your base metabolic rate increases -- which points the way to increased weight loss. It's a win-win.

A couple more:

- There's a link between visual stimulation and increased brain activity. This is good -- and probably helps prevent dementia and all sorts of crazy brain diseases.

- There's a link between porn and sex. This is good. Porn improves sex lives -- including residents from Utah. Everyone benefits from healthy sex lives -- even if you're doing it solo. See above.

- Exposure to porn lowers your surprise threshold. Lower surprise thresholds mean an increased ability to concentrate on the stuff that matters. Porn does not matter on the scale of "stuff that matters." Limiting porn is like limiting gambling: it's all about power and nothing about the "social ills" it purports to assist. Gamblers gamble, pornographers pornograph, and porn viewers view. This stuff is part of what it means to be a human being. Those moralists opposed to gambling could probably learn a thing or two about mathematics, social science, and spiritual balance by taking a look at gambling -- and how to gamble effectively.

And no -- gambling effectively is not an oxymoron. The best gamble is to realize when you have the best of it -- and then make the bet. Ditto for the best porn. It's understanding what you like, searching it out, finding it, and deriving pleasure. There's nothing wrong with pleasure. Pleasure is good. Winning money is good. As Paul Newmann says in the "Color of Money": "Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."

No truer words spoken. If the fucking Utahans -- or Mormons or whatever the fuck they call themselves in Utah -- if they'd zero in simply the idea of "pleasure" -- and look for ways to make the pleasure safe and even more effective -- they'd all enjoy their fucking nutty nitty lives a bit more.

Re:What the fuck are they? "Utahians?" "Utahans?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, everyone who lives in Utah calls themselves a Mormon. Dumbass.

Re:What the fuck are they? "Utahians?" "Utahans?"

[Didion Sprague]

All that -- and your only response is that I'm a "dumbass" because I conflated Utahians and Mormons?

Wow. Must be a slow day.

(I hope you're not a Mormon or a Utahian or whatever the fuck they call themselves in Utah.)

Re:What the fuck are they? "Utahians?" "Utahans?"

[pchoppin]

Your ignorance and bigotry is so apparent. I am sure you must be aware of the exposure you are subjecting yourself to on /.
You remind me of those people who call into national radio stations and sound so ignorant, not even aware they are being broadcast over hundreds of radio stations and thousands of listeners across the country.
I feel sorry for you.

Re:What the fuck are they? "Utahians?" "Utahans?"

[Didion Sprague]

Someone explain why "pro-pornography" is considered ignorance?

Re:What the fuck are they? "Utahians?" "Utahans?"

[pchoppin]

My comments have nothing to do with pro- or anti-pornography opinions. You missed my point entirely.

Obiglatory Response

[maz2331]

Forgot to use the form....

The Utah proposal advocates a

(*) technical (*) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting online porn. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Pornographers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(*) It will filter out too much legitimate non-porn content
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(*) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop porn for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Users of the web will not put up with it
(*) Google and other legitimate web operators will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from pornographers
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) Many web operators cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential viewers
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the web
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(*) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(*) Huge existing software investment in the net protocols
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than HTTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(*) Willingness and ability of users to install software necessary to make it work
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(*) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(*) Extreme profitability of porn
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(*) Technically illiterate politicians
(*) Dishonesty on the part of pornographers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(*) Internet Explorer

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(*) Website content should not be the subject of legislation
(*) Blacklists suck
(*) Whitelists suck
(*) We should be able to talk about sex without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(*) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(*) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
(*) It's the parent's job to watch what their kid is doing

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(*) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re:Obiglatory Response

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I'm stealing this for my own uses. Should I attribute it to you, or did you get it from elsewhere?

Worth skipping the 'reporting'...

[Anonymous Coward]

fwiw, the Deseret News is an unabashedly LDS paper...

also, reading the actual bill (linked in the summary) tells us one thing: they're not legislating blocking any particular content. Basically, they're making a seal of approval to give to ISPs who will cough up customer info at any notice:
[in order to recieve the 'stamp-of-approval', the ISP must:]
                          77 (iv) maintain a record for two years following its allocation of an IP address of the IP
                          78 address, the date and time of the allocation, and the customer to whom the IP address is
                          79 allocated;
                          80 (v) cooperate with any law enforcement agency by providing records sufficient to
                          81 identify a customer if the law enforcement agency requests the information and supplies
                          82 reasonable proof that a crime has been committed using the Internet service provider's service;

Some thoughts on others comments

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have said, this is not censorship. The nanny state comment is just absurd. I suppose government should not legislate/regulate what side of the street you can drive on, or what frequencies you can broadcast on. Legislating and regulating are most of what government does.

Others argue that this will have no effect. Perhaps, so. And you are upset because...?

Filtering will never be perfect because 1) it is subjective, so even if humans did it there would be disagreements, and 2) artificial intelligence is still no where near human intelligence.

Regarding free markets and capitalism, people have somehow been duped into thinking they are perfect systems. While they are good, and perhaps the best we can come up with, they do require tweaks. In a completely free market producers would be free to form trusts (monopolies). A completely free market assumes consumers need no protections. If you look around you, you will see that most people are not that consumer savvy, and allowing them to do stupid things like drown themselves in debt hurts not only them but others (the whole economy). We could go with a completely free market that allowed some vendors to sell just slightly bad, slightly unsafe comestibles at very cheap prices and let consumers decide whether to take the risk.

So, we have a problem here. Say I am a parent that does not want my child to have access to objectionable material. I can either hover over them, or if I have some computer savvy I can whatever resources are available to me to block them. But I think to myself, "You know, it be nice if we had a rating system for ISPs like we do for movies. The movie rating system is imperfect, but at least it gives me some sort of idea of appropriateness. Otherwise I would have to research and maybe watch each and every movie that my kids wanted to see." And so I think again, "I'll contact my representative and ask that this can be done."

You'll argue that Rep. Michael Morley is working on his own. But won't the free market of elections take care of him?

Speaking of stupid filters...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't count the number of times the word analyst has caused various filtering products (website, email, etc) to block valid communications.

Re:Speaking of stupid filters...

[Oktober Sunset]

spare a thought for the poor people of Scunthorpe too.

Anything to keep Mormons off the web

[elrous0]

I wish their ISP's would just block the entire internet. The farther away from the rest of us, the better.

Well, here you go.

[Belial6]

I think it is absolutely stupid to prevent people who are out having real live sex from being able to see pictures of it. I cannot for a second believe that your (figuratively speaking) 15 year old daughter is going to be harmed by seeing a little porn after she finishes rinsing the cum out of her mouth. Yes that is crude, and a parent doesn't want to hear it, but there has been no time in history that adults (no matter what the law says) between the ages of 13 and 18 have not been having sex. Having laws that make it illegal to look at pictures showing exactly what you are doing is stupid. And yes, it is censorship, and it is bad.

Of course, I am a radical that thinks we should be working towards restoring the civil rights of 13 to 18 year old adults by moving the age of majority down instead of up.

Myopians

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Net-nanny software doesn't work worth beans, what makes them think they can do the same thing at the ISP level and make it work? In short, it won't. Stupid legislation, stupid idea, waste of taxpayer money. If they want to spend that same taxpayer money wisely then they should spend it on an awareness-raising campaign aimed at parents to get them to pay attention to what their kids are doing instead of expecting the internet, the TV, and the State to raise them, damnit.

censorship

[shiva1]

this IS censorship. In the general sense most of you are correct, this is NOT censorship. HOWEVER, if the only internet access you have is through a "G" rated ISP, then they are censoring your internet. An for all of you that will say get dialup, been there and done that and it sucks. To me it is not a question of whether I want to search for p0rn or not, and I do not, but sometimes my former job required me to look at certain sites that hide behind the p0rn sites (white hat tracking of exploits from hacker/cracker sites). As an adult, I can make the choices to view or not view ANY site. This is "feel good" legislature, as was stated by a previous poster. I also believe that it will be tough to impose the fines. If parents are concerned about what little Johnny or Suzie is seeing on the internet, there are programs to monitor that and they should be aware of what they are doing on the web. THAT is part of parenting. And to those of you that will say I do not know what it is to parent, I have two children who grewup with the internet and I currently work in a school system and have made this presentation more then once.

Kids.us

[Ohrion]

That's amusing that you actually mentioned www.kids.us without being aware that it already exists. It also has the exact purpose you proposed. Guess what? Almost nobody knows about it or uses it? Guess what else? It barely has ANY content that anyone (including kids) would want to interact with.

Politicians don't understand the internets

[MC2000]

"Rep. Michael Morley says, 'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'" Are there really politicians out there that don't know the difference between an ISP and a site?

Did anyone read the article?

[Fered]

This article clearly is not censorship. It is rather ironic that Slashdot users are so quick to criticize when they have often been pushing for the same goal... consumer protection.

Essentially the bill is trying to make companies who claim to provide child filtering own up to their promises.

Let's try this in reverse. Most on Slashdot hate Comcast for cutting bit torrent traffic. Comcast promises a customer 6 Mbit internet yet throttles or even severs the connections. Government is stepping in to slap their wrist and we're all happy.

Some families in Utah want to purchase internet service that provides a filtering service so they don't have to deal with updating filters on their own computers. Companies claiming to block content get their business and families don't get what they paid for. So now the government steps in and (from the original article) "providers would be subject for fines up to $10,000 for violating requirements."

This is a completely voluntary program, so it's not censorship; it is consumer protection because people aren't getting what they think they paid for.

P.S. I don't live in Utah.

Re:Did anyone read the article?

[josepha48]

I think the only problem I would have is that if you are using a provider and then they change their policy. In UTAH ( where I don't live either) there are a lot of families that would want this, so I could see it becoming a profitable thing there. So if you ended up living there, you could end up screwed looking for an ISP that does not block it.

Personally I think the real solution is for the ISP's to offer an OPTION of turning this on or off on a per user basis. Maybe they send you some hardware that they update or something. Hmm, sounds like a business model to me.

Filter-at-home => a service that will filter your content for you. You specify what you don't like, no rock music, not porn, and Filter-at-home will filter that content for you. Hmm this could work.....

Set the Evil Bit or White List it

[RobBebop]

Just have website that have bad content set the "evil bit".

Or another suggestion, consider what is actually trying to be accomplished by regulating the contents of the internet and legislate based on that. If they want to censor it, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and they can go fuck themselves. If they would rather control the internet to limit what the children have access to for educational purposes, I would suggest creating an educational internet White List and blocking everything else. If they published there white list and gave citizens some kind of control over what is added/removed, I would say it is a reasonable measure to control what children can see. Even this is foolish though, because of content on sites like YouTube and Wikipedia that will obviously be deemed "explicit" by some parents.

In any case, I would urge Utah to stop being foolish and be better parents instead of depending on the government to parent for them.

It's more than filtering: it's IP number tracking

[Dekortage]

Quoting from the actual bill:

(2) The attorney general shall award the Community Conscious Internet Provider designation to an Internet service provider that:

• (a) completes an application created by the attorney general; and
• (b) agrees to:
  • (i) prohibit its customers by contract from publishing any prohibited communication;
  • (ii) remove or prevent access to any prohibited communication published by or accessed using the Internet service provider's service within a reasonable time after the Internet service provider learns of the prohibited communication;
  • (iii) comply with any court order concerning the removal of a prohibited communication;
  • (iv) maintain a record for two years following its allocation of an IP address of the IP address, the date and time of the allocation, and the customer to whom the IP address is allocated;
  • (v) cooperate with any law enforcement agency by providing records sufficient to identify a customer if the law enforcement agency requests the information and supplies reasonable proof that a crime has been committed using the Internet service provider's service;
  • (vi) respond to the attorney general, other law enforcement agency, or customer who complains of a prohibited communication published by or accessible using the Internet service provider's service; and
  • (vii) provide information concerning the Internet service provider's compliance with this section promptly upon request by the attorney general.

(3) An Internet service provider that is awarded the Community Conscious Internet Provider designation shall require its customers to enter into an agreement providing that:

• (a) publishing a prohibited communication is prohibited; and
• (b) the Internet service provider will:
  • (i) remove or prevent access to a prohibited communication of which it is aware;
  • (ii) comply with a court order ordering the removal of a prohibited communication;
  • (iii) maintain a record for two years following its allocation of an IP address of the IP address, the date and time of the allocation, and the customer to whom the IP address is allocated;
  • (iv) cooperate with any law enforcement agency by providing records sufficient to identify a customer if the law enforcement agency requests the information and supplies reasonable proof that a crime has been committed using the Internet service provider's service; and
  • (v) respond to the attorney general, other law enforcement agency, or customer who complains of a prohibited communication published by or accessible using the Internet service provider's service.

Emphasis added. This is partially about filtering "objectionable" content (though the ISP can wait until after it's been reported to them), but they also have to track IP numbers for specific customers and store that information for up to two years. This is about law enforcement....

Updated bill link

[Dekortage]

Very minor, but... the bill was revised twice after the original, although the Slashdot article link only points to the original. The latest version is here. Minor differences.

Re:Boronx

[Omestes]

The above statement isn't trolling ... it's just stating the obvious. Sure, torture and war are perfectly acceptable, but sex? That's bad!

This isn't just true for Utah, but for the totality of the US. Look at our media, the largest movies we have are war or action flicks, and these can get a solid PG-13 rating, but the second you show some full frontal nudity you get an automatic R, not to mention sex scenes. Outside of Hollywood, even our network TV is completely filled with wanton violence, but not a shred of sex (not allowed). I'm not even talking about strange or explicit sex, but just nudity.

We wonder why we're such a violent country, with such a high incidence of sex crimes, and I think we can make some solid inferences from the above. Sex, on the whole, is less destructive than war and violence, yet we shun the former, and celebrate the latter. And then sit confused at the consequences.

Our latent puritanism is STILL showing.

I would rather let my children watch a movie with tasteful sex, than some action blockbuster. There is nothing wrong with the human body or its functions.

Except if your name is Warren Jeffs and then it's OK to have sex with underage girls.

Warren Jeffs is NOT a Mormon as we think of them. It's like calling David Koresh, or Jim Jones, a Protestant. He is part of an extreme splinter group, of cult, based off of Mormonism. Every religion spawns its wacko splinter cults, and you can not judge the main religion from these people. In mainstream Mormonism polygamy is banned, as stipulated by the conditions of statehood.

Mormons, as people, are generally quite nice. Out of all the Christians I've met, Mormons are probably the least obnoxious as a whole.

Problems with this

[scubamage]

A) What is not "child safe"? Nudity? Hardcore sex videos? Potentially adult jokes? Newgrounds.com? Political ideas that aren't mainstream? Anything that might lead to these subjects? Blogs of people who run sites involving these subjects? Job sites offering positions in these services? Abortion clinic websites? Slippery slope is a terrible defense, but it is the most obvious one here. The second you block something because a few people find it offensive (the real reason - anything 'for the children' automatically gets filed as bullshit for me because its an emotion evoking tactic). B) It puts in place an infrastructure not unlike China's great internet firewall. And we know how bullet proof that is...lol.. sorry... couldn't say that with a straight face. C) It is opt in now. No one can say for sure that it will always be that way. What if a government body suddenly starts saying that for ISP's to be granted a business license thay have to put in place similar technology? D) What about free speach? What if someone on their "G" network starts hosting porn? If theres no contract the customer has technically not done anything wrong. Its a legal can of worms.

Waste of Resources

[Ahnteis]

I'm against this because it's a waste of public resources. SOMEONE will have to be paid to certify these ISPs. It may be a LOT of someones. This is a case of government wanting to take the appearance-of-doing-good road to votes. (Or possibly just plain old corruption.)

Are the people of Utah really so stupid that they feel they need government intervention to follow their own professed morals? Do they lack any sort of character?! Have our problem-solving skills atrophied to the point that we turn to the government for solutions to all our problems? It's absolutely sickening to see people acting like pets of the state.

(Disclaimer, I live in Utah, and am a member-in-good-standing of the LDS church.)

Re:Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat

[SwordsmanLuke]

You miss the point. The government isn't asking ISPs to filter anything, they're just creating a superfluous marker to identify those that do. The ISPs are *already* providing "family safe" internet plans out here. All this does is simply add a government stamp of approval. As for ISPs not offering an unfiltered version - despite all the claims to the contrary, there are plenty of non-conservative/techy types out here that would kick up a major fuss. I don't know of any ISPs offering non-filtered net access, only a few that offer a filtered option for those who don't know about or can't use local filtering software.

I agree that any filtering higher than the local level is a 'Bad Thing', but this isn't an example of that filtering being applied, only advertised with our tax dollars (still a 'Bad Thing' but not the same one).

Actually...

[jhantin]

That'd be the g-rated wireless service at family friendly restaurants.

And we can call addresses to approved sites...

[r_jensen11]

...G-strings? If there's only one approved website, can we call it the G-spot?

Easier solution?

[bohlgod]

What's wrong with requiring sites to set a meta tag that indicates they contain pornographic content? (Similar to the movie rating system, except that there would be no official organization that assigns the ratings.) Then make it illegal to contain pornographic content without setting the meta tag.

Wouldn't porn sites want to make it known that they contain porn so that people who want that can find them easier? I would think most sites would want to comply with this, and the ones that don't deserve to be filtered using existing methods.

what about an intenet with no Airforce ads?

[victorvodka]

I'm so fucking sick of the new airforce ads that blacken out my screen that I'm seriously considering taking up with the Iraqi insurgents or at least writing them a tax deductible check today.

Oh, give us a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several local ISPs in Utah that make a decent intake by offering filtered access. There's no need for legislation.

There are several video chains that offer censored movie rentals. People can even escape the evils of nipples and dongs outside of the internet. Shady legality be damned.

Utah County, the most clean cut / "Donna Reed LIVES!" area of Utah, leads the state in sex toy sales and the Marriot hotel there does very, very good business selling adult movies. Their PPV sales of X rated flicks was successfully used in court to battle obscenity charges not too long ago. Will you ever hear this discussed openly amongst most UT county residents? Not a chance in Hell.

It's a wanted commodity in Utah. A lot of Utahns just don't want to admit it because, in the state of Utah, appearance is *everything*. People will kick and scream about the evils of pornography in this kooky ass state while at the same time making weekend road trips to Nevada or Wyoming for the hard stuff.

You haven't been keeping up on your memes

[graymocker]

Goatse is so 20th century. 2 girls 1 cup!

I love it.

[Vexorian]

I love how the US authorities are pulling out a censorship machinery all using the excuse that it is to protect the children. China, Iran, etc. Are all novices at this censorship stuff.

Google search results with "G-Rating" filter

[Trieuvan]

Your search - on something - did not match any documents.

fighting pornography?

[nurb432]

But don't adults have a right to it? They are acting like its a crime or something.

What about the kiddies? What about them? They should be supervised by their parents anyway,

Extremely dangerous to children

[obeythefist]

So, filters that can easily be bypassed will be sold to parents as 100% protection for their children.

Instead of maintaining the proper sense of ongoing risk to children through internet use that would encourage good parental supervision, parents will buy this service and leave children unsupervised because it has a "G" rating.

That seems dangerous to me!

The Kiss of Death

[blueZhift]

Technically feasible or not, filtering would be the kiss of death for any ISP. I mean really, who is the average consumer going to buy from, ISP A who gives them the whole internet, or ISP B who blocks out those naughty sites to protect the children. Even protective parents would probably pass on the ISP that gives them less of the internet. And those who did go with the filtering ISP would jump ship as soon as some site they wanted or needed to access came up on the blocked list. Not to mention the performance hit that filtering would bring, which is already noticeable to internet users in China. I don't think a crawling filtered ISP would get a lot of customers in the US, as long as the consumer has a choice, that is...

It's Hacking The Constitution

[maz2331]

And exactly how do we reconcile the term "prohibited communication" with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Seems a pretty straightforward violation of the First Amendment, and finding ways around the Fourth as well.

This is Utah, not Earth

[heroine]

For the privacy rights fans, this is Utah not Earth. What sounds like totalitarianism is really normal in Utah.

Send me to hell or salt lake city

[Anonymous Coward]

That Taquizza shit that passes for alcohol in Utah really puts a damper on ever wanting to go back.

If people really cared about their children they would spend time with them and help them grow a clue.

it won't work-so what?

[jayp00001]

There's a lot of talk about why this won't work. So what. According to the proposal if it doesn't those ISPs that opt in to the program get fined. It's a designation you have to apply for. They are not saying all ISPs have to get it. They are saying that the government will be in charge of the certification. This seems like a bad idea for the ISPs to get in to but it's their choice.

Writers are too creative for keyword censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks keyword censorship will be Safe For The Children should read John Barth's *The Sot-Weed Factor*. It's completely filthy but written in many layers of archaic euphemism and double-entendre.

Good idea

[Raphael Emportu]

Nothing wrong with it, if and when the same authority takes care about securing an unfiltered channel for people who do not want to be censored. Problem is that group, is probably to small to make a political difference (so is probably the other group) and that way politicians can put is on their agenda and get away with it.

Utah, Utah, Utah. What Am I Going To Do With You

[curmudgeon99]

I lived in Utah for three years and there is no more beautiful place in the United States. The people of Utah--that I met--were extremely nice and it broke my heart to leave. But, there is indeed a battle over morality in the Beehive State. For a while, there were companies that rented out movies--but with the naughty bits taken out. So, after the directors in Hollywood produced their final cut, they were in for yet another cut in Utah. Didn't fly. Then again, though we all hate the idea of any type of censorship, this is kind of gray. Since these are local ISPs, it really doesn't affect anybody else. Should we oppose this on the grounds of the "slippery slope"? So, I would say, knock yourself out, Utah. If this is what you want, who are we to rain on your parade.

Re:/Really??

[realsilly]

I did not say LDS practiced polygamy. I just lumped them in the same sentence. I was picking on the Mormon religion.

Porn does not equal sex

[Anonymous Coward]

People that are against porn are not anti-sex, prudes, or necessarily religious. Much of today's porn is centered around tricking, hurting, and humiliating people, especially women. Why do people get so up in arms when parents don't want their children exposed to porn? Parents are, by definition, NOT ANTI SEX! They are, however, typically PRO CHILDREN.

Do the ones that scream the loudest about unrestricted access to porn being a free speech issue think that if porn is restricted to adults, that means society is acknowledging that porn can be harmful and WE JUST CAN'T HAVE THAT!?

Re:/Really??

[zakezuke]

I did not say LDS practiced polygamy. I just lumped them in the same sentence. I was picking on the Mormon religion. Just so you are clear that the biggest Mormon church does not practice polygamy. Anyhow I think there might be a larger group in Arizona than Utah.